Language Program Leadership in a Changing World: an Ecological Model [1 ed.] 9781849507479, 9781849507462

Citation preview

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD: AN ECOLOGICAL MODEL

INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING VOLUME 1

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD: AN ECOLOGICAL MODEL BY

MARTHA C. PENNINGTON Georgia Southern University

BARBARA J. HOEKJE Drexel University

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2010 Copyright r 2010 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. The opinions expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Editor or the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-84950-746-2 ISSN: 2041-272X (Series)

Awarded in recognition of Emerald’s production department’s adherence to quality systems and processes when preparing scholarly journals for print

CONTENTS PREFACE

vii PART I: THE CONTEXT

CHAPTER ONE

THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM IN A CHANGING WORLD

CHAPTER TWO

THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM ECOLOGY

CHAPTER THREE SITUATING THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM

3 19 63

PART II: THE PEOPLE CHAPTER FOUR

THE STUDENTS

105

CHAPTER FIVE

THE FACULTY

131

CHAPTER SIX

THE LEADERSHIP

169

PART III: THE POTENTIAL CHAPTER SEVEN

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

219

CHAPTER EIGHT

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

251

v

vi

CHAPTER NINE

CONTENTS

LEADING INTO THE FUTURE

299

REFERENCES

327

APPENDIX

339

PREFACE This book grew out of a fortuitous and highly satisfying collaboration by the two authors, who have been friends and colleagues since the time when we both attended graduate school in Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. Even though we were soon located in different parts of the country and later the world, connecting only very occasionally at conferences, we maintained a sense of friendship, colleagueship, and mutual interest in and admiration for each other’s work over the years and across the miles. In the intervening period, we each gained extensive administrative, leadership, and academic experience in language programs, universities, and organizations at state, regional, national, and international levels, while also pursuing scholarship through research and teaching in English language, applied linguistics, and sociolinguistics. Martha had originally contracted with Elsevier (in 2003) for a book on language program management that would draw on her previous writings going back to the mid-1980s and place these within the framework of an ecology model which she had introduced in the Higher Interest Section panel at the TESOL conference in 1999. After three years, having made little progress on the book, Martha invited Barbara to join the project as a co-author, a role she took up with gusto. The contributions Barbara made to the book have been substantial and have changed it greatly from the original conception, as the title emphasizing not Management but Leadership in a Changing World suggests. The resulting work is the product of the highly stimulating interaction and synergy of the two of us working together, mostly at a distance, over four years. It is very much a collaborative effort, with most chapters no longer identifiable as one or the other author’s work. It is in addition, we believe, a quite original book that seeks to theorize language program leadership and to characterize it in all its complexity as situated practice. It breaks new ground in its broad-based view of language programs as incorporating many kinds of tangible and intangible resources, its approach to leadership in English language teaching based on an ecology metaphor, and its balancing of theoretical and research perspectives with practical examples and case studies. In the chapters that follow, we situate the leadership of language programs in both global and local contexts and consider their hybrid nature as educational and business enterprises. Our book goes far beyond a discussion of either curriculum and instruction or management, linking vii

viii

PREFACE

leadership of language programs to the larger field of language teaching, especially English language teaching at university level, and its complex identity as instruction, academic discipline, profession, business, and service. The centerpiece of the book is an ecological model that highlights the multiple components and contextual facets of a language program, their highly interactive relationships, and their continually evolving nature. A novel feature of the book is its separate chapters on students and faculty written from the perspective of leadership functions, in addition to a chapter devoted to reviewing concepts of leadership and research on the leadership of language programs. We introduce a general curriculum development model which we carry through to a broader discussion of program development and strategic planning. The book also offers directions for discussion based on the case studies of aspects of program leadership and for research on language programs and their leadership, making this book suitable for current as well as future program leaders. The case studies in this volume have been created by the authors to illustrate issues based upon many years of experience in language program administration. All names are pseudonyms. Resemblance to particular people or programs is coincidental as actual identifying information has been changed. The composite nature of the case studies does, however, reflect real dynamics and should ring ‘‘true to life’’ for those in the profession. Given its comprehensive nature, its links to the larger field of language teaching, and its theoretical and practical content, we believe it could be of value for graduate students in applied linguistics, offering views of the concerns of language programs and the field of language teaching, along with researchable topics. When Emerald acquired Elsevier’s language list, our book was slated to be the first in a new series that Martha would launch on ‘‘Innovation and Leadership in English Language Teaching.’’ We are excited to see our book, which has had a long time to grow and evolve, published in this series by Emerald, and we look forward to readers’ responses to it. We hope that English language program leaders, as well as university administrators charged with international education and others connected to language teaching find something useful and perhaps inspirational in our book. If the text transmits to readers some of the excitement we have felt in meshing and synergizing our ideas and experiences in developing its content, then we will feel that we have succeeded in communicating our conception of Language Program Leadership in a Changing World. Martha C. Pennington Barbara J. Hoekje

PART I THE CONTEXT

CHAPTER ONE THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM IN A CHANGING WORLD Language program leadership is situated in the context of a globalized world and complex and rapidly changing educational environments. The context of language program leadership is described in relation to the spread of English, the increase in international exchange, the language program as a community of practice, the multiple functions of language programs, and the ecological model that is the centerpiece of this book.

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP Despite the interruption to international education in the United States in the years immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, worldwide interest in programs of international educational exchange and language study has been growing steadily in the 21st century. These programs include credit degree programs, non-credit certificate programs, international work and internship experiences, and language programs. In the years ahead, some of these language programs will survive, thrive, and become known for offering quality language education that raises the standard of professional practice generally. Other programs will fail, offering claims for fluency or other services or revenue generation that could not be delivered. It is the intent of this book to provide a framework for viewing and managing language programs that demonstrates the complexity of the enterprise and its ecological nature—that is, the relatedness of the various components of English language teaching and language programs to each other and to a larger sociocultural, economic, and political context. An understanding of language programs as ecologies allows the leader of a language program to engage in strategic leadership that is future-oriented, innovative, and strategic. This is especially important in today’s globalized world, where events occurring in one country affect people and activities in another. 3

4

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

ENGLISH IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY English is now widely recognized as the world’s main lingua franca, a truly international language (Jenkins, 2007). In numbers alone, English is one of the world’s major languages. Crystal (2003, p. 65) reports the number of ‘‘L1’’ (first language or ‘‘mother tongue’’) English language speakers worldwide at about 329 million. To that number can be added 80 million speakers of English-based pidgins and creoles, for an approximate total of over 400 million mother tongue speakers of some variety of English (ibid., p. 67). For second-language (‘‘L2’’) speakers, that is, speakers who have learned English in addition to their mother tongue, Crystal (2003, p. 65) estimates another 430 million speakers worldwide. Linguasphere Observatory (ohttp://www.linguasphere.orgW) sets the number of speakers of English as a first or second language as already at one billion. In addition, Crystal (p. 68) reports British Council estimates of as many as another billion speakers learning English as a foreign language. Conservative estimates are that one in four people in the world can communicate to some degree in English (p. 69). What makes English a truly global language has to do with (a) the breadth of its spread throughout the world and (2) the depth of its institutionalization in countries beyond the primary-use English language countries. Kachru (1986) has provided a useful model for capturing the historical situation of English in the world, with a three-ring model of inner circle, outer circle, and expanding circle countries where English is spoken. The ‘‘inner circle’’ countries are those where English is a primary language, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. ‘‘Outer circle’’ countries include India, Singapore, Nigeria, and Papua New Guinea, where English has been spread primarily through colonization and other historical contact situations. The ‘‘expanding circle’’ countries are those where English is rapidly being acquired as a foreign or international language, such as China and the countries of the former Soviet Union. Most of the countries with an English-based colonial past have continued to use English in institutional contexts such as education and government, and in businesses having an international scope. A knowledge of the English language is therefore of value in those former colonized countries, where its presence has been maintained in the schools and universities. At the same time, many from these countries choose to study abroad, so that ‘‘Western universities have become zones of escalating cultural contact as increasingly large numbers of students from former colonized nations enroll in these institutions to acquire a Western education’’ (Singh & Doherty, 2004, p. 12). The fact that so much of human knowledge and the world’s information in

The Language Program in a Changing World

5

the present day is transmitted and developed in English means that at higher levels of learning, a knowledge of English is a virtual necessity. To be competitive in an increasingly international academic marketplace and to keep on top of developments in most fields requires a high level of knowledge of English, and this fact has contributed significantly to the accelerated and continuing spread of the language. In his book Globalization and Culture, Tomlinson (1999) describes globalization as ‘‘complex connectivity’’ in increasingly interdependent networks of communities throughout the world. In this time of globalization, ‘‘[p]olitical ideas, technological innovations, and economic models and influences, as well as cultural resources move rapidly, at times instantly, across the globe’’ (Singh & Doherty, 2004, p. 14). Appadurai (1996) describes such changes in terms of global flows or scapes involving movements and shifting influences of people (ethnoscape), media (mediascape), technology (technoscape), ideas and ideologies (ideoscape), and money (financescape). A further flow or scape is certainly language itself (linguascape). In addition to the global trends, Appadurai discusses the complex local responses to these shifting world flows or scapes. This perspective can also be applied to language, especially the ways in which English has flowed around the world and been combined in creative ways with other languages (Pennington, 1994b, 1996a, 1997e, 1998b, 1998d, 1998e, 1998f). Fairclough (2006) and Pennycook (2007) apply such notions to the spread of English and its associated cultural features, the former stressing the dominance of Western influence on global flows and scapes and the latter stressing the appropriation and creative redefinition of these to become transcultural. More than any other development, the trend to electronic connectivity is globalizing society and opening up access to information and the opportunities which come with that access. At the same time, in this information age, ‘‘information is not only perpetrated worldwide, but also developed at a local or individual level, in response to mass media’’ (Pennington, 1996d, p. 14). As Warschauer (2000) has observed: Globalization is unfolding in a two-stage manner. In the first stage, global media and businesses extend their reach into new domains throughout the world. In a second stage, these same businesses and media are relocalized in order to best meet the economic and social imperatives of functioning in different regions of the world . . . . Just as businesses and media have experienced globalization and relocalization, so has the English language . . . . Increasing numbers of people around the world turn to English as a requirement of international communication, but in order to project their identity and values, they emphasize their own local variety of English rather than submit to colonial standardized norms. (pp. 512–513)

6

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

While English has a unique historical, commercial, and cultural role in the world, it is not the only language of interest to learners. As commercial interests outside the West are gaining ground through their access to global markets and media, so are the non-Western languages associated with those interests, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic. Language study has become one of the primary drivers of international educational exchange.

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE International educational exchange has become a feature of education worldwide in the 21st century: ‘‘The most visible and widely [publicized] indicator of educational globalization is the increasingly diverse ethnic and linguistic composition of the student population on Western university campuses’’ (Singh & Doherty, 2004, p. 9). This trend can be seen in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, where international students have long predominated in some graduate fields, such as engineering. In Australia, recent figures (ohttp://dest.gov.au/highered/ statistics/students/06/tables.htmW) show over 20% of the university sector as made up of international students, primarily from Asia. In the United States, despite a downturn in the years following 9/11 and more recently in the global economic crisis, international student enrollment at universities has risen to higher numbers than ever; even small private colleges will have a significant proportion, amounting to at least five percent, of international students. According to Currie and Vidovich (2009): Since 1980 the number of international students has doubled, with the vast majority of the 2.5 million students in 2006 going to four countries: US (22%), UK (12%), Germany (10%) and France (10%). Germany and France gained many of their students through the ERASMUS student exchange scheme, and for France also from its former colonies . . . . [M]any English-speaking countries have prioritized recruiting international students in an attempt to raise revenue, such as Australia . . . . (p. 449)

The international students are considered valuable as full fee-paying students and also for the overseas contacts and arrangements they make possible for continuing and widening exchange as well as research and commercial partnerships. In the United States, the United Kingdom,

The Language Program in a Changing World

7

Australia, and New Zealand, international education is a multibillion-dollar industry. In the United States alone, international education brought in an estimated $13.5 billion in the 2005–06 academic year and is the fifth-largest service export (Smith, 2007). Many factors have made international education a major aspect of education in the new century. These include:  The formation of the European Union, with its efforts to provide a common framework for education across the member countries;  The rise of China’s involvement in international education as both a sender and a receiver country;  The continuing influence of English as an international lingua franca;  The growing interest for business and international affairs of language study in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic. Whereas in the past, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia were the predominant receiver countries, now the map of sender and receiver countries has become an intricate web of multidirectional connections involving these countries and many others. Language programs, not only for English but also for many other languages, are one type of program that has proliferated for study abroad, with options ranging from business, to science, to cultural programs (owww.iiepassport.orgW). There has also been steady growth in home-country language programs on university campuses and in the private sector, especially for learning English but also for learning other languages. The number of people studying English in universities and independent language centers is enormous and still growing. According to figures cited by Walker (2003, p. 2), as of January 2002, there were almost three-quarters of a million overseas students in the United Kingdom enrolled in English courses, spending over one billion pounds (owww.arels. org.ukW).1 The economic impact of students studying English in Australia and New Zealand in the same period was about three-quarters of a million dollars (in Australian or New Zealand dollars). Language Travel magazine (The global market, 2007) reports that the global English language market generated U.S. $8,974,161,379 in 2006, with the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada being the biggest markets. The market share for the United States alone is estimated at $2,336,613,094 for 2006.

8

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

A CLOSER LOOK AT LANGUAGE PROGRAMS Program Types There are many types and structures of language programs. In Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, there are English language programs offered for immigrant adults through community or religious service organizations. There are also English language programs for international students on student visas coming for language study either as the main program of study or as a pre-academic program to matriculated coursework. Language programs may also be set up as auxiliary units of companies or schools in order to assist their recently arrived workers or students coming from other countries. Foreign language study within a country is geared to teaching languages which are not in primary use in the community. Typically, ‘‘ESL’’ (English as a second language) refers to English learned in a country where it is spoken as the primary or native language, while ‘‘EFL’’ (English as a foreign language) refers to the learning of English in a country where it is not a native or primary language of communication. However, not all practitioners in the field of language teaching make this distinction, and in the United Kingdom and Australia, the term ‘‘ELT’’ (English Language Teaching) is often preferred over either ESL or EFL. Language teaching is a growing business worldwide, including an expanding industry of second-language programs for English and other languages such as Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and Spanish outside Englishspeaking countries. Unlike traditional foreign language programs, these programs are sometimes modeled on English language teaching theory, pedagogy, and program design, and show a similar range of types—from independent for-profit businesses to language institutes within universities which provide teaching and carry out research on the learning and teaching of the target language by non-native speakers. There are language programs aimed primarily at adults, and others aimed at young children in the elementary or pre-school years as part of early childhood education. Approximately 1,500 early language programs are listed in the U.S. National Directory of Early Foreign Language Programs, which was compiled by the Center for Applied Linguistics as a searchable website for foreign language programs offered in schools below grade 7. The website, which also provides links to immersion and bilingual programs in the United States, is maintained and updated by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics (owww.cal.org/resources/earlyflW). These early

The Language Program in a Changing World

9

language programs have special characteristics, such as orally based teaching and assessment methods for very young children, which are outside the scope of this book. English language and other language programs may or may not be authorized to issue the documents that allow students to enter the country. Typical of programs authorized to provide documents for students to enter the country are study abroad programs or language programs affiliated with a university. Those not so authorized may be programs geared specifically for in-country language study by domestic groups such as immigrants. Language programs can be distinguished by their funding structure, such as whether they are proprietary in nature or whether they are part of larger educational or non-profit entities. Proprietary schools can be part of an organization, such as ELS (English Language Services), with multiple branches worldwide and a central recruiting mechanism. In such cases, some administrative and financial processes may be managed offsite by a central office. On the other hand, language programs that are administered by their home universities are subject to the human resource, financial, and legal processes of the entire university. The primary focus of this book is management of English language programs geared to university students or adult learners who are learning a second or foreign language subsequent to their primary language. These programs are typically revenue-generating units offering intensive English language instruction in non-credit courses. The unique nature of these programs is described by Dantas-Whitney and Dimmitt (2002) in terms of a balance of pros and cons: Although this structure offers countless disadvantages to students and faculty (e.g., budget fluctuations, staffing challenges, rising student/teacher ratios), it does provide flexibility in curricular change and innovation. (p. 4)

A secondary focus of the book is management of such programs for languages other than English.

English Language Teaching Compared to Foreign Language and Composition Teaching English language programs—which may be designated ESL, EFL, ELT, IEP (Intensive English Program), or other designations such as English for International Students—are unique in higher education. Although like traditional academic departments they have a strong interest in teaching and

10

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

curriculum, they are often classified as being a service unit whose main purpose is to perform remedial or supplementary instruction. Because their primary focus is neither research nor degree work, they are differently constituted than other academic departments in the areas of student admissions and graduation criteria, faculty and staff qualifications, and conditions of employment such as workload and governance structure (Pennington, 1992d, p. 8). Neither do they always match the mission of other institutional units which generate income (e.g., Continuing Education) or provide support for academic departments (e.g., International Services) but which do not themselves perform teaching functions. Their unique mission and function often relegate the English language teaching unit more to the category of ‘‘infrastructure’’ than to curricular content: As a consequence of the uniqueness of the mission and function of ELT programs, their governance and location in terms of the university management hierarchy is problematic. The difficulties of locating the ELT unit conceptually often mean that its physical and structural location is highly variable across institutions and even within one institution at different times. The fact that ELT does not fit easily within the confines of academic departments and institutions has therefore in many cases led to its [marginalization] within academic practice and scholarship. (Pennington, 1992d, p. 8)

The marginalization of English language teaching (ELT, ESL, or EFL) is seen in a higher proportion of part-time and untenured faculty and often in lack of the status, budget, and degree of independence of an academic department. In higher education, the context and nature of language study differentiate foreign language and English language instruction. Foreign language courses have traditionally been organized around literature, whereas ESL instruction generally ignores literature in favor of competence in spoken language and English for specific purposes and functions. Thus, as Byrnes (2006) writes, a concept such as ‘‘communicative competence,’’ which has been widely accepted within ESL teaching, has been questioned for its appropriateness within foreign language teaching because of differences in goals, methodologies, and student populations. Pertinent issues include the focus on written (generally literature) or spoken (often transactional) language and instruction of heritage or ‘‘traditional’’ secondlanguage learners. In foreign language departments where communicative goals predominate in lower-level courses, these courses and those who teach them are often of lower status as compared to the courses and faculty2 that have a literature focus. Most of the temporary or non-tenured faculty in the department are likely to be teaching the lower-level language courses.

The Language Program in a Changing World

11

Generally similar in nature and status to language teaching units and faculty are composition teaching units and faculty located within English departments or outside the academic structure. As in the teaching of foreign languages and English as a second or foreign language, the teaching of English composition is traditionally seen as having a lesser status than the teaching of literature (Connor, 1991). Like other language teachers, composition instructors have heavier teaching loads and less job security than their literature-oriented colleagues. Composition teaching units and their faculty are usually viewed like English language teaching units and faculty primarily in terms of providing a service in helping to remediate language problems, specifically, in teaching required first-year writing courses aimed at ensuring that students can write at the required level for university work. As in English language teaching more generally, composition teachers ‘‘work on the boundary between the students’ home culture and the academic culture with its potential . . . for social and economic advancement’’ (Herzberg, 1991, p. 114) yet receive minimal recognition or reward for this work. Thus, at university level in English-speaking countries, the teaching of foreign languages at lower levels or for communicative (non-literary) purposes, English composition, and English as a non-primary (second or foreign) language form a disciplinary cluster of fields with similar attributes and problems. In all of these cases, at university level, units and faculty focused on language teaching are generally considered to be of lower prestige than those devoted to literature or research. Yet the expertise of those who teach in these units and the knowledge and skills they impart to students are of critical importance: to the institutions where they work, in supporting knowledge and study in all fields; to the students who aspire to graduate from them, in providing the grounding they need for spoken and written work; and to the societies of which they are and will be a part, in ensuring that the highest achievement and cultural heritage of humanity, that is, its languages and written products, will remain strong and not deteriorate from lack of attention and disuse.

FUNCTIONS AND FRAMES OF A LANGUAGE PROGRAM Language programs are distinctive communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) that have certain features in common as well

12

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

as differences resulting from their specific histories and contexts. These complex communities have evolved and can be defined with respect to the different functions which they perform and in terms of the different frames of reference within which their practices make sense. A frame or framing is a way of seeing and thinking that helps to organize information meaningfully. A frame may be usefully applied to a problem or event, or to an organization or a discipline in order to better understand it. Bolman and Deal (2003) use the notion of framing to help managers systematically examine their organization from different perspectives. Here we will use frames in a similar way and further to define the multiple functions, heritages, and contexts of the language program as instruction, academic discipline, profession, service, and business, and as both global and local in orientation.3 Instruction In every language program, instruction is a core activity and drives the face validity of the program as well as its revenue generation. Nevertheless, the nature of instruction may command more or less attention within a program at different points in time. Academic Discipline Language teaching faculty are educated in a variety of academic disciplines, including TESL, TEFL, linguistics, applied linguistics, second-language acquisition, bilingual and multilingual education, curriculum and instruction, literacy, writing, and foreign languages. Modern language faculty often come from literature backgrounds. Appropriate preparation and core teaching practices vary depending on these different academic backgrounds. Another aspect of this frame is the extent to which a language program is involved in disciplinary activity of scholarship and research. Profession The frame of profession highlights the features of long-range career development, expertise combining knowledge and skill, professional identity and control over the content and conduct of work, external standards, advocacy, and affiliation networks. As a part of the professional frame of

The Language Program in a Changing World

13

language programs, external accreditation requirements are primary and may engender many types of program change.

Service The service perspective prioritizes the social contribution made by a language program and may also signify a pro bono orientation of providing help without regard for revenue. The service frame further denotes a supportive role for the language program in satisfying the needs, instructional and otherwise, of students as well as those of a parent institution or other unit with which a program articulates.

Business A business perspective is central throughout higher education today and may be the dominant orientation in some language programs. Language program as business prioritizes a fiscal orientation, human resources practices and management, entrepreneurial innovation, and customer service within a goal of maximizing revenues and ensuring fiscal soundness.

Global Viewing a language program in a global frame draws attention to the ways in which it is situated within international flows and global networks and the changing face of the world, including: immigration and border crossing issues, international politics, global competitiveness, international educational exchange, spread or resistance to spread of English, cultural change, and hybridity of identities.

Local This frame prioritizes the local context in which language is taught, including the institutional and national context, which determines holidays and other calendar and scheduling matters, as well as local norms of behavior, the local varieties and uses of language, the specific background and mix of faculty, and the nature of facilities and materials. The local

14

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

framing of a language program encompasses issues of identity, diversity, and fit within a specific program context. A mix of backgrounds among the teaching faculty provides more diversity and potentially more support for different identities and cultures of students.

The Significance of the Frame Perspectives A frames perspective makes it possible for the language program leadership to understand the unique nature of language teaching and their own program in relation to other educational entities and to the larger context. Understanding these various frames can help language program leaders to analyze the many functions and purposes of their programs, prioritizing and incorporating specific perspectives and combinations of these as needed. At times it may be possible to address a problem more productively by considering it in light of an alternate frame, as different values, priorities, and opportunities are relevant or will emerge. For example, consider the program director with the need to increase revenue who plans to market the language program more intensively (a typical business frame). It may be that considering the program’s academic aspects can also serve marketing purposes. Perhaps grants can be garnered on the basis of faculty credentials; recruiting and program marketing can be developed based on the academic quality of the program; faculty publishing can be encouraged; and conferences might be held to build up academic quality and reputation. All of these activities may drive program visibility, which is the ultimate goal of traditional marketing from the business perspective as well as an outcome that can be derived from a focus on the academic nature of the program. Each of these perspectives or frames creates a different set of priorities and requirements for the language program and a different set of roles for the language program leader and the others who work in the program, both teachers and administrative staff. Although individually they represent distinct and sometimes partially competing perspectives, when combined they represent the different orientations and types of practice that will be present, though to different degrees and in differing proportions, in every language program. When combined, as they have been through evolution over time, these different functions and orientations have created the unique hybrid enterprise that is language teaching and its associated educational programs and requirements for effective leadership—in particular, the type geared to teaching English as a second or foreign language. The history of English language teaching and the functions that language programs fulfill

The Language Program in a Changing World

15

have resulted in educational programs which are, like the whole field of education, humanistic, and which are further, different from many other academic programs, highly globalized and pragmatic. It is within this unique hybrid educational enterprise made up of interacting functions and features that the language program ecology exists.

LANGUAGE PROGRAM AS ECOLOGY As a central tenet of this book, language teaching, language programs, and the leadership of those programs are ecological in nature—that is, they consist of a complex, interrelated set of components and areas of performance and decision-making involving tangible and intangible assets—such as faculty, students, revenues, curriculum, mission, and reputation—which interact in multiple ways with each other and with the larger context in which the program is situated. Change over time is a main feature of an ecology. The leadership of language programs involves shortterm as well as long-term change due to such factors as shifts in student population and their language and culture, political events, and curricular modifications necessitated by these and other programmatic changes. The goal is a continuously interacting and unified whole. The next chapter introduces the notion of ecology that we will use for conceptualizing the structure and functioning of language programs.

THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADER As the foregoing discussion makes clear, the job of the language program leader—whether a program director, curriculum coordinator, or department head—is a multifaceted one that includes management of instructional, business, service, professional, and disciplinary aspects of the program within global and local contexts. To be successful in managing the language program ecology, the leader—and the entire program leadership and administrative team—needs a wide range of knowledge, skills, and areas of expertise. In leading English language programs, the need for attention to business and service emphases must be balanced against instructional, academic, and professional concerns with attention to culture and language. The leadership of English language programs is especially complex given their strong dependency on fluctuating global conditions. Language program leaders must therefore be alert to context and lead with an eye

16

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

to change. Functioning on the edge of change makes the job more than one of management or administration of existing systems and functions, as language program leadership also crucially involves vision, innovation, persuasion, and unification of people and their purposes into shared goals and activities going into the future. Yet few in language program leadership have had specific training in administration, management, or leadership. In the typical case, faculty ‘‘come up through the ranks’’ to become program leaders, learning on the job ‘‘by trial and error’’ (Christison & Stoller, 1997, p. vii) and even, in some cases, ‘‘trial by fire.’’

OVERVIEW OF CONTENTS The book is in three parts. Part I, ‘‘The Context,’’ establishes the framework of language program leadership within an ecological model, as introduced in Chapter One. Chapter Two, ‘‘The Language Program Ecology,’’ introduces the notion of the language program as an organizational ecology that includes tangible resources—human, physical, and fiscal—and intangible resources such as program curriculum, mission, and reputation. In the ecological model, key leadership functions are promoting interaction among components and performing ongoing review and monitoring of the changing context. Chapter Three, ‘‘Situating the Language Program,’’ considers language program leadership in relation to how the program is situated, including the institutional position of the program and its mission, staffing, financial operations, marketing and recruiting, data management, and the program leader’s political and advocacy roles. Part II, ‘‘The People,’’ examines the human resources of the program in more detail. Chapter Four, ‘‘The Students,’’ focuses on the role of the students in the language program ecology. The impact of students’ backgrounds, languages, cultures, and motivations as second-language learners within the language program ecology is considered, and management functions in relation to students are discussed. In Chapter Five, ‘‘The Faculty,’’ we emphasize the centrality of the role of faculty in the language program ecology. Teacher education, teacher practice, and teacher development—incorporating motivation, performance review, and faculty communities of practice—are seen as interrelated processes within an ecologically oriented approach. Chapter Six, ‘‘The Leadership,’’ reviews concepts of leadership and research on language program management, and proposes an ecological model for leadership within English language programs. The specific issues of managing within the language program are

The Language Program in a Changing World

17

considered in light of the need to manage for change, and suggestions are given for the education and professional development of language program leaders. Part III, ‘‘The Potential,’’ envisions the evolving nature and potential of the language program ecology. Chapter Seven, ‘‘Curriculum Development,’’ proposes a curriculum model that includes processes of planning involving analysis and goal-setting, implementation of goals, evaluation of outcomes, innovation and contextualization, and monitoring and feedback. The curriculum process promotes and helps to manage program unity, quality, and responsiveness to changing conditions and to continue developing program potentials. In Chapter Eight, ‘‘Program Development,’’ the curriculum model of Chapter Seven is related to the wider program context and its processes and outcomes, through an ecological approach to program development that focuses on ongoing analysis, goal-setting, and evaluation within processes of innovation-contextualization and monitoring-feedback through which the program leader strategically maneuvers the program ecology into the future. That chapter includes a discussion of the dynamics of growth and of contraction and downsizing. Chapter Nine, ‘‘Leading into the Future,’’ concludes the book with a look to the future and recommendations for leading change and for researching language programs and their leadership.

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER ONE This chapter has introduced the concept of language program management in a globalized world of rapidly shifting global flows or scapes, including the spread of English, which also have strong impacts at a local level. The context of education in which language teaching and language programs exist is one in which constant change is a reality. It is also one in which education has become increasingly business-oriented and in which academic disciplines are specializing and professionalizing. In focusing on English language program leadership as situated in a complex, globalized context with rapidly changing characteristics, we emphasize the complexity of the job of leading a language program and the many types of roles the leadership must fill. Leading a language program thus means managing an extensive ecology made up of many different types of interacting parts, with strong attention to the future. In the next chapter, we present the ecological model of language programs and their leadership which is the centerpiece of this book.

18

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

NOTES 1. ARELS is now part of English UK owww.EnglishUK.comW. 2. Throughout this book, we use the term faculty in the sense of a group of teachers rather than in the sense of a college. 3. Our discussion of frames is within a long tradition that includes the work of Bateson (e.g., Bateson, 1955/1973), Goffman (e.g., Goffman, 1974), and Tannen (e.g., Tannen, 1993).

CHAPTER TWO THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM ECOLOGY A language program is a delicate and intricate system of interacting components, which, like a biological ecology, is in a constant state of evolution and change. The language program ecology is made up of several smaller, and more local, ecologies and has an interior, or core, component, that of instruction, that connects to its other components. The interactive system of components making up the program’s internal culture is connected ecologically to the external culture.

THE NATURE OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL ECOLOGY One of the metaphors which has been used to describe organizations is that of organism (Cameron & Green, 2004; Davidson & Tesh, 1997; Likert, 1967; Morgan, 1986). According to this metaphor: Organizations are seen as sets of interrelated sub-systems designed to balance the requirements of the environment with internal needs of groups and individuals. This approach implies that when designing organizations, we should always do this with the environment in mind. Emphasis is placed on scanning the environment, and developing a healthy adaptation to the outside world. (Cameron & Green, 2004, p. 90)

The organic nature of organizations stresses their internal interconnectedness as well as their linkage to the environment, a point also noted by Bolman and Deal (2003): Since organizations depend on their environment for the resources they need to survive, they are inevitably enmeshed in relationships with external constituents . . . . Just as frogs, flies, and lily pads coevolve in a swamp, organizations develop in tandem in a shared environment. (pp. 228–229)

19

20

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

A similar concept for describing an organization is that of ecology. Ecology, from the Greek word for ‘‘house,’’ oikos, combined with the suffix ology, meaning ‘‘the study of’’ or ‘‘relating to,’’ refers to the study of systems within their immediate surroundings. An ecology is formed of elements which are interlinked both to one another and to their environment. Because of this linkage, the elements of the ecology are mutually adaptive in their structure and functioning. The components of the ecology are thus designed and develop over time in relation to each other, as a unified whole. This unified whole has emergent properties in that their collective behavior cannot be predicted in advance and is more than the sum of the parts. These properties emerge from the interaction of the contributing components in the evolution of the system over time. To view an organization as an organic whole or ecology emphasizes the multiplicity of interconnected components or sub-systems and their mutual relationships and dependencies. It is also to look at how change in one part of the organization affects and is affected by change in the other parts as well as how the organization affects and is affected by the larger context within which it exists. Using the concept of ecology rather than organism stresses that the parts or sub-systems which make up the whole are more diverse and less tightly bound than in an organism. The resulting unity is thus more changeable and complex. A language program, like any organization or educational program or unit, is a kind of ecosystem or ecology. Like a biological ecology, the mutually interactive components of a language program form a local system, or ‘‘organic whole,’’ in which a delicate balance must be maintained within the system itself in relation to other systems within which the local ecology exists. Also like a biological ecology, a language program’s health and continuing existence are determined by its ability to maintain (a) mutually supportive internal structures and functions and (b) a productive trading, or ‘‘give-and-take,’’ relationship with its environment. Both the internal, local ecology and the other systems forming its interactive context determine the nature of a language program and whether it will thrive or perish. The field of linguistics includes an ecological tradition seeded by Edward Sapir, who stressed the effects of the social environment on language (Sapir, 1912), and further developed by others (e.g., recently by Mufwene, 2001). A notable early use of the term ecology within linguistics is that of Einar Haugen, whose collected works were named after an influential essay in the collection entitled, ‘‘The ecology of language’’

Language Program as Ecology

21

(Haugen, 1972). On the first page of that essay, Haugen (1972) gives the following definition: Language ecology may be defined as the study of interactions between any given language and its environment . . . . The ecology of a language is determined primarily by the people who learn it, use it, and transmit it to others. (p. 325)

Both Sapir and Haugen recognized an interaction between the natural world, or physical environment, and language, though their focus was on the social and psychological environment of language. Fill and Mu¨hlha¨usler (2001) note that after Haugen had created this paradigm: In the following decades, the range and scope of the application of the concept of ‘ecology’ within linguistics widened dramatically. Pragmatics and discourse analysis, anthropological linguistics, theoretical linguistics, language teaching research and several other branches of linguistics discovered the usefulness of ecological parameters such as interrelationships, environment and diversity. Furthermore, the vital topic of environmental degradation was adopted into the gamut of linguistic concerns. In the early 1990s, all the different approaches which in some way link the study of language with ecology were brought together, and a unified—though still diverse—branch of linguistics was established which was called ecolinguistics. (p. 1)

Fill and Mu¨hlha¨usler (p. 2) identify the two key concepts of ecolinguistics as those of interaction and diversity. These can also be seen as the two key features of any functioning ecology as a system of diverse elements supporting each other by functioning interactively. Ecologies can be understood in the biological sense in terms of living things and physical systems such as the atmosphere and climate, notions which can be applied in an extended or metaphorical sense to organizations. Organizational ecologies, besides being made up of tangibles such as people and physical resources, are also made up of intangibles such as the program atmosphere or climate, values, and reputation. Organizational ecologies can thus be understood in terms of both their tangible nature, their physical existence, and their intangible nature, their symbolic and conceptual existence. The latter comprises the attributes, beliefs, feelings, and images connected with the program, whether internally or externally. A program’s intangibles can be thought of as an invisible medium which surrounds and permeates the program, and which it both lives in and gives off. While their physical properties are important and may be crucial for sustaining them in difficult circumstances, language programs, like other educational systems, are more essentially social ecologies than physical

22

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

ecologies. As such, it is their intangible features that are most characteristic and crucial. Moving a language program to a different building will change it far less than keeping it physically in the same building but changing the curriculum and processes of teaching and interacting with other people. We hasten to add, however, that, like all social ecologies, language programs incorporate physical properties within their internal and external systems. An ecology or system of interrelated components is in an important sense a unity, or unified whole. This unified whole is however not a static thing but a loosely constructed entity allowing for diversity and dynamic interactions and development of components. A healthy ecology is not made up of identical components but rather of cooperating ones whose strength lies in the richness of its diverse resources and their functioning in interdependence, the ability of diverse elements to work together in adaptive ways to bring about a harmonious whole. A healthy ecology is ‘‘alive,’’ with all of its components in constant interaction. In the ongoing interplay of components, they are in constant communication with each other, as they each seek their best advantage in a way that also maintains the other components, as their context, in a healthy condition. In this way, the components are in a tensive relationship that leads to compromise positions and mutual adaptation or trading relationships between their respective needs. This means that the optimization of any part of the system must be considered in relation to every other part. In practice, this interrelationship of components means that the optimization of the entire system is gained by complementarity and responsive, interactive adaptation of the different internal and external components. As regards organizational ecologies such as a language program, the complementarity, trading relations, and adaptation of the parts involves maintaining unity by balancing the needs and advantages of each component, and by balancing continuity and change, uniformity and diversity. An educational department or community is not a ‘‘lockstep,’’ military-style organization in which absolute agreement and obedience can be demanded but an association of partially autonomous units and individuals who are expected as professionals to have decision-making ability. The unity of an educational department or community is achieved only in part through its cohesive, institutionalizing structures. In the best case, it can be characterized as a loose and multiply linked network of centers of activity, operating under a unifying mission and vision of the organization. Along with its unity, there needs to be an element of innovation—novelty or change (‘‘mutation’’)—to nurture the ecology; but if this is too great,

Language Program as Ecology

23

it produces disunity, and possibly chaos. In a strong ecology, a small amount of chaos is tolerated and actually contributes to development, providing an impetus for change. There is an optimum level of connectivity and stability, more than the minimum but less than the maximum. Excessive change, in either the physical or the social sphere, is not compatible with human life. A measure of stability is required for human development and continued health; however, an organism or ecology which is too stable, which has reached a complete equilibrium, will not be responsive to new conditions and so will neither thrive nor evolve as circumstances change. The innovation potential of an organization is its ability to continually improve itself and to respond creatively to new opportunities and changing circumstances. An organization continually improves and remains alert to opportunities and change by being alive to context and opportunity, by being reflective and searching, by continually assessing all aspects of the organization and its context, by developing and strengthening its resources and their interconnections, and by developing and expanding the cultural niche which it occupies and its interconnections to context. The organization’s innovation potential is ultimately its capacity for evolution and development to optimize functioning within its internal and external context. This innovation potential, of an organization to function interactively and responsively in relation to context, is a crucial aspect of the ecology and a main determinant of its health and survival over time. In a functioning ecology, the interaction of diverse components produces a complex response that holds the ecology together and provides the trajectory for its ongoing evolution. The crucial property of an organizational ecology is not stability but harmony, meaning resonance of all components with each other, although they may all strike different notes. It is in a very real sense a stable unity-in-diversity with a gyroscopic, centripetal property, rather than a command-and-control structure, holding it together. As a conductor holds together all of the players of an orchestra and makes sure that all of their different instruments and notes are in tune and in harmony so that all within the orchestra and the audience outside can appreciate the quality of their music, so does the leader of an organization keep all of its people and instruments in tune and communicating one with the other and with the outside world. When the leader succeeds, all of the components of the organization can be said to be in harmony, producing beautiful music together, both old favorites and exciting new compositions, which they and the outside world can appreciate.

24

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADER IN AN ECOLOGY While it is important for the leader of a language program to ensure a focus on the program mission, continuity with the past, and a measure of stability, it is wrong to think that a person in a leadership position controls the ecology and either its state at any given time or its evolution. Many external components that the leader has little influence over and may not even be aware of are linked to the local ecology. Even the local ecology of the program itself cannot be controlled by the program leader. A key teacher can suddenly become ill and throw a class off track, impacting student learning or satisfaction, for example, even if qualified substitute teachers can be found. The external context is even more complex and unpredictable. Major political events can close airports or whole borders; disease outbreaks such as SARS can quarantine whole cities; economic crises change fortunes and accessibility to education for whole populations overnight. All of these events bring change into the language program context. Strong control is antithetical to the flexibility and responsiveness needed to deal with external change and to take advantage of opportunities that arise unexpectedly. It is also antithetical to everyday problem-solving, as problems are by their nature unexpected and unresponsive to standard practice, requiring creative thought and action. Administrative control, even if possible, is not in the best interests of an organization. Adults do not react well to strong control, making them either dependent or rebellious. Either way, strong administrative control diminishes people’s personal involvement and commitment to their work, and decreases the rewards and hence the motivation for employees to take risks and novel approaches to their work. In this way, a high degree of administrative control reduces innovation and creativity in carrying out everyday functions and in solving problems. It also runs counter to the development and functioning of an ecology, which is characterized by its diversity of resources and their interaction in maintaining a unity of purpose. By controlling employees, a manager reduces their ability to act as individuals and to respond differentially to circumstances, thus creating rigidity where flexibility is key. In this way, the controlling program director lessens the impact of one of a language program’s greatest resources, which is the employees’ individuality and diversity, in effect pressuring them to respond in a uniform and standardized way. In pushing them all to move in lockstep in the same direction, the controlling administrator interferes with their natural actions and interactions and their ability to influence each other.

Language Program as Ecology

25

This is not leadership. Leadership encourages the evolution of an organization made up of a diversity of interacting components to become an increasingly unified and responsive interconnected system, similar to an orchestra. In so doing, leadership functions in a way which both recognizes diversity and strengthens the ecology. A program director’s controlling behavior, rather than encouraging the evolution of a unit made up of a diversity of interacting components, pressures towards an organizational culture of isolation or sameness, an organization in which people are a non-interacting set of individuals functioning more like cogs on a wheel than like the members of an orchestra all performing their best on their individual instruments while playing their part in the joint effort of performing a symphony. In place of harmony and unity growing out of interaction and shared purpose, with all performing their individual best while at the same time playing their part in ensuring the success of the joint effort of operating a language program, people function in isolation or enforced sameness of behavior, both unnatural conditions for healthy human beings which encourage not the health but the death of an organizational ecology. An organization with strong top-down or centralized control has overemphasized uniformity and predictability at the cost of responsiveness and flexibility, and has reduced diversity and individuality, with the effect of decreasing productive interaction and interdependency of employees. As a consequence, rather than nourishing an ecology, the controlling manager is in effect encouraging separation and distance of employees from each other and from the organization. Rather than conceiving of her/his role as one of controlling the organization, the leader of a language program needs to think of her/his role as including the following sorts of goals:  Ensuring ongoing diversity of the components of the ecology;  Facilitating the mutual functioning and productive interaction of the components;  Accruing and managing resources to maintain the individual components and the whole of the ecology in a healthy condition;  Maintaining a focus on the mission and a degree of continuity with the past;  Maintaining flexibility and responsiveness to change;  Encouraging and facilitating innovation and adaptation of new ideas to the program ecology;  Guiding the evolution of the organization towards an increasingly effective and harmonious whole.

26

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

To do the job well, the leader needs to know the ecology well, both the components of the local ecology and those of the wider context within which it functions. This means continually observing the functioning of its people and other resources within the local ecology and in interaction with the wider ecology, and learning about it in other ways, such as through reading, research, workshops, conferences, and coursework. The leader must also continually upgrade knowledge of her/his own functioning through feedback from others. In short, the leader who is alive to the ecological nature of the language program needs to have intimate knowledge of each program component and to have an observant, analytic, and probing bent, a restless, searching quality. The leader should always be watching, observing, reflecting, making connections, and encouraging interaction among the disparate parts. The leader adjusts for change by constant monitoring and tinkering, making not earthquakes but minor tremors in program scapes. Most importantly, the leader seeks to optimize the use and functioning of all resources by recognizing, supporting, and developing their potential in interactive, harmonious ways.

THE COMPONENTS OF THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM ECOLOGY Central to the language program is its curriculum and instruction. However, a language program is much more than that. Summarizing from Pennington (1998c, p. 200), it includes: Students, faculty, administration, and a host of other people who articulate with it; Things Records and files, a building or offices, classroom space and the facilities, materials and equipment, test scores; Processes Other than the teaching-learning process, hiring and training of academic and non-academic staff, record-keeping, budgeting, program promotion and recruitment of students. People

Beyond these internal components, the language program ecology is itself a component of a larger cultural ecology. The language program ecology includes tangible assets in the way of human, physical, and fiscal resources as well as intangible assets such as its vision, mission, image, reputation, relationship, values, climate, and

27

Language Program as Ecology

intellectual resources such as its curriculum and potential for development and innovation. The latter are related to the tangible assets as both cause and effect, as the vision, mission, image, and reputation of the program evolve interactively with its human, physical, and fiscal resources. In addition, both the tangible and intangible assets are impacted by the language program’s particular orientation and mission as instruction, academic discipline, profession, service, and business. The functions which the program performs and the frames within which it exists and defines itself, which contribute to the creation of its unique organizational culture, also co-evolve with its tangible and intangible resources. The program’s internal culture and resources are moreover linked to the external culture made up of a particular configuration of ethnoscape, financescape, technoscape, mediascape, ideoscape, and linguascape within the global and local landscape existing at a given point in time. The ecology of a language program is its own unique character, which is realized in its combination of properties and its mission and vision of itself as applied in all of the actions of its members. The ecology is realized in a unity of purpose and functioning that not only binds the ecology together but also ensures its continuing prosperity and its ability to meet the challenges of the future.

TANGIBLE ASSETS Fiscal Resources The fiscal resources of a language program are the income earned or allocated from an institutional, governmental, or other source such as private donations. These fiscal resources are directly related to the program’s physical and human resources (Pennington, 1984a, 1984b, 1989a, 1992a). A language program’s fiscal resources are directly related to the program’s recruitment of students as both cause and effect. In being a deciding factor as to the amount of money available for program promotion and marketing, fiscal resources will have an effect on the number of students enrolled and thus on the main source of income in most programs. When income is large, this allows for further development of physical and human resources, such as by buying new buildings and equipment or refurbishing teaching and administrative spaces, by increased marketing and promotion of the program to attract more and better students, by offering fiscal incentives to attract excellent faculty and staff and to sustain their high

28

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

performance and professional growth once hired, and by being able to add new faculty, leadership, and administrative staff positions. Although a big bank balance offers scope for program development, it does not guarantee program quality or sustainability. The specific choices made for program development or expansion may, for example, commit the language program to a certain type of student or instruction which turns out not to be sustainable when global conditions change. And even financially sound programs may suffer in times when international education is reduced due to political or economic conditions in the global or local context. As in all aspects of program management, the managing of fiscal resources to the best interests of the program in both its current condition and with regard to its future potentials in relation to its context requires considerable conceptual skill on the part of the program leader. These types of considerations are addressed further in Chapter Three as well as in the chapters of Part III discussing the potentials of language programs in terms of development, strategizing, and future opportunities.

Physical Resources The physical resources of a program include buildings and grounds, materials, and equipment. To a certain extent, physical resources have an existence independent of other program components, as an institution with modest or poor physical resources may nevertheless distinguish itself through its human resources, its people—its leadership and administrative staff, its faculty, and its students and their performance in the way of teaching, learning, and other academic achievements. High-quality buildings and grounds, materials, and equipment do not in themselves guarantee a healthy language program. Nevertheless, the physical resources are causally linked, in both directions, to the other components of the language program ecology. Physical resources are directly linked, as a main cause and effect, to the number of people in a program (Pennington, 1984a, 1984b, 1989a, pp. 99– 100). Where physical resources are limited, this means that the number of people that can be supported by a program is limited. On the other hand, where physical resources are substantial, this supports a large number of students, faculty, and staff. The type of physical resources also impacts human resources. For example, a modern facility with expensive equipment can often attract higher quality teachers than a run-down facility with old and poorly functioning equipment. In many ways, human resources are affected by physical resources.

29

Language Program as Ecology

Conversely, physical resources are also affected by human resources. As the number of people in a program expands, this has an impact on the number and size of physical resources, as more students and staff require more space and more materials and equipment in order to flourish. A larger program generates more income, which can continue to develop both its human resources (e.g., by funding additional curricular and extracurricular opportunities for students and professional development opportunities and higher salaries and benefits for teachers and administrative staff) and its other physical resources such as buildings and equipment. Physical resources and instruction are also interlinked, in that a certain type of instruction or curriculum requires certain types of resources, such as classroom spaces, textbooks and other materials, equipment, and fiscal resources. Physical resources are especially critical in ensuring a high level of technology in the language program. Conversely, a certain level and specific types of physical resources are supported by some types of curriculum but not others. For example, a literature-based language curriculum draws on literary texts whereas a functional or communicative curriculum draws on texts and audio and visual resources. Tangible assets can also have an impact on the program’s intangibles, such as its curriculum, reputation, image, and climate. Certain tangible assets in the way of the physical environment (spaces, structures, furnishings, technological resources, and materials) are enabling or limiting factors on curriculum that also impact peoples’ physical and psychological state and their perceptions of the quality of the program. Students who perceive the physical resources as old, unattractive, or limited are likely to judge the program in negative ways, even when the instructional record is good. It is important for the program leadership to realize that it is not only the gain in English language proficiency, or the student’s perceived gain, that influences a student’s satisfaction with the language program, but also the physical environment, which in turn affects the social and educational environment. It is therefore worth devoting considerable attention and funding to the physical resources of a program, in order to support program quality and potential for growth and development.

Human Resources The human resources, the people, in the language program form a ‘‘community of communities.’’ The principal community is in an important sense that of the students, who are the reason for the existence of the

30

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

language program and the focus of its central component of instruction. From another perspective, the faculty are an equally important group since they are the ones who mediate between the students and all of the other program components—the leadership, the physical resources, the fiscal resources, the intangible assets such as mission, curriculum, reputation, and climate. In this way of looking at things, the leadership assumes a great importance as well, since they mediate between the other two groups and all other aspects of the language program, including the larger culture. A further part of the human resources of the program is the administrative staff, who aid the students and extend the reach of the program leadership. Students The student component is a crucial part of the language program ecology affecting and being affected by the curriculum, helping to generate physical, fiscal, and human resources, and also being affected by those resources. As the number of students grows, this allows or requires an increase in the size of the faculty and other program positions, including the leadership as well as in the physical resources, such as office space, classrooms, and materials (Pennington, 1984a, 1984b, 1989a, 1992a). When the number of students grows, this will affect the other human resources of the program and the division of labor, as . . . there is the possibility and also the need for more non-teaching staff. New positions intermediate between the program director and the instructors (e.g., a faculty supervisor), between the director and the students (e.g., a student services coordinator) may be created. If a program shrinks, the division of labor will shift: certain staff members may suddenly need to spend a great deal of time on recruitment and promotion or lobbying with a higher authority to justify the continued existence of the program. Under these conditions, the program staff will eventually have to shrink back to a smaller number of job categories and fewer actual positions. (Pennington, 1989a, p. 100)

As the type of student changes, this will require changes in the faculty and other program people as well as changes in the curriculum and business aspects of the program such as marketing and promotion. If the character or number of students changes, this must affect the elements of the program to maintain ecological balance. On the other hand, if the character of physical resources, fiscal resources, curriculum, leadership, or faculty changes, these changes must ultimately impact the nature of the student body—such as by downsizing it, attracting different types of students, or changing the individual students themselves. Both the curriculum and the teaching-learning process that connect teachers and learners are directly related to the types of students in a

Language Program as Ecology

31

program. Students coming from non-Western educational backgrounds with a focus on testing and the learning of specific content in a relatively regimented classroom will require a different kind of teaching-learning approach for acquiring language skills than those coming from Western educational backgrounds with a focus on spoken interaction and individualized instruction. Beyond instructional concerns, students will also need orientation to the language program and its context, and this requirement suggests the need for a strong student services component, which can also provide assistance with admissions and visa concerns, as well as ongoing personal and educational advising for students (Middlebrook, 1991). Other program matters relating to the students are recruitment, the ways in which potential students are found and learn about the program (Jenks, 1991), and alumni relations, the ways in which the program maintains context with the students over time. The considerations regarding students are taken up again as the topic of Chapter Four. Faculty The faculty of the language program is a critical component for ensuring its prosperity since faculty have the most direct contact with and impact on the students and are also those most likely to build its reputation and intangible assets. The faculty provides the program with a set of cultural, educational, and personal values, intellectual assets, and a unique character that attracts students and prestige to the program, which will in turn reflect positively on the students and on the leadership. Faculty development should therefore be a primary concern of every educational program leader (Pennington, 1989a, 1989b, 1992a, 1992b). Faculty development involves both hiring good teachers and structuring the faculty as a whole to make the best possible use of them as resources while also ensuring their continued growth and development. The faculty component may be designed to be closely aligned with the students’ goals and culture. Alternatively, it may be structured to help shift students’ orientation to a new cultural base—for example, to prepare them for jobs or university in a culture which for them is foreign or new. The development of the faculty component may seek to achieve the best possible fit with the program’s existing mission, curriculum, and culture; or it may attempt to mold the program’s mission, curriculum, and culture on the characteristics of its teachers, and possibly its students as well. An ecologically linked and responsive program may be deliberately designed to allow for a range of teacher types within a general culture of diversity and innovation that offers flexibility and nimbleness to respond to change.

32

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

There is a dynamic interplay between faculty characteristics, teaching activities, and ongoing faculty development, on the one hand, and the characteristics, learning activities, and development of the students, on the other. As faculty characteristics, teaching activities, and ongoing development change, these factors naturally affect the students. In like manner, as students’ characteristics, learning activities, and ongoing development change, these factors in turn have an impact on the faculty. In a healthy educational ecology, faculty and students are mutually interdependent in their characteristics, activities, and development, forming a highly interactive teaching-learning ecology, ‘‘an interactive partnership between teachers and students. This reciprocally collaborative relationship represents a commitment on the part of both student and teacher to co-evolving the knowledge, values, and contexts of instruction including, ultimately, the entire educational and social culture’’ (Pennington, 1992c, p. 56). In addition to the continuous two-way interaction of faculty and students, these two groups also affect, and are affected by, the program leadership’s characteristics, activities, and development over time. When there are major changes in either the internal or the external ecology that have an impact on the program, faculty need to have a central role in adjusting to meet circumstances. These adjustments may include needed administrative and structural changes as well as changes in teaching and other practices impacting students and faculty alike. In the best case, the faculty, students, and leadership work in harmony to advance their mutual interests in a way that also advances each of them personally. The considerations regarding faculty are taken up again in Chapter Five. Leadership The leadership of the program is composed of a program director or department head and the other members of the management team, which may include a faculty supervisor, curriculum coordinator, and/or assistant or associate director positions. The leadership is an important component that helps in nurturing, structuring, and holding together the other components of a language program. The program director is a key figure linked to the entire language program ecology. In this sense, s/he stands at a position in the middle of the ecology linked to all the other components. Or the director can be seen as a sort of meta-figure operating from a vantage point that is conceptually outside or above the program, with a view of the larger context as well. In this sense, the program director is like a Guiding Hand that impacts the entire system. Those within the system will usually not have this degree of awareness or meta-awareness of program structure

Language Program as Ecology

33

and operation. Rather, they will be most aware of its internal structure and functioning, with attention most focused on that part of the context to which they are most closely linked. Program leaders should have a sense of how the different components are interrelated and of how to maintain the balances among the components of the program ecology in relation to their nurturing environment. Equally important, they are the ones who should have a sense of history, future orientation, and vision about where the program has been and is going in terms of (a) its internal structure and functioning as well as (b) its response to and impact on the context within which it exists. They are thus crucial in spotting areas of opportunity or weakness and necessary change, and in assisting the change process, to respond to circumstances and maintain a healthy system of interlinked components. The considerations regarding the leadership of the language program are taken up again in Chapter Six, which then forms the foundation for discussing key program leader roles and functions in Part III. Administrative Staff Most language programs contain one or more employees in administrative staff classifications, which may include financial, clerical, and administrative assistant positions as well as student services administrators and/or student advisers. These employees are critical to the day-to-day functioning of the program and to the support of its leadership, faculty, and students. They also play a major role in outreach to the external context of sponsors, potential students, and the larger institution and community within which the language program is situated. They will often be the people with whom those coming into the program have their first encounter, whether face-toface or by telephone or email, and so their training and morale is vital to program success. There are many different configurations of administrative staff, depending on the functions which must be taken care of by the program itself and those which are taken care of by other branches of the organization or institution in which the program resides. For example, language programs that are branch offices of a larger organization may find that certain admissions functions are handled by the parent office and not the branch offices. Language centers within universities may find that the billing functions are handled by a central registrar; or that the visa functions are managed by a central international programs office. Universities or language program consortia may have different resources for managing special grant-funded programs.

34

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Different configurations lead to different staffing needs and ratios. Faculty can also be given administrative responsibilities and may be allowed release time from teaching to take on increasing responsibilities in testing, curriculum development, special program administration, or other kinds of work. The extent to which faculty positions can include administrative activities is determined by general human resources principles and job descriptions. Thus, the program leader should be aware of the extent to which language program job descriptions are consonant with the larger organization. The types of administrative activities in a language program include the following: Program Information and Communication Answering telephone, email, and walk-in inquiries; Disseminating information about program activities; Issuing certificates; Sending acceptance and probation letters; Managing sign-up for activities and special events. Program Administration Maintaining student database; Maintaining student records; Ordering supplies; Registering students; Generating reports; Troubleshooting equipment and facilities issues; Setting up and attending internal and external meetings. Teaching-Related Administration Developing curriculum; Testing and placing students; Liaising with publishers and ordering books and recorded materials. Student Services Providing orientation; Arranging housing and homestay services; Academic advising; Arranging student trips and extracurricular activities. Visa Services Advising students on matters related to visa or immigration status; Issuing documents related to visa or immigration status; Informing other program members about visa and immigration regulations.

Language Program as Ecology

35

Marketing and Recruiting Developing agent relationships; Participating in international marketing fairs; Developing and sending out promotional materials; Managing the program website. Special Programs and Grant-Funded Activity Developing and submitting proposals; Corresponding with sponsors and agencies; Completing program evaluations; Fulfilling reporting requirements. Financial Activities Student billing (including wire transfers); Managing payroll issues; Developing annual budget; Forecasting and strategic planning. Faculty and Staff Supervisory Responsibilities Hiring into and releasing from employment; Providing annual and interim reviews; Supervising staff; Providing staff development activities. As can be seen by reviewing this list, the variety of administrative functions in a language program ranges widely. It is part of the inherent nature and also the value and potential of a language program that so many administrative functions are required, but it can challenge the staff. Because of the range of knowledge and the varying skill sets required in a language program staff, a conscious effort to document policies and procedures and to cross-train staff for back-up functions is important. Administrative staff should understand their role as professionals in international education exchange. Their job descriptions should be carefully considered to include reporting lines, areas of responsibility, needed skills, the evaluation and review process, and the opportunities for professional advancement that will be provided by the program. As professionals in international educational exchange, the actions of the program staff will be guided by principles and best practices developed by accrediting and professional agencies outside the institution. For example, the National Association of Foreign Student Advisors: Association of International Educators (NAFSA-AIE) has a code of ethics for recruiting that the

36

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

recruiting specialist must know and follow. Accrediting agencies such as CEA (The Commission on English Language Program Accreditation) and ACCET (The Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training) have student services standards that the student services coordinator must follow. The program administrators must all understand the importance of accurate information regarding aspects of the program that involve visa issuance and compliance with regulations of the United States Citizenship and immigration Services (USCIS), even when they are not the main visa or student services advisor. Additional discussion of student services is provided in Chapter Four.

Interactions within Human Resources The human resources of a language program are mutually interactive with each other and with its other tangible and intangible assets. In a sense, the faculty, the leadership, and the administrative staff are a more influential and permanent or long-term component of an educational program than students, who are generally not in a decision-making position and who graduate every few years. From this point of view, the faculty, the leadership, and the administrative staff have a greater impact on a language program than the students do, and so keeping those parts of the ecology functioning smoothly is of critical importance. On the other hand, the students, in being much more numerous and in being the source of instructional needs, on which curriculum and other programming is based, may make up in numbers and impact what they lack in authority and tenure in terms of their influence on the language program. If the students are not well-served by the program, and conversely, if they do not have a strong impact on it, it will not function effectively. The nature, the number, and the needs of the students will all impact the program in terms of its other components, insofar as the students, who are the focus on the program’s mission and operation and the source of program revenue, are a main determinant of all of its other resources. As the key deliverers of the program’s instruction and services, the faculty and administrative staff will have a strong impact on the students, and in some cases (e.g., in overseas communication with potential students or in offsite evening language classes for enrolled students), individual faculty or administrative staff members will be their only direct human connection with the program. Faculty and administrative staff often work in close contact with each other. It is therefore desirable for them to know about each other’s work, and the program leadership can make opportunities for this.

Language Program as Ecology

37

The ecological model of language program leadership underscores the need for constant communication and interaction, and for continual review and attention to program processes in order to make adjustments as needed. In a customer-service environment such as the one that language programs operate in today, such attention and adjustment is crucial. Faculty, administrative staff, and the leadership can meet regularly to review program activities in light of new student populations, new facilities, new federal regulations, and new international conditions affecting language study, education, and the flows of people, material, technology, and goods around the world. The process through which all stakeholders (internal and external) contribute to problem-solving through collaborative action, reflection, and attention to quality indicators is known as continuous quality improvement (CQI). CQI has been widely used in organizations and industry for several decades. For example, if student comments in the program evaluation indicate that the initial orientation provided by the program is excessively long, a CQI planning process that engages multiple stakeholders can focus on defining and addressing the problem. From the perspective of the academic program, testing and placement are essential, and these take time. From the perspective of student services, there is a lot of information that needs to be given to new students during orientation, and students need to be settled into housing and the larger institution. University identification cards and health insurance enrollment need to be processed, the university safety officer needs to schedule a mandatory safety orientation, and the campus athletic director and university librarian may want to give an orientation to their facilities. A meeting or series of meetings to define what information is crucial to students at what stage of their entry into the program and how that information is best delivered should include the language program personnel involved in orientation and testing, the university offices mentioned here, and students themselves, perhaps alumni or others who can provide a larger perspective on the issue.

CASE STUDY 2.1 FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WORLDS Both faculty and administrative staff work under their own conditions and pressures to help make the program as strong as possible and keep the students both satisfied and progressing in their learning. Because they usually have very different work requirements and backgrounds, they may misunderstand the

38

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD pressures of the other’s work. The administrative staff might see the faculty coming and going at what seem to them part-time hours and feel resentful; they don’t see the faculty grading papers at night or preparing for class early the next morning. The faculty might see the administrative staff taking sick days or leaving for doctors’ appointments during the work day; they don’t see the staff person staying late the next day or reporting to work during inter-term break weeks when the faculty members are not required to be on site. A particular time of tension is right before class. If the copy machine gets jammed a few minutes before class, the teacher may appear at the program assistant’s desk and demand help while the assistant is trying to complete a long email response to an applicant or an urgent task assigned by the program director. Situations such as this can lead to tension and miscommunication. It can be helpful to focus on good program communication on a regular basis, using role play scenarios of general situations that lead to miscommunication and brainstorming solutions to the issues. CQI committees with both faculty and staff members can help each group appreciate the other’s expertise. In addition, allprogram staff and faculty events to celebrate program successes can help everyone appreciate that they are part of a team.

In addition to regular review and sharing of information, mechanisms can be established for bringing new information into the program, such as when teachers or others attend conferences where information is given about best practices or new ideas. The program leader also needs to be in constant touch with the upper administration and with outside agencies to keep upto-date on the student body, on trends affecting instruction and international affairs, and on regulations and administrative information affecting the program, and to institute a mechanism for sharing the new information gained with others in the program on a regular basis. The degree of impact of faculty, administrative staff, and leadership on one another will vary depending on whether they are in regular contact with one another, such as working the same hours in the same building or in shared office space. In programs where faculty or staff have different hours, the challenge of the leadership will be to maintain sufficient contact—such as through email, co-observations of teaching, and all-program meetings— to avoid fragmentation. In close contact, faculty and/or administrative staff who work the same hours will have a chance to develop their own culture and to become an increasingly influential force within the organization. They can thus wield an increasing influence on the program director and the management of the organization. In the best case, faculty and administrative staff take a major role in running the organization and move into the leadership.

39

Language Program as Ecology

PROGRAM INTANGIBLES The language program has a concrete existence in its human, physical, and fiscal resources. It also has a symbolic existence in the program atmosphere, image, and reputation, and a conceptual existence in the areas of knowledge and expertise that it represents. The language program ecology impacts and is also impacted by the nature of all of the functions and framings of language teaching and their evolution over time. The values and practices that are emphasized in a language program affect and are affected by each of the other sets of values and practices that intersect its primary mission and vision.

Mission and Vision A language program ecology is a group of people and functions all operating within a specific context, with its unique conditions and constraints, to accomplish the program’s instructional and other aims. The program mission—the purpose of the program and the related vision of where it is headed and how it will get there—guides instruction and the direction of the program as it evolves. The mission and vision of a language program is the image of itself that it communicates to its members and projects to others. The program mission and vision provide the selfawareness and self-understanding of the organization: it is its sense of itself, its self-consciousness, which it communicates and fosters both internally and externally. To be truly unifying, the mission and vision must have the power to win people’s loyalty, their hearts and minds, to outcomes seen as mutually beneficial. The mission and vision should encompass a view of language, language learning, and language teaching, and a broad purpose and direction for the program within its institutional location and function. The mission and vision of each program can further be seen as encapsulating the different framings and their order of priority within a program in a way that gives direction for curricular goals and other program purposes, such as those involving student services and larger institutional purposes. Statements of mission and vision often refer to general goals for curriculum and other program processes and outcomes. The mission of the program is set by its institutional location and the people it seeks to serve. The vision is often associated with particular leadership and relates to the leader’s own professional goals and sense of

40

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

where the program is headed or should be headed. The program vision may not be written down but rather articulated by the program leader as a way to motivate the efforts and achievements of faculty, students, and administrative staff. It is often connected to program image and ‘‘brand’’ (see below). According to Bolman and Deal (2003): Vision turns an organization’s core ideology, or sense of purpose, into an image of what the future might become. It is a shared fantasy illuminating new possibilities within the realm of existing myths and values . . . . An abstract vision offers concrete imagery linking historical legend and core philosophical precepts to future events. A shared vision imbues an organization with spirit, resolve, and e´lan. (pp. 252–253)

Mission and vision are not always clearly distinguished nor do they necessarily have to be. The Mission Statement The intangible symbiosis that is the unity of the language program is in part engendered by the co-evolution of people in close contact over time, leading to an increasingly shared and unified vision and sense of purpose. There is however an added gyroscopic stabilizing and centering property provided in the program’s explicit statement of its mission. The mission statement is generally long-term and overarching, stating the philosophy, purpose, and goals of the program in relation to its vision and institutional position. Revision of a program’s mission statement is generally a major event taking place not more often than every 5–10 years. A strong mission statement is primary for unifying the program and guiding its evolution, as it contains a blueprint for the future, a rationale for making choices, and directions for change.

THE MISSION STATEMENT EXAMPLE 1 An example of the way the vision and scope work together can be seen in the mission statement of the CEA-accredited University of Delaware English Language Institute (ohttp://www.udel.edu/eli/about_mission.htmlW):

English Language Institute Mission Statement For Our Students Through an unwavering commitment to excellence and renewal, the ELI faculty and staff endeavor each day to enhance our reputation as a leader among intensive English programs. Our leadership is based on a clear understanding of our goals and the means to achieve them.

41

Language Program as Ecology As teachers, tutors, administrators and staff, we strive to: Meet or exceed our students’ expectations for developing their linguistic, academic, and professional skills. Contribute to international understanding by engaging students in meaningful inter-cultural exploration. Provide our students with the support and services they require to make the transition from their own countries to life in the United States. Meet the ordinary and extraordinary needs of our students, ensuring that their experience at ELI is productive and fulfilling. Recruit only the most talented and experienced English language specialists and staff and promote their continued professional growth. Assume personal responsibility for solving problems, value each other as highly as we do our clients, and support each other in our work. Manage our resources, attaining financial viability without compromising the outstanding value of an ELI education. Enrich the University of Delaware and the local community, fostering crosscultural communication and interaction. Adopted May 19, 1999

THE MISSION STATEMENT EXAMPLE 2 Another example of the interrelationship of vision and scope is seen in the mission statement of the CEA-accredited Center for English as a Second Language (CESL) of the University of Arizona (ohttp://www.cesl.arizona.edu/mission.htmlW):

Mission Statement The mission of the Center for English as a Second Language (CESL) at the University of Arizona is threefold: 1. To provide superior English language instruction to native speakers of other languages through a curriculum that provides a rich and productive learning environment to prepare students for academic and professional success at the University of Arizona as well as for other academic, professional, and social settings. 2. To serve the linguistic and professional development needs of the University of Arizona and the greater global community by participating in professional and local communities, supporting research in language learning, networking with ESL professionals, and mentoring teachers. 3. To encourage respect for cultural and linguistic diversity through sensitivity, professionalism, and collaboration both on and off campus in an effort to promote worldwide cultural understanding.

42

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

The business framing of education is surprisingly often obscured in mission statements. A search of mission statements among some of the major for-profit language programs in existence today resulted in no clear statement of the business framing of the program’s mission. The language program leader who reads the idealistic mission statements of for-profit language programs may find it difficult to develop a realistic appraisal of the program mission. Statements defining program scope as regards business and academic priorities within a larger mission statement are comparatively rare. The resource management statement of the University of Delaware (repeated below) is notable for its explicit acknowledgment of the reality of resource management in the language program: Manage our resources, attaining financial viability without compromising the outstanding value of an ELI education.

While mission statements are generally for public consumption and so may be included in program brochures, faculty and student orientation material, and other program literature, some language programs have developed a more detailed articulation of program goals or philosophy that is of particular relevance to faculty and others who work within the program. The Honduran program described by Miller and Crandall (2002), for example, has an extended program philosophy that was developed by the affiliated Honduran and U.S. teachers involved in the program. Among its principles are the following: 1. We believe that education should promote the growth of the individual. Consequently, we need to motivate our students toward responsibility, independence, and initiative . . . . 2. We believe that education thrives in a climate of discipline and care. Learning proceeds from love with attention to high standards. 3. We believe that teaching does not presume any single strategy, that a variety of teaching strategies should be used to meet the different learning styles of our students. (Miller & Crandall, 2002, p. 84)

The longer people work together in a language program, the more they are able to articulate the mission, vision, and goals of the program in relation to shared values and practices.

Curriculum The reason language programs exist is for education—i.e., teaching and learning—and thus instruction is the key focus. Within instruction,

Language Program as Ecology

43

curriculum is the heart of a language program that links its people—its students, faculty, and leadership—into a ‘‘community of communities’’ within an immediate context of physical resources and a wider context of the culture within which the language program exists. Curriculum is a crucial locus of information and processes that help to maintain the program ecology by encouraging interaction about the focal activity of the program, which is instruction. The instructional orientation of the program should flow from its mission and will determine its specific curricular focus and the competencies needed for faculty. The students that the program aims to recruit or those that the program needs to serve who are already in a particular context, for example, international students in a particular university, will in part determine the type of curriculum and instruction which will be appropriate and effective. In addition, the specific teachers hired will greatly impact the possibilities for instruction. Planning and implementing instructional goals and objectives will need to take into consideration the characteristics and values of students and faculty in the context of the larger program ecology. In planning for and carrying out instruction, the faculty and leadership are in a continuous dialogue with each other, with the students, and with those in the larger context supporting the program, such as others in the educational institution in which the program is housed as well as sponsors and members of outside agencies connected to students. Curriculum can therefore be seen as not only the structure and content of the instructional program, but as a central process tying together activities and components of the program under its vision and mission and helping to build good relationships among program people and other resources. As the center of program activity in instruction, curriculum is an important unifying force in the language program (see Chapter Seven). Curriculum provides a focus and unifying process of communication and common goals and purpose which are a feature of the program ecology as a whole.

Other Intellectual Property The intangible assets of the language program include other intellectual property developed in connection with the program that is not (solely) the property of its individual members, such as the program name and associated website(s), product names, trademarks, copyrights, licenses, and patents associated with original program materials and curriculum. These

44

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

may be the exclusive property of the language program itself or of the parent organization or institution; or they may be jointly held by the program, the parent organization or institution, and/or individual program members who were involved in the creation of program materials or other resources that come under trademark, copyright, or patent law. The language program leader may take an entrepreneurial or facilitative role in encouraging the development of textbooks, workbooks, other print materials, or non-print (e.g., video, audio, electronic) teaching-learning materials by program faculty. In addition, the leader may allocate some of the available resources to development of online courses or computerassisted language learning (CALL) packages to be used by students enrolled in the program and/or marketed externally for extra income and as a form of program promotion. The language program leader needs to be aware of the options for ownership of such products and their associated names, trademarks, copyrights, licenses, and patents, and for royalties and other sorts of income that can accrue from these, and should take legal advice about ensuring proper ownership and protection of intellectual property developed in connection with the program. Before materials or product development is undertaken, there should be a clear understanding and written agreement as to ownership of intellectual property, including the conditions under which faculty may claim exclusive rights to their own teaching materials, courseware, or other teaching resources. The program should have an explicit written policy regarding such matters that makes clear the requirement of ownership and revenue-sharing for all program members as a matter of their employment contract. Some of the intellectual property options to consider in motivating development of innovative materials and curriculum are: (a) paid full-time or part-time work focused on a development project (e.g., time off from teaching) in which the program will assume full ownership of the product; (b) revenue-sharing arrangements in which the program shares royalties or other revenues with the developer in return for allowing development of the product on program time (e.g., as part of a normal teaching load) and using program resources (e.g., computer access, printer, paper); (c) allowing individual ownership of materials produced in connection with program work. While the latter option may seem to work against the immediate financial interests of the program, it might work towards its long-term health in terms of attracting high-quality faculty and in terms of motivating innovation, commitment, and high performance of current faculty.

Language Program as Ecology

45

Relationships and Climate The human relationships established within a program are an important aspect of its ecological bonds and hence of what makes it an ecology and holds it together. Good human relationships create program unity and regular trading relationships among people and other aspects of program structure and functioning. Good human relationships among those within the language program, and between program members and others who interact with the program, help to create a positive image and reputation externally as well as high energy and high morale internally which in turn tend to engender positive results. Closely related to the human relationships within a program is the program climate, ‘‘the quality of the internal environment of an organization experienced by its members’’ (Walker, 2003, p. 64, emphasis in original). In a more extensive definition, organizational climate has been characterized as follows: A relatively enduring distinguishing characteristic of an organization which embodies members’ collective perceptions of their organization in terms of dimensions such as autonomy, trust, cohesiveness, support, recognition, innovation and fairness; results from member interaction; serves as a basis for interpreting the situation; reflects prevalent norms, values and attitudes of the organization’s culture; influences and shapes behavior. (Moran & Volkwein, 1992, p. 20)

Climate involves the concern reflected by the program for its people as well as for those who interact with it, such as potential students, sponsors, and outside administrators in the larger organization to which the program belongs. As a psychological construct, climate can be influenced by specific people, by physical facilities, by the ‘‘halo effect,’’ and other factors which influence people’s feelings and perceptions. Where the tangible aspects of education are poor, this is often related as either cause or effect to poor intangibles as well. Poor physical conditions such as crowded classrooms can produce poor psychological conditions and low morale and motivation. The resulting poor program atmosphere or climate in turn can lead to poor teaching behaviors such as teaching with insufficient attention to learning goals and student needs, textbook-centered teaching, or cutting corners to save time and energy. The management styles of an organization’s leaders, and both the content and style of the communication of those leaders and other influential individuals, have a strong influence on the organization’s climate. The

46

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

program director’s practices have a strong effect on climate and an immediate effect on all of the other program people—faculty, staff, and students. The climate of an organization is created by the influence of:  The leadership (program director and other leaders) on other administrative staff and on faculty, students, and all of the others who interact with the people and functions of the program;  The leadership, other administrative staff, and the faculty on each other and on students and others interacting with the program;  The faculty and administrative staff on the leadership;  The students and others with a connection to the program on faculty, leadership, and administrative staff. Since the leader of an organization is closely connected to its mission and vision, and to their implementation in running the organization, the person at the head of the organization will have the most effect on its climate. The faculty will also have a strong effect as they are the ones implementing program curriculum, and they spend considerable time interacting with the students. The students will also affect the program climate, through their interactions with and feedback to faculty, administrative staff, and leadership, since the aims of the program will be closely attuned to providing for their needs. Walker’s (2003) research suggests that a positive climate as set by the faculty and staff of a language program tends to create a similarly positive perception of the program on the part of the students and ultimately all those who interact with a program. Given that the program members both affect and are affected by it, program climate can be seen as developed and maintained in the reciprocal interactions and coreferenced perceptions of all program members. Climate can be seen as an ‘‘additive’’ or ‘‘subtractive’’ factor affecting the language program ecology. A positive climate boosts motivation and so tends to have a positive, ‘‘additive,’’ effect on work process, quality, and quantity. A negative climate is demotivating and so tends to have a negative, ‘‘subtractive,’’ effect on work process, quality, and quantity. Climate is thus an important factor predicting the way a program functions and the things it achieves. It should therefore be a main focus of the program leader’s work. Given the centrality of good human relationships and unity to the smoothly functioning ecology, and the value of high levels of motivation, energy, and commitment in maintaining these and ensuring good program outputs, the climate of the program should not be seen as an optional consideration in program management but rather as a central concern of the program leadership. Thus, the program leader needs to devote considerable

Language Program as Ecology

47

time, energy, and resources to planning and managing program climate. Just as climate is reciprocally maintained in the interactions and perceptions of all program members, so is climate connected to program unity (see Chapters Seven and Eight) as both cause and effect. The elements of a good climate include confidence in the leadership and other staff and faculty, an orderly and secure environment, opportunities for development, and an openness to innovation that breeds future orientation and potential. Although Walker (2003) defines climate on the internal environment, it could also apply to aspects of the external context, which might be favorable or unfavorable to the business or goals of the language program. From this perspective, a negative climate may be engendered by external circumstances which, although outside the control of the program, must nevertheless be managed to minimize negative effects on its internal ecology and its relationship with the external ecology. In the context of negative circumstances, the program leader’s attention can be trained on seeking the opportunities that exist within difficult situations.

Reputation and Image Reputation is a crucial intangible asset of any language program. A language program grows in stature through continuously building its reputation and prestige through the nature and achievements of its students, faculty, and leadership, which will in turn continue to attract favorable attention to the program and so also continue to attract high-quality students, faculty, leaders, and other supporters. Reputation is supported in academic institutions by research, publication, and grants, and by attracting outstanding faculty and students whose achievements are known to the public. In a language program, it is also gained by delivering on promises to help learners acquire a second or foreign language in the minimum amount of time, achieve high scores on tests such as the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), university admissions and placement tests, and other high-stakes language tests; and achieve their other desired aims linked to language study. The research, knowledge-generating arm of applied linguistics and language teaching and learning is often based not in the language program but in other academic units such as schools of education, linguistics, and language departments. Hence, a language program is often recognized as an instructional site but not as a site of an academic discipline. At best, many language programs are a small part of a larger academic department. As

48

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

such, they may have to build their reputation to a large extent on grounds other than academic research and publication. Still, to the extent that the program’s leadership, faculty, and students distinguish themselves in academic pursuits, this will enhance the program’s reputation. Thus, the program leader benefits the program by supporting reputation-building academic pursuits on the part of its people. The image of a program intersects its reputation and its other features, including its tangible and intangible assets, in creating a certain impression on those who work in it and those outside the program who come to know of it. It is a composite mental picture—a concept or view of the program—as well as feelings about the program, comprising the associations that people link with it. The program’s image can be seen as its original and unique brand, gained by its combination of characteristics. Just as a positive internal climate projects to the outside world, so does a positive internal image project to the outside world as an attractive and attracting brand. However, the development of the program image or brand requires vision and nurturing. The program leadership is responsible for ensuring a positive reputation and image of the program, especially to the outside world. The leadership helps to create its reputation and image, and supports others within the program in its creation and maintenance. Image and reputation can be developed and enhanced by emphasizing the program’s ongoing activities and the quality of staff, faculty, and physical and other resources, as well as its unique assets and qualities, or brand. Reputation can also be increased by association, so that working to join highly regarded membership groups can increase reputation and the value of the program name (hence its brand). Moreover, the ability to stay in organizational groups such as accrediting bodies through periodic review is a form of evaluation of the qualities upon which reputation rests. The leadership is also responsible for protecting the program’s reputation and image, when threatened or not, in good times and bad. Therefore, the integrity of the program director and other leaders in decision-making, relations with staff, financial activities, and support of quality instruction for students must always be above reproach. Program leaders must hold themselves accountable to the strictest ethical standard of behavior. Opportunities for temptation abound: to allow visiting international friends to ‘‘sit in on’’ a class for weeks; to authorize a refund because it covers up an administrative mistake; to shelter a well-connected student from the program course-drop policy despite violation equal to other students who suffered the consequences; to charge a trip for personal reasons to the program budget because it included a small marketing activity. A language

49

Language Program as Ecology

program director may have considerable freedom to make decisions on a wide variety of issues that those charged with oversight will not necessarily know anything about. The need for the highest standards of behavior is even greater in entrepreneurial settings where directors are given a high degree of latitude in their decision-making without systematic processes of oversight.

Innovation Potential All of the program resources together make up the ecological context within which innovation is possible. Each program’s resources and their functioning and interrelationships are unique, and their characteristics as individual people or components and as interacting parts of the ecology are the basis of the innovation potential of the program, that is, its ability to progressively develop and improve itself in response to circumstances. This innovation potential is in large part the program’s evolution potential, that is, its ability to continually develop its resources and its capacity to survive and thrive in a changing world. As in other circumstances of survival of the fittest, the quality of resources, their diversity as well as their synergy and unity of functioning, and their adaptability under novel conditions, are key to successful evolution. The program resources as a whole and its individual resource components will generally have an untapped portion that, given time, opportunity, vision, and support could be developed. This untapped portion may be excess capacity (e.g., unused spaces or materials, or a teacher or staff member working below her/his level of competence and ambition), unconnected or minimally connected resources (e.g., teachers working alone who could be working together on curriculum development), or resources that could function differently and more optimally (e.g., teachers who could function more effectively at a different level or in a different subject area of the curriculum). Untapped resources are part of the program’s innovation potential, providing a foundation or locus for further development. They are only a part of this potential, however, which also requires time, opportunity, vision, and support to be fully realized. Over time capacities and possibilities of the language program ecology that could not have been envisioned or realized may emerge and develop gradually, or given a certain opportunity, may do so spontaneously. For example, teachers who work in the same program for a period of time can develop mutual support and synergy that creates considerable potential for program growth and innovation. As another example, a small,

50

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

well-functioning program may rapidly realize its potential for expansion given an opportunity to tap into a new student market. However, for such program capacities and possibilities to be fully realized and to work in the best interests of the language program ecology, they will generally need to be developed under a vision of their potential within the program’s future. They will also generally need the guiding hand of the program leader to muster resources to support and nurture them to fulfill their part in that vision. Thus, a main part of the leader’s job is to identify potentials for innovation and to guide innovations through the language program ecology. It is a critical part of the program leader’s job to spot untapped potentials and to help realize them fully by providing time, opportunities, support, and direction through a guiding hand and motivating vision. It is a further critical part of the leader’s job to be always on the lookout for ways to connect different facets of the program and its resources in innovative ways that will optimize functioning of individual components and their interrelationships. In so doing, the program leader is constantly envisioning the future of the program and working to actualize potentials. Thus, it might be said that a program leader’s vision is not unifocal nor entirely set but rather multifocal and malleable, and that the leader is continually visioning the program as a main activity of program management and development. This activity is closely tied to continuous monitoring of the program and its context and to management of change.

CULTURE The Range of Cultural Influences on a Language Program The culture of the language program is based not only on the national culture in which it is situated, but also on many other cultural factors. The cultural context of a language program is generally complex, comprising a large number of influences. These include the different frames of origin and ongoing development of the field of language teaching, as well as the culture of the larger institution, which may be more or less bureaucratic or entrepreneurial, and that of the department or other institutional unit to which the language program belongs, which may be more or less oriented to service, business, or academic achievement. In addition, the specific people in the organization and their own cultural backgrounds and traits make a big difference in its culture and shape it to a greater or lesser extent. It is therefore crucial for language program leaders to have high awareness of the

Language Program as Ecology

51

different cultural factors that can impact the program and to take these into consideration in both planning and enacting of leadership functions. A cultural issue that impacts all language programs is the program calendar. The issues surrounding the program calendar are considered in the case study below.

CASE STUDY 2.2 THE PROGRAM CALENDAR Wherever the program is situated, the calendar of program activities will be set in accordance with the larger institution and will not accommodate the religious traditions of all faculty and staff. If the program leader is fortunate, the human resources department of the institution will have helpful institutional policy to guide the program policy on issues of personal and religious days. The intensity of language courses and the frequency and quantity of language course hours are not usually accounted for in most HR policy, however, which may simply state that classes can be rescheduled to accommodate a faculty member’s religious holiday schedule or that observant students should not be penalized for non-attendance. In North and South America, the national and educational calendars are set to accommodate the Christian religion. No university in the United States holds classes on Christmas, for example, and to think of doing so would cause disruption to the faculty and staff. And yet the major Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur may fall on regular working days. When these holidays fall on important days in the program work schedule such as the start of classes and when a number of program staff will be out during these days, the burden of accommodating workload will fall on the program director and other staff. In addition, students celebrating major holidays such as Eid-al-Fitr may expect to have extended ‘‘excused’’ time off for their holidays, too. Planning for these calendar issues is important. It is important to recognize that in addressing these issues there are conflicting values in play such as the need to offer all class hours as advertised and the need to treat all faculty and students equitably. What must be taken into consideration is that the ‘‘special’’ needs of the minority are simply more visible because the institutional calendar supports the needs of the historical cultural majority.

As countries and universities increasingly diversify their populations, cultural issues will increasingly have an impact in all aspects of planning and running any type of educational program. The component of culture that permeates a language program can be viewed in a number of ways. From one perspective, it is a set of contexts, from the most local to the most global, such as might be represented by a set of concentric circles. At each of these ‘‘levels’’ of influence, social, cultural,

52

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

political, and economic forces operate to impact the language program ecology in terms of its nature and viability. Another way of conceptualizing the culture impacting a language program is in terms of the bodies or entities that influence it. Such influences might include: a private foundation or institution as embodied in the views of owners, trustees, or sponsors; a religious institution; a state-run educational system; other national or regional institutions and bodies with their associated traditions and values; global institutions tied to a particular country and culture, such as the British Council; or the academic culture of a particular institution. Each of the bodies or entities with which a language program interacts will have an impact on its culture. Henry (1997, p. 77) notes a number of features of the culture of English language programs at university level that are typical of the entire field of teaching English as a second or foreign language. Drawing on and adding to Henry’s points, we describe the culture of English language teaching as humanistic and pragmatic: Humanistic Focus on relationships; Focus on satisfaction of needs; Nurturing to students and colleagues; Idealistic, even altruistic, view of people; Facilitative and supportive, not directive, to students and staff; Cooperative and interactive in decision-making and power-sharing. Pragmatic Bottom-line view of program operation; Highly achievement-oriented instruction; Willingness to change as needed to satisfy customer and market demands and remain viable. In addition to these features, English language programs are unusual in the degree of globalization, as they bring in students and influences from around the world and are highly interactive with global flows and trends. Both of these global features of language programs have strong effects on their culture, making them highly responsive to the outside world. Drawing on these different perspectives, in the context of our notions of the language program ecology, we define the culture of a language program as: (a) the specific configuration of characteristics and framings that have evolved based on its mission, history, and resources;

53

Language Program as Ecology

(b) as set in a specific external culture made up of a specific configuration of global flows or scapes (Appadurai, 1996); (c) and connected to various individuals, groups, countries, and the interconnections among their ideas, ideologies, languages, and norms. Some types of cultural influence may be particularly dominant with respect to a language program, and different aspects of the external cultural context of a language program may support it or not, either ‘‘feeding’’ and nurturing it or ‘‘bleeding’’ and limiting its resources. For example, the culture of a language school or university may be in harmony or in conflict with that of the residents of the neighborhood where it is located. As another example, institution-level or program-level culture may be in harmony or in conflict with an educational culture at a national or local level. Political forces at the national or local level may nurture or challenge the culture of the program or the institution in which it is housed, and may support or limit human and/or physical resources. According to the concept of a language program as an ecology, a language program must be compatible with its cultural context. When its cultural context is not compatible, the language program survives and thrives by absorbing the influence of the dominant culture into its ecology and/or by influencing the surrounding culture within which it exists by projecting its own internally generated culture outwards into the larger context. While social ecologies, like other kinds of ecology, need diversity, cultural clashes can upset their ecological balance. People, mission, curriculum, and other resources that are all based on compatible cultural assumptions will be in balance.

Educational Culture Students, teachers, and program leaders are initiated into particular cultures, discourses, or discourse communities as part of their upbringing and their larger education through such forms of culture learning as schooling, travel, and work experiences. These cultures or social discourses learned through acculturation and apprenticeship in the community as well as through (formal) education are an important aspect of the context in which a language program operates. The students, faculty, and leadership in a particular language program will have cultural backgrounds which will strongly influence their views of appropriate and effective instruction. Where these views differ, as between individual teachers and student groups,

54

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

or between the faculty and the leadership, mutual learning and adjustment will be needed. A basic distinction can be drawn between two types of cultures or framings of education, termed ‘‘transmissional’’ versus ‘‘interpretational,’’ as summarized below.

CONTRASTING EDUCATIONAL CULTURES (Adapted from Pennington, 1996b, p. 339) Transmissional Learning is the accumulation of a knowledge store acquired in a process of simple transfer of information from a source to a receiver. The focus in learning is on: (a) the content of information (its type, quantity, and clarity), i.e., the input made available to the learner; (b) the source of information (its credibility and reliability); and (c) the channel through which information is transmitted (its directness and practicality). Interpretational Learning is the personalization of information acquired by interacting with input, processing it, and reprocessing it to form new understandings related to individual characteristics and needs. The focus in learning is on: (a) the learner, or receiver of information (her/his characteristics and needs); (b) the learner’s uptake of information, i.e., the processes by which the individual acquires input and transforms it to her/his purposes; and (c) the purposes to which the transformed input is put, i.e., as learner output. From a transmissional perspective, gaining knowledge means accumulating a store of information from authoritative sources such as teachers and books. From an interpretational perspective, gaining knowledge means interacting with new information and customizing it to one’s own individual characteristics and purposes. The aim of transmissional education is that the input to the learner be faithfully reproduced, unchanged, in learner output; and when it is not, the learner’s output is considered to be in error. In sharp contrast, in interpretational education, input is expected to be transformed

Language Program as Ecology

55

by each learner into new forms of output; the non-reproduction of input is considered not an error or problem but a desirable and normal process of learning. Because in a transmissional view, the goal of learning is a body of formal knowledge that is the same for all learners, while in an interpretational view, it is a personalized interpretation of information that will be different for each learner, there will be a much greater expectation of creativity in the latter type of educational orientation than the former. In consequence, in an interpretational educational culture, non-original work will receive lesser marks or will be penalized, whereas in a transmissional educational culture, faithful reproduction will receive high marks and will be praised for its accuracy. An interpretational educational culture underpins communicative language teaching and process-oriented instruction in focusing on negotiation and personalization of the content, the process, and the purposes of instruction. Such an interactional educational culture stands in sharp contrast to the essentially transactional teaching culture that focuses on content and examinations. Whereas in an interpretational teaching culture, the syllabus and individual lessons respond to students’ characteristics and needs as well as to the moment by moment and day-to-day exigencies of the classroom context, in the traditional transmissional teaching culture, the syllabus is highly centralized and lessons are conducted according to a predetermined shape with little room for modification to accommodate individual needs or variable circumstances. The dichotomy of transmission- and interpretation-based teaching represents an important difference in teaching cultures at the level of different schools, neighborhood or ethnic groups, school districts, regions or states within a nation, and nations themselves. Thus, for example, Asian countries have a strong transmissional tradition with only limited recent contact with interpretational educational culture (Hu, 2005; Pennington, 1995a, 1995b, 1996b), whereas Western countries generally show a mixed tradition, with allowance for both types but with one or the other orientation predominating in different educational contexts according to social, political, and historical circumstances existing in different periods. The mixed tradition is often realized as periodic ‘‘pendulum swings’’ towards and away from the two poles of transmissional and interpretational values and educational structure. Because of its history, the teaching of English as a second or foreign language which originated in Britain and the United States has a strong

56

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

interpretational heritage shared with English composition and some other teaching fields. This heritage promotes an interactive, process focus along with long-term goals for and individualization of learning which run counter to the transmissional orientation of education in many countries—and indeed, increasingly in the United Kingdom and the United States—focused on top-down teaching and standardized, short-term learning goals. It is therefore likely that both students and teachers will face cultural issues and challenges in the English language classroom. If one group within the language program is based on a different cultural context than another—as when teachers brought up with interpretational educational values and trained in interpretational methods such as process writing or communicative language teaching are required to teach English in a transmissional educational culture—this represents a destabilizing influence on the language program ecology. The lesser change is for the new influence—the teachers, if they are imported into an already existing transmissional educational culture, or the curriculum, if it is imported into an already existing interpretational culture—to adjust to the pre-existing system. A much more major change is for the existing culture to have to adjust to the new influence, that is, to change away from its cultural base. Such change is difficult, time-consuming, and risky, and so will often be avoided or, if tried, may not succeed.

Curriculum, Context, and Culture Curriculum, context, and culture are all interlinked aspects of language teaching. In a study of curricular change involving ESL teachers in a U.S. elementary school, for example, Sharkey (2004) found that ‘‘[a]ll curriculum concerns, project possibilities, and decisions were mediated through the teachers’ knowledge of context’’ (p. 288), including the classroom context, the ESL program within the school, and the larger school community; the district guidelines for ESL; the school district, the city, the state, the federal and national levels of education; and the national/international professional organization. If the context and culture of the language program are very different from that of the originating practices, these differences constrain the possibilities for curriculum and instruction to a greater or lesser degree. To take one example, the educational cultures of China differ from one region to another and also with the educational cultures of the West. Hu (2005) describes two broad categories of ecological factors that account for

Language Program as Ecology

57

differences in the practice of English language teaching in Chinese secondary schools: Type of curriculum, physical facilities and equipment, the available teaching force; Sociocultural influences Access to English language materials and media, need for English language in businesses and professions, and the Chinese culture of education. Resources

In the contexts described by Hu (2005), the type and availability of resources are a strong predictor of teaching approach. For example: The availability of modern educational hardware encourages new conceptions of education and facilitates new teacher-student relationships as well as new instructional practices. On the other hand, schools in the disadvantaged areas tend to be inadequately equipped, . . . [have] dangerously dilapidated school buildings . . . ,[and] as many as 60 students . . . crowded into one classroom . . . . The general lack of adequate teaching facilities compels many teachers to take a textbook-dependent, teacher-centered, and transmission-oriented approach . . . . (Hu, 2005, pp. 650–651)

Differing sociocultural influences are also a strong predictor of teaching approach. For example: [I]n the traditional Chinese culture of learning, education is conceived more as a process of knowledge accumulation than as a process of using knowledge for immediate purposes, and the preferred model of teaching is a mimetic or epistemic one that emphasizes knowledge transmission . . . . [T]he traditional Chinese culture of learning favors teacher-learner roles, learner qualities, classroom etiquettes, and learning strategies that often conflict with those required by a learner-centered teaching methodology such as CLT [Communicative Language Teaching] but are highly compatible with teacher-centered methodologies such as GT [Grammar-Translation] and ALM Audio-lingual Method] . . . . As a result of the increasing openness of the coastal and urban areas to the outside world, people there have been exposed to foreign sociocultural influences via movies, music, literature, television, radio, the internet, overseas travel, and contact with foreign tourists and expatriates living in China. Consequently, they are more amenable to such influences and less influenced by the traditional Chinese culture of learning. On the other hand, no substantive exposure to sociocultural influences from abroad has occurred in the less developed, isolated areas, where the traditional Chinese culture of learning still prevails and influences instructional practices pervasively. (Hu, 2005, p. 653)

Given the substantial influence of cultural and other contextual factors, Hu (2005) advocates ‘‘[a]n ecological perspective on ELT [English language teaching][that] recognizes the multifaceted interaction between the language classroom and the particular political, economic, social, cultural, historical,

58

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

educational, and institution context in which it is situated’’ (p. 654). We agree with this point and further note that Hu’s observations of the Chinese context underscore the ecological nature of language programs as interacting within their own local contexts, which are in turn interactive to a greater or lesser extent with the global context of English language teaching as business, profession, and academic discipline.

MUTUALLY INTERACTIVE COMPONENTS All of the people in the language program form a mutually interactive educational ecology. This ecology is affected, and in turn affects, the larger human ecology in which the program is situated, including the larger educational structure of the school and the discipline as well as the other embedding contexts of the community, the larger society, and the global environment. At every level of the ecology to which faculty and students in an individual language program belong, there are also non-human ecological factors in the way of tangible, physical resources and intangible factors which have an impact on the functioning of resources and are themselves impacted by their nature and interaction. Thus, a language program forms a complex internal ecology that links to a complex external ecology with which it interacts in trading relations that go both ways.

LEADERSHIP IN THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM ECOLOGY The Importance of Mission The mission is key in any language program because it provides a focus for the program and guides its evolution. In accreditation by CEA (The Commission on English Language Program Accreditation), the first standard requires formulation and regular review of the program mission statement because all other aspects of the program are evaluated in relation to this. All programs should go through the process of mission development and regular review, even if they are not doing this for accreditation, as it is during this process that program members will determine the core values and activities of the program. It is the role of leadership to facilitate the

Language Program as Ecology

59

process in which values are identified and articulated for the program’s mission statement. This process may be lengthy and difficult, but the program leadership must persist in reaching for a consensus and an articulation of values that can remind, reassure, and motivate the program members when they have lost their way due to disorienting events or an endless array of opportunities.

The Importance of Interaction Among Components As in Likert’s (1967) conception of an organic organization and its adaptation to the language program by Davidson and Tesh (1997, pp. 179–182), in the language program ecology, information flow and communication are both vertical and lateral, decision-making is shared, a range of participatory methods are used, control is dispersed, teamwork and collegial interaction are substantial, and there is a commitment to professional development. From an ecological perspective, good functioning of a social ecology is dependent upon interaction among the diverse components of the program. This requires opportunities for staff, faculty, and students to exchange information and ideas among themselves beyond the traditional staff meeting format in which information is usually given from the leadership to the faculty with limited discussion. Opportunities are needed for extended discussion of ideas, sharing of perspectives, and resolution of issues. These can include various meeting formats and purposes, such as staff retreats, student leadership forums, panels, coffee hours, and exchanges. The role of the language program leader in such forums is not as the one who knows best about what the program should do, but as one who can help guide discussion and who knows the parameters of what may be institutionally possible. The language program leader can set challenging questions, encourage debate and discussion, problem-pose, create synthesis, listen for underlying issues, clarify areas of agreement and disagreement, and draw implications. Not only the voices of faculty and staff, but also the voices of students should have a forum in an ecological model, as they are an important part of program vitality and have perspectives that should be considered.

The Importance of Learning the Particular, Situated Program Setting In this model, each language program is understood as situated and particular in its mission, culture, practices, resources, and linkages to

60

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

context. It is important for the language program leadership to have an intimate knowledge of the program ecology in all of its components and culture and to keep these up-to-date as new people come into the program and as changes and innovations work their way through the ecology and change it over time. It is also essential for newcomers to have opportunities to learn the program culture. This can be accomplished through orientation, observation, mentoring, and a variety of meeting formats. Because the program is constantly evolving, both experienced and new faculty and administrative staff need ongoing opportunities to learn about program features, about each other, and about the students and their needs.

The Importance of Ongoing Review In an ecological model, interaction and change are two constants. Continual interaction means that the program leader helps to keep the parts of the program connected and harmonious, avoiding isolation and disarticulation. As regards the other constant, contextual change implies program change. Effective leadership of the language program acknowledges the constantly changing nature of the program through ongoing data-gathering, evaluation, innovation, adjustment, planning, and goal-setting based on:  Ongoing monitoring of internal and external contexts;  Ongoing monitoring of program systems, operations, and tasks for disjunctions, negative relationships, and excessive compartmentalization;  Ongoing assessment of how change in the external context affects various program components;  Ongoing assessment of how change in one program component affects other components. Monitoring of the program and its context can be done through regular observation of program operation as well as through annual reports on resources and activities in relation to criteria of evaluation. Part of the monitoring process is deciding what questions are most useful to ask and what kind of data are most useful to collect for decision-making purposes. Strategic planning events can be valuable times to discuss trends and new developments in light of their meaning for the language program. (See Chapter Eight for further discussion.)

Language Program as Ecology

61

The Importance of Leading To lead an organization it is not sufficient to manage responsively. An organization is not simply an organism impacted by its environment and responding to change: The organization is not really just an adaptive unit, at the mercy of its environment. It can in reality shape the environment by collaborating with communities or with other organizations, or by initiating a new product or service that may change the environment in a significant way. (Cameron & Green, 2004, p. 91)

Under the organization-as-organism metaphor, the role of the leader in organizational change is the coach or counselor, playing a supportive role and ‘‘holding up the mirror’’ for others (Cameron & Green, 2004, p. 123). In a related metaphor, that of constant flux and transformation, change is not governable—it emerges. However, leaders are not outside the system effecting change but part of the system. In this metaphor, the leader needs to be the facilitator of change, ‘‘enabling connectivity’’ and ‘‘amplifying issues’’ (Cameron & Green, 2004, p. 123). A leader is still more than a facilitator of change. A leader is also an innovator who inspires innovative behavior in others. In addition, leaders need to have awareness of the periphery: ‘‘of what is going on at the edges’’ (Cameron & Green, 2004, p. 267) and to build in time for reflection about what they are learning from their ‘‘peripheral vision’’: The notion of peripheral vision is a key one to keep in mind. Leaders need to wake up to what is going on around them. This means noticing more than the obvious, the loud or the directly visible. It means having an awareness of what is going on at the edges, and being observant about motion and change. Whichever assumptions a leader employs about the nature of change . . . there is a need to be extremely observant about what is going on in and around the organization. (Cameron & Green, 2004, p. 267)

This ‘‘peripheral vision’’ and perspective ‘‘at the edges’’ makes it possible for a language program director to be, not merely a good manager, but a visionary and a cutting-edge leader always on the lookout for opportunities for innovation that will guide the organization forward, in the direction of the future.

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER TWO Any effort at language program development, whether starting a program from scratch or developing an already existing program, requires a

62

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

comprehensive and unified view of the entire program ecology and how the conditions in each component affect and are affected by every other component (Pennington, 1984a, 1984b). Moreover, as an ecology a language program must be adaptable to and interactive with changing conditions throughout the entire interacting system of operations and decisions. Language programs, in order to remain viable and effective, must therefore be able to accommodate as well as to initiate change (Hoekje & Pennington, 2007). The language program is as much a vision of what it should be or might be as what it is. Therefore, the design and management of language programs should be in terms of a vision of where the program is headed, what its potential is, and in terms of stages, projections, and strategies for achieving that potential. These features can be captured in a written mission statement that outlines the program’s philosophy and operating principles. Priorities for realizing the program’s potential should be based upon a consideration of how characteristics of one component will affect the other program components, with the ultimate goal of optimizing the functioning of all components; satisfying the needs of the students, the faculty, and the other individuals involved in the program; and realizing to an ever greater extent the potential of the program’s people, and physical resources, while concurrently building up the program’s intangible assets.

CHAPTER THREE SITUATING THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM The many aspects of language program leadership are considered in relation to how the program is situated. Situation is defined, first, in the larger institutional context and in terms of organizational structure and mission. It is then examined in relation to the leadership roles of politics and advocacy and to administrative matters of staffing and fiscal and data management.

THE DUAL NATURE OF LANGUAGE PROGRAMS A language program has a dual nature as both an academic and a business enterprise. Its academic nature spans instruction, academic discipline, profession, and service frames, and is embodied in its position and functions within the institution. Wherever positioned, the language program, by its nature, requires certain roles to be performed by the program leader. These involve various types of advocacy as well as politics within and beyond the institution. The business aspect of the language program is embodied in its program structure and operation, its staffing, and its management of data and finances.

INSTITUTIONAL POSITION The institutional position of the language program is a main determinant of its ecological niche and so of the relations and interactions of the whole ecology. English and other modern language programs may be situated in traditional academic departments within Arts and Sciences such as Linguistics, English, or Modern Languages, or within TESL education programs in Education; they may be in Continuing Education or Extension units; or they may be in Student Services along with other programs and services for international students. Finally, they may be in International 63

64

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Programs or in independent centers for International Education with other programs such as Study Abroad, with a direct reporting line to an upperlevel administrator. These different affiliations and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed below. A particular feature of English language programs, as Pennington (1992d) points out, is that wherever they are situated in the university structure, they are unusual in that they play a pan-institutional role in their functions and have financial and recruitment features that serve the institution at large: There is a decided difficulty in . . . pinpointing [the] exact structural location [of the English language program] vis-a`-vis other academic and administrative units. Its conceptual location—where it fits in terms of mission and function—is in fact paninstitutional, serving the goal of [internationalizing] the curriculum and servicing students (and sometimes faculty) at all levels and in all departments to bring their English up to the level required for academic and other kinds of work. In some places, English language programs are also of particular interest to the institution at large in that they are potentially big money-makers, operating on a fee-for-service basis rather than being [subsidized] by tax revenues or other sources of external funding. They may also be seen as a ‘carrot’ in attracting or [funneling] overseas talent, enrolments and revenues to other academic departments. They are, thus, of special importance in a period of institutional expansion or in a highly competitive educational market where everyone is competing for the same students. (pp. 7–8)

In addition to its global links, the language program ecology may have connections all around its local environment. Yet these connections may be undernourished and underutilized. As Henry (1997) comments: Language programs in general, and intensive English programs (IEPs) in particular, are often both a part of and apart from the educational contexts in which they operate . . . . Even though an IEP exists within the culture of the university at large, the IEP culture contrasts sharply with the institution of higher education, and as a university entity it is often misunderstood. (p. 77)

While potentially maintaining a valuable degree of separation and independence, the English language program must articulate with the institutional context. Dantas-Whitney and Dimmitt (2002) observe that university intensive English programs (IEPs) ‘‘struggle with differing administrative configurations that produce partnerships with a variety of academic units’’ (p. 5). These arrangements may disadvantage the language program: The norm for IEPs is that courses be noncredit and not count toward graduation requirements. IEP teachers do not typically hold the same contractual status as other faculty, and IEP students often do not receive the same institutional support and

Situating the Language Program

65

assistance as local students. All of these factors contribute to the perception of IEPs as marginalized. (Dantas-Whitney & Dimmitt, 2002, p. 5)

English language programs have been part of university structures now for decades, and in some cases, have been able to advocate for increased status within the institutions where they are housed, through grant activity, by establishing highly lucrative and advantageous external partnerships, or by linkage with an academic department—as a site for research and/or teaching practice, for instance. In a small number of cases, English language programs have been fully incorporated within academic departments, with the director and some faculty holding permanent, tenured status and teaching in degree programs such as an MATEFL course. Language programs with other types of affiliations may or may not face the same sorts of challenges as university IEPs, depending on such factors as their mission and funding status. Continuing Education English language programs are often positioned in the university within continuing education units offering non-credit or certificate courses to nontraditional students, with the goals of providing a steady stream of tuition revenue, feeding students into traditional matriculation programs, and providing outreach and service to the local community and businesses. This ecological niche has the advantage of an infrastructure which is relatively independent of the larger institution in terms of designing, recruiting for, and managing revenue-generating programs. It thus allows for considerable innovation, entrepreneurship, and nimbleness in responding to opportunities and market forces. Language programs can flourish in this niche by offering credit within the continuing education unit and by packaging their language courses with other courses of study such as short-term certificate programs that build technical skills in a specific industry, such as construction management or food safety, which may be quite attractive to international students. Disadvantages to this organizational location may be a primarily domestic agenda and a limited view of the international context on the part of the parent unit. Thus, expertise in recruiting may be aimed primarily at the local market, with a focus on distance education as a major component in degree completion and other certificate programs—a focus which is not appropriate for international students in the United States on language study visas because distance courses do not fulfill student visa

66

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

requirements. This type of focus undervalues and underutilizes the language program’s ecological positioning as a global education provider. To remedy this situation, the leader of a language program based in a continuing education unit might consider aiming distance education courses at students or institutions overseas. English language programs are well-positioned ecologically to take advantage of this possibility and to build it as a new ecological context or niche. We believe that there is great potential for distance education aimed at an overseas market, as discussed in the final chapter of this book. Another disadvantage of a positioning of a language program within continuing education is that the proportion of income which must be returned to the parent unit is often quite high, leaving limited revenues for building, maintaining, and growing a quality program. Some parts of the language program’s internal ecology may consequently suffer. The high revenue expectations for the language program can drive the enrollment agenda to the detriment of academic quality, as can restrictions on program structure and positions. Faculty who teach for continuing education are often hired on a course-by-course basis and do not receive benefits. Yet language programs, since they are ongoing, will want to hire faculty on longer-term contracts which include benefits like those of other faculty. The best resources need—and deserve—the most nurturing conditions to thrive and to fully actualize their potential. Continuing education units also normally provide little in the way of student services beyond academic advising since their students are generally locally based adults who take courses part-time and do not have sufficient time or need to take advantage of other types of student services. Another population of students who may be registered through continuing education, distance education students, also do not use campus-based student services. The minimal attention to student services within continuing education units will not suffice for international students, who need considerable access to many different kinds of information and support on an ongoing basis (see Chapter Four). This is one of several ways in which continuing education is not a fully compatible environment for the English language program. It may be that English language programs, though traditionally thought of as university outreach and thus as appropriately housed in continuing education, have outgrown the specific niche reserved for continuing education activities in some institutions— though in other institutions, the English language program has helped continuing education divisions to expand their niche to an increasingly international agenda.

Situating the Language Program

67

Other issues such as limits on class size can put the language program and its ecological needs at odds with the overall structure of continuing education courses. Thus, the language program leadership working within a continuing education structure will have to continually advocate for the necessary share of the revenues and for proper conditions in the way of contracts, services, space, and program structure in order to satisfy the students, the faculty, and the program sponsors and to keep the program competitive. While the program has to make adjustments to fit within a continuing education niche, an effective leader can facilitate reciprocal adjustments on the part of the continuing education unit not simply to better accommodate the language program, but to ensure its prosperity and beneficial effects on the health of the parent unit. If the language program leader can globalize the agenda of the continuing education unit or advocate for a different positioning of the language program, such a broadening or shift of the unit’s orientation can be to the benefit of all.

CASE STUDY 3.1 A LESSON IN THE ACADEMIC PLACE OF A LANGUAGE PROGRAM IN A CONTINUING EDUCATION DIVISION An English language program started in 1976 within a Continuing Education division of a large university in the United States hired a new program director in 1980. The new director, who had a Doctorate and 6 years of experience in language program teaching with progressively responsible administrative roles, took on the job with relish and within the first two years of being hired made many changes and improvements to the program. These included instituting faculty hiring and evaluation guidelines and procedures and a new curriculum to meet the needs of current and prospective students and to draw new students into the program. The new curriculum increased the levels of proficiency from 4 to 6, ranging from low-beginner to high-advanced level, and was split into 2-hour skill blocks (Speaking/Listening and Reading/Writing) in the morning and electives such as Conversational English, Business English, and TOEFL Preparation in the early afternoon, followed by optional study hall, language lab, and individual tutoring. The director also successfully built a case with the Dean of Continuing Education to create four core faculty positions with 1-year contracts and full university benefits and was then able to recruit excellent faculty nationally for the full-time positions in addition to teachers locally for part-time work. The program proved popular with students from Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East, and drew students also from Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain. As enrollments grew and were sustained over a 3-year period, two additional core

68

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD faculty positions were agreed by the Dean, bringing the total to 6 for a typical enrollment of 150–180 students per semester. In 1985, the enterprising director decided to offer a course in Teaching English as a Second Language through the Continuing Education division. Such courses were a very low-risk proposition as the only expenditure involved at the outset was the time spent to develop a course description and the cost of advertising the course. Both of these were negligible; the full course would not be created unless at least 12 people enrolled, and space would be made for the course publicity in the Continuing Education brochure, which always included some courses which might not receive large enough enrollments to run. The course was in part to meet a growing need in the community for TESL training and also in part to respond to requests by program teachers, especially some of the part-timers who had Masters degrees in English, Education, or Applied Linguistics but had had no coursework in teaching ESL. An upper limit of 30 was put on the course, and it was fully subscribed. The evaluations of the course were very high, and the majority of participants said they would take another course if offered. A second course was offered, this one on innovative teaching approaches for spoken language skills taught by a popular teacher who worked in a community college ESL program in another city. It was a normal practice in the Continuing Education division to import popular speakers and specialists to offer short-term courses, always with the proviso that a certain minimum number of students would be required for the course to run. Given the expense of bringing a teacher from a distance, the minimum number of students was set this time at 15 with the maximum again at 30. The response to the course offering was so strong that 35 students were allowed to enroll. As in the first course, the evaluations were uniformly positive, and almost the entire group requested further courses in TESL. At this point, the director met with K-12 principals and department chairs in the region to assess interest in further course offerings and to obtain ideas for course content. He then met with the Dean of Continuing Education, and it was decided to develop a TESL Certificate within the Continuing Education division that could be obtained by taking 6 courses, 4 of which would be required, with 2 others selected from among electives. Those who had already taken one or both of the courses previously offered would be able to apply them towards the Certificate. It was decided to offer three 1-week intensive courses in the summer term, and two night or weekend courses each in the two academic semesters, so that it would be possible for those who wanted to try to complete the Certificate in one year to do so. The Certificate and the courses were offered independently of recognized K-12 qualifications or endorsements and without regular university credit, counting for Continuing Education credit only. This was a concern for many who signed up for the courses, but the content was so well-targeted to participants’ needs and the courses were so well-taught that the audience for them continued to grow. Due to the demand, an increasing number of electives were offered, and course limits were raised to 50. The courses were at first taught mainly by instructors imported from other universities and colleges, but eventually the core teachers in the English language program were offered chances to teach in the Certificate program, an opportunity which three of them enthusiastically took up for their own personal satisfaction, professional development, and supplementary income.

Situating the Language Program By 1988, the ESL Certificate course had attracted the interest of the Dean of the College of Education, who, after a series of meetings with the Dean of Continuing Education, agreed to offer regular academic credit for the Certificate courses towards a Masters degree in TESL that was in the planning stages. It was decided to offer the degree in both regular, full-time mode and in part-time mode through Continuing Education. This created some restrictions in the content of the courses and in who would be allowed to teach them, as the College of Education would have to approve them. In practice, most of the courses and faculty who had been teaching them were approved with only minor modifications required. The MEd in TESL, started in 1990, proved popular, and many of those who had already received the TESL Certificate or taken some courses in TESL through Continuing Education completed the Masters degree part-time through the joint program. Throughout the 1990s, the part-time TESL courses offered through Continuing Education attracted healthy numbers, while the full-time MEd courses offered in the College of Education attracted smaller numbers, generally in the range of 12–18 students per semester. Since the MEd was jointly offered by Continuing Education and the College of Education, profits were shared and the College of Education was able to maintain its small full-time graduate courses. As is perhaps inevitable, the local market for TESL courses for teachers became saturated and, by the academic year 2000–01, the numbers in the Continuing Education courses fell to 16–22 per course and those in the College of Education course to 10 in one semester and only 6 in the next. The Dean of Continuing Education sought relief from the joint degree and profit-sharing arrangement since there was now little in the way of profit to share. The Dean of the College of Education also wanted relief from this arrangement, but had a different idea, and that was to take over the TESL courses entirely, working through the university Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) to allow his college to offer individual courses part-time, an option not previously allowed for courses in academic departments. This would be a major change as the Continuing Education division was set up at that university in the 1960s to offer courses in part-time and non-degree modes, on the understanding that academic departments would offer their courses only in full-time and degree modes. Times were changing, and the academic departments and colleges were becoming more entrepreneurial and competitive. New academic programs and modes of delivery of instruction, including online courses and distance education were being considered, as were educational and research partnerships with companies and overseas institutions. Thus, the Dean of the College of Education found supporters for his idea among the other deans, who could see the advantages of this proposal for their colleges too, and eventually the VPAA was convinced to put this proposal forward to the President, who agreed to take it to the Board of Trustees. The Trustees, most of whom were businesspeople, immediately saw the advantage of the academic departments and colleges being able to innovate in the types and modes of courses they would offer and supported the proposal, which they saw as ‘‘healthy competition’’ by the colleges and academic departments with the Continuing Education division of the same university. The Dean of Continuing Education, considered to be at a lower rung of the university than the academic deans, was unable to affect the outcome.

69

70

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD The result for that division has been that as soon as the colleges or individual departments notice Continuing Education offering successful courses in areas that are of interest to those departments or colleges, they immediately put in curriculum proposals to offer those courses themselves in part-time or distance mode. In the short-term, this has meant that a main function of the Continuing Education division came to be course development and trialing for the rest of the university. Over the longer term, however, since Continuing Education courses with any type of academic content have a short life, the division has focused increasingly on non-academic offerings such as one-shot motivational speakers and ‘‘lifestyle’’ workshops and seminars. The College of Education in contrast has thrived since 2003 by doing aggressive overseas recruiting of international students—many of whom enroll for the MEd in TESL degree, which they can obtain in just one year of study. For the English language program, the movement of the ESL teacher education courses to the College of Education meant that they lost this connection to the academic discipline, as the College of Education decided not to hire any of the English program faculty to teach their MEd courses. They are instead staffed by their own tenured and tenure-line faculty, who teach those courses in their regular teaching load. The English program shrank back to its former relatively isolated and independent status as teaching courses to language learners, and whenever full-time faculty left, they were replaced by part-timers on term contracts with no benefits. For the English program director, who had been the one to create and manage the TESL courses for Continuing Education, the takeover of those courses was a stark reminder of the relative status of those in Continuing Education versus those in academic departments and colleges. The English program director moved on, taking a tenure-line position in an applied linguistics program at another university, where he became involved in designing and teaching in both Masters and Doctoral programs, eventually gained tenure, and served for six years as department chair.

This case study illustrates the advantage of a relatively independent status within a Continuing Education division for developing new courses as well as the disadvantage of that affiliation in terms of academic power. These advantages and disadvantages are reversed for programs located within an academic department.

Academic Department For units located within a university department where the mission is a traditional academic one, the English language program and its courses have the support of an academic discipline, which gives them a status they would not otherwise enjoy in the larger institution or profession.

Situating the Language Program

71

This location has the advantage of strong connections in the local ecology of other academic departments as well as in the global ecology of the academic discipline and profession—which together provide a strong position and nurturing context for the program. Importantly for academic status and student motivation and satisfaction, a location within an academic department makes it possible to advocate for credit for English proficiency courses, on the analogy of any foreign language class or on other bases having to do with equivalence to other courses, the rigor and range of academic skills acquired in such classes, or the cultural and linguistic content. Language study may be connected to undergraduate language requirements, with English study, for example, being accepted as fulfillment of a foreign language requirement in the case of a speaker of another first language. Credit-bearing status is an important goal for university English language program classes to gain recognition within the institution and is also desired by students wishing to complete their academic study on the earliest possible schedule. A case can be made for credit status by noting the complex skills and level of work in comparison to other academic courses and the benefits to the larger institution of recognizing international students’ achievements. Brooks (2002) provides an account of how one language program moved its advanced-level courses to credit status, starting from a toe-hold in a Writing for Academic Purposes course, which was already credit-bearing, and expanding this niche by arguing the comparability of other advanced courses. Language programs located within academic departments may provide support for their host environment by offering part-time teaching or teaching assistant opportunities for graduate students. Language programs may also function as sites for conducting research, teaching observation, or supervised teaching for graduate programs in applied linguistics, secondlanguage acquisition, or language teaching. This type of arrangement is a relatively common one in the teaching of English, where Masters and Doctoral programs may be linked to a language program, such as an IEP. As Dantas-Whitney and Dimmitt (2002) observe, ‘‘many IEPs align themselves with graduate programs in TESOL, so a great deal of research goes on in IEPs, and new instructional practices are tried out’’ (p. 5). In this affiliation, the language program is usually highly integral to the mission of the department and the college, and functions similarly to other academic departments. The faculty may have academic appointments, though tenure will be an issue if they do not fulfill normal academic expectations for research and publication.

72

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

This ecological niche is a beneficial one both for the host, which gains valuable resources and global linkages, and for the language program, which is able to grow and evolve in ways that make good use of its particular features and ecological connections to develop its potentials. While it has the advantage of the prestige, power, and potentials which come from being located within a normal academic department, this positioning of the language program, since it is within a larger structure, is more standardized and has more oversight. It is therefore generally resistant to change and less independent and flexible than other program affiliations. The ability to design and offer special programs and new courses may be limited to the standard academic planning process operating on an academic timetable. The program may not have the infrastructure for recruiting or for managing revenue on its own. Without an independent revenue line, the language program has limited ability to fund its own initiatives and priorities and to argue for more positions or other resources. However, the academic prestige and the many different types of opportunities provided by the academic linkage can provide so much educational value that they offset the disadvantages, especially if the language program is connected to degree programs in applied linguistics, second-language acquisition, or language teaching, which offer strong revenues and resources. Drawing on the discussion in Reppen and Stoller (2002, pp. 53–54), we note the following ways in which a language program benefits by a linkage to an academic department and specifically to a graduate program in TESL:  The graduate students and faculty will be current in the field and can provide fresh insights and perspectives on the language program as well as contributing new curriculum and materials, modeling new teaching approaches, carrying out action research and other types of research projects, and helping to raise the profile of the program by presenting their work at conferences and in publications;  The connection to the graduate faculty benefits the language program in providing input and involvement in developing its policies and practices and in ensuring academic credibility and a strong voice at a higher institutional level;  Students in the language program benefit by their connections to the graduate students, who offer fresh perspectives and models of different teaching and speaking styles, often from many different countries. At the same time as the language program benefits by the connection to the academic department and its degree program, the academic department benefits by its connection to the language program. Drawing again on the

73

Situating the Language Program

discussion in Reppen and Stoller (2002, p. 54), we note the following benefits of this linkage:  The graduate program and the academic department as a whole can make a strong connection between theory and practice, as the language program classes provide a site for testing and developing theory;  The site of practice provided in language program classes make it possible to contextualize what is being studied in graduate classes, making it more memorable and authentic;  The language program offers a laboratory for observing examples of the specific areas of knowledge and topics being studied in graduate classes, such as students’ learning styles and cultural conflicts, the development of second-language competencies over time, the implementation of curriculum and teaching approaches, and the day-to-day running of a language program;  The connection to the language program makes it possible for graduate students to gain teaching experience before they graduate, thus making for a smooth transition into employment upon graduation;  The academic program offers mentoring and modeling for graduate students of participation in an academic discourse community, thus supporting them in their entry into the community as they begin their an academic career. In sum, the positioning of the language program within or with a strong linkage to an academic department would seem to have a wide range of mutually nourishing and strengthening effects on the ecology, flowing both into the program and out from it into the surrounding environment.

Student Affairs Programs positioned within a student affairs unit typically have the advantage of close relations with international student services and other student life resources on a university campus. They may also have strong linkages to other resources up the academic chain of command, as the leadership of student affairs is often a vice presidential level position. Because other support services such as disability services, counseling services, and academic tutoring and support services may also be managed through the division of student affairs, the English language program may be given wide institutional exposure through support service channels. However, there may be little opportunity to design professional programs or

74

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

to offer academic credit in this setting, and faculty positions may be conceived more in tutorial terms than in terms of a standard faculty appointment. On the other hand, academic support services sometimes have funding from federal or state sources for U.S. citizens or permanent residents. This funding can open the door for programs geared to domestic ESL students, making it possible for the language program to expand the mission and enrollments of students beyond international students on visas. This may allow the language program ecology to expand and develop but could also cause it to weaken by moving too far from its accustomed context and functions and by straining its resources.

International Programs Programs situated in international programs or international education units reporting directly to a higher level administrator such as a Vice Provost for International Programs are generally part of a mission to develop international exchange at the institutional level. International exchange is conceptualized as two-way exchange in which students and faculty in both countries are engaged in study or teaching exchange programs with each other. Between countries with different first languages of instruction, it is often the language study programs that can participate in the first stages of the exchange, thereby having a central role in creating and developing the environment for international activity within which they operate. High-level units such as international programs reporting at the provost level have advantages in being able to obtain funding, both internally and through external grants and partnerships, for internationally oriented activity at an institutional level. They are therefore often in a position to provide substantial resources to a language program if the leadership of those units see second-language learning as an integral strategic goal within their mission of internationalizing the institution. In addition, English and other language programs, being able to move quickly and having personnel familiar with international education principles, can have a privileged position with International Education units and be in the vanguard of larger institutional exchange programs. An ecological relationship within international programs thus offers opportunities to productively utilize and develop the program’s global connections and its people, expertise and other intangible assets.

Situating the Language Program

75

A disadvantage for a language program located in or affiliated with an international education unit is that an institution-wide international agenda may be imposed from the top down without sufficient consultation or buy-in from the academic departments to be able to implement goals effectively. This can mean a lack of support from academic departments in relation to international objectives in general and language study in particular, thus putting the program at risk of loss of support and revenues. As another potential disadvantage, affiliating a language program within an international education unit may mean that the language program is seen as supporting an international exchange agenda which has language learning as only a minor focus. If so, this minor focus is likely to be reflected in limited positions and resources. Alternatively, the language program could be seen as a ‘‘cash cow’’ whose profits can be used to support other programs in the unit. Also, as in the case of other positions within a larger unit, a language program ecology tied to international programs may have less independence and flexibility either to respond to or lead change. Without a degree of independence needed to innovate in order to take advantage of opportunities, the language program may eventually shrink or wither as enrollments dry up when global conditions change.

International Partnerships A further option for ecological positioning that is becoming increasingly attractive is that of an international partnership which is formed between entities of two or more countries. These partnerships, if they involve English language instruction, expand the context, and potentially the opportunities as well as the resources, of the campus language program by giving it specific links to overseas institutions. Within the teaching of English, two examples are the Australian-Korean TEFL Masters degree program created between Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and Pukyong National University in Pusan, Korea (Harrington, Jensen, & Rosen, 2002), and the English program created in Honduras and the United States by a partnership between the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C., the academy for Educational Development, and the United States Agency for International Development mission in Honduras (Miller & Crandall, 2002). The Monash-Pukyong partnership was in response ‘‘to an increasing demand for postgraduate TEFL studies in Australia that could be undertaken by practicing teachers of English from non-English-speaking

76

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

countries’’ (Harrington et al., 2002, pp. 91–92) and was designed as ‘‘a program that would allow Korean teachers to complete a Monash master’s degree in 2 years while continuing to work in their Korean teaching jobs’’ (Harrington et al., 2002, p. 92). The Honduran program was set up to be a bilingual Spanish-English program transitional to an all-English program over three 12-week cycles (Miller & Crandall, 2002). In both cases, a mutually beneficial trading relationship was established in terms of optimizing use of resources, fuelling innovation, and making strategic connections for the future. The leader of a university language program may elect to work through a home-country English language department, EFL program, or binational center with a long-term goal of recruiting students to the U.S. program or institution. If this course of action is pursued, it will be necessary to decide whether to set up an autonomous language center at the overseas site or to affiliate with an existing language program. If the program decides to set up its own language center in another country, the ecology of the program is substantially altered as it would then be located transnationally and also would have not one but two different local contexts to manage. If instead the decision is made to establish a partnership with an existing institution, issues will need to be resolved as to who will do the hiring and curriculum development, how expenses and revenues are to be shared, and other issues including legal matters such as the use of institutional names, copyright protection of curriculum, and others. Deciding these matters is not just a question of the immediate future. Decision-making must be done with an eye to future developments and strategic relationships between the institutions in the two countries.

Corporate Relationships University language programs may form relationships with local companies or other organizations such as hospitals and provide language training for their staff for a fee as part of their regular program or as a specialized ESP course. Some programs also form international partnerships with an international business or agency in order to offer ESP instruction partly in the home country and partly in the receiving country. The advantages are the linkages to home-country students, resources, and language, as well as the resources of the business partner. The drawbacks are the complexity of the contractual, logistical, and financial arrangements and, as for franchises within a larger corporate entity, the inevitable loss of control of many

Situating the Language Program

77

aspects of program decision-making and operation. In setting up such international partnerships, the language program leader must consider a range of factors, as illustrated in the following case study.

CASE STUDY 3.2 HOME COUNTRY CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP The leader of an English language program today has to consider changing political, social, and economic scapes of the world in order to plan how to keep enrollments coming in and which countries to target for students. In some countries, such as some Middle Eastern countries, the need for English within the business sector is greater than within the academic sector, and businesses have taken the lead in designing ESP courses for employees in business-specific language. With this information in mind, the leader of a university English program might opt to put in a proposal to a multinational corporation—preferably one with a local office—to do an ESP course for Arabic-speaking students that will be a ‘‘feeder’’ course providing preparation in the home country for students who will then have preferential placement in the U.S. program. On the plus side, such a venture could be quite lucrative for the program and could underwrite the costs of hiring and training new instructors, of purchasing new equipment, and of developing new curricular areas and materials. On the minus side, the leadership of the program might have to give up its decision-making authority in many areas—for example, in hiring and curriculum decisions—and submit to the decisions and the will of those in authority at some level of the corporation which is funding the course work. What the director gives up in such a situation is control of the course and hence also quality control. In an academic environment, where the quality of the educational experience in large measure determines the staying-power of the department or institution—its long-term ability to attract students—the relinquishing of general control as well as quality control could have far-reaching and possibly disastrous consequences. Therefore, the leader wishing to enter into a contractual arrangement with a corporation or other organization for the training of students will want to explicitly retain decision-making authority to the greatest extent possible in all areas relating to the academic program.

In this case study, the leadership of a language program considers whether to broaden its reach by aligning itself with an international business partner connected to the home country of a major student group. This is a difficult decision given potentials for income and global positioning as balanced against the implications for transfer of power and control and related matters of quality assurance.

78

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Some language programs are situated in a for-profit corporate company that may have multiple branches throughout the country or in different countries. An example of this type is the English Language Services (ELS) programs situated throughout the United States. Another language company is EF International, which offers language programs throughout the world. Such programs have a specific location within one country and possibly within a parent institution, while also being linked to the corporate parent and all its other educational programs and sites. The leadership of such programs thus requires managing the local ecology in relation to the larger ecology of the parent company. However, the need for the leadership to focus beyond the specific program context may be less than in a more autonomous or independent program, as many of the outreach functions will be performed at a higher level and then fed back into the individual programs. In a commercial entity, activities such as marketing, recruiting, and curriculum development may originate in a central office, where revenues and expenses are also reviewed. The centralization of these functions may free up the local leadership to focus on more local aspects of the program ecology such as the program-specific student needs, relationships, facilities, and teacher recruitment environment. However, drawbacks include the leadership being vulnerable to decisions made at the higher level that they have little input into, including centralized curriculum and other programming that might not be suitable for local needs. A newer ‘‘joint venture’’ corporate entity is designed to link a for-profit business entity with a university. For example, the corporate entity INTO, Inc., has formed joint ventures with universities in the United Kingdom and the United States. Other companies have created combination language and creditbearing university preparation programs packaged and sold as proprietary educational programs on U.S. campuses. Outsourcing language education and support has obvious effects in terms of the locus of control moving to an outside provider, and it can be anticipated that a corporate or proprietary focus will alter the balance of language program emphases on business in relation to other frames. However, the effect of bringing international commercial companies into joint venture partnerships with the non-profit sector has yet to be fully understood—legally, financially, and educationally.

Community College Community college programs are geared primarily to immigrants and other citizens living in the community and are often heavily subsidized by

Situating the Language Program

79

tax revenues. The community college niche for a language program is thus one which has a guarantee of support, though the level of such support is variable and often insufficient for meeting more than basic needs. On the other hand, since most community colleges are publicly supported, the degree of control and standardization is strong. For both of these reasons, community college English language programs have tended to be highly stable with limited innovation and outreach beyond the local context. For language programs serving an immigrant population, the goals and mission of the organization are quite different than for programs serving mainly or exclusively international students on short-term visas. The focus of these programs may include language for vocational and survival needs in addition to or instead of language for academic study. Since many students are part-time, the courses are generally less intensive and slower-paced than those of an IEP. The ecosystem of the community college English language program has thus been traditionally suited to a different population of students, teachers, and leaders than that of the university IEP. The agenda of community colleges in the United States has been rapidly internationalizing, however, so that their future profile is uncertain.

Voluntary Agency Some programs for immigrants are grant-funded or supported by charitable organizations and are set up and maintained with a largely volunteer staff. Although they can be run very cheaply, these programs have the disadvantage of no guaranteed budget and so require a leader to continually search for resources, including through writing grant proposals. The program leader must also manage within the constraints of volunteers and part-timers, such as last-minute reasons for not coming in, lack of training, etc. The advantages include low-cost access to the talent pool of the volunteers, which often include retired teachers, and the generation of public recognition and community good will. This type of language program is a minimal, and also a more loosely coupled, ecology than the other types described. It therefore requires less of the leader in the way of administrative functions and skills, though perhaps more in the way of dedicated, inspirational leadership. The leader of a language program within an agency that is run largely or wholly by volunteers must be sufficiently committed to the program mission and sufficiently well-organized and goal-oriented to be able to manage the

80

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

program effectively under such conditions and deliver the outcomes that are promised. Reporting Lines The language program leadership may report to an administrator who may or may not be an academic and may be more or less closely supervised. The location of the language program will in part determine the reporting line of its leadership, though this also varies depending on the types and numbers of positions at higher levels. Gawienowski (2002, Part II) describes the placement of IEP directors in six different university programs, where individuals reported to:  Chair of the Department of Humanities and Communication;  Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences;  Dean of Foreign Languages, under Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences;  Head of the Continuing Education Division, under Associate Vice President for Outreach;  Associate Vice Provost for Operations/IT Programs, under Vice Provost for Division of Professional Education/Training; or  Vice President for University Life, under the President. This range of reporting structures suggests the varied placements of English language programs within post-secondary education in the United States, ranging from within an academic department to a higher level and more independent location above that of a department or college.

WORKING EFFECTIVELY WITHIN THE LARGER ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Because of the many types of language programs and their positioning as independent organizations or as units within larger ecologies, the language program leader must understand the expectations of their institutional role and learn to handle the politics of the specific organizational culture. In universities, English language programs are commonly thought of as occupying a niche outside the traditional academic structure and so need to establish their academic and professional credentials (Eskey, 1997; Jenks, 1997; Pennington, 1992d). The leader of a language program who attempts

Situating the Language Program

81

to change its status or an aspect of its instructional, professional, disciplinary, service, or business profile will find herself or himself squarely in the middle of academic politics. What is called ‘‘politics’’ in higher education, as in any institution or social environment, is fundamentally about relationships and power. Language program leaders ‘‘play politics’’ in establishing both relationships and a power base. In addition, the language program leadership has a number of roles as an advocate for her/his program and students.

The Politics of Relationship Relationship politics are an important part of the ecological leader’s job and should be a strength for many in English language teaching. Relationship politics involves, first of all, the way decisions are made and information is communicated in the institution. Formal decision-making processes such as strategic planning initiatives exist, but they can be sabotaged by institutional culture. For example, a formal university-wide customer-service training program for staff can be mandatory and get official support even as the staff is resisting the initiative through off-record comments and actions. Moreover, what end up as important strategic directions are often unplanned. The expansion during the last quarter century of international student enrollment in higher education in the United States, for example, has been famously titled, ‘‘Absence of decision’’ (Goodwin & Nacht, 1983). Informal decision-making and communication processes, on the other hand, are an ongoing part of institutional culture, and rely on personal networks and affiliations. Rawley (1997, p. 99) emphasizes the importance of personal relationships in contexts where the formal structures for decision-making are lacking and underscores the point that personal relationships rather than formal processes can drive policy. Even when formal structures exist, they are often subtly undermined by personal networks and connections. Being included in the personal networks of the institution and its major political players can be a matter of good fortune or background, such as going to the same university or belonging to the same religion, outside organization, or group as those with more power in the institution. Such networks are in essence a type of club. The most insidious clubs have operated overtly or covertly on the basis of social exclusion, historically, to exclude women, Jews, people of color, and newcomers, including those coming from other countries. Even today, despite protective statutes and gains in presence, women and people of color still have

82

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

difficulty being included or succeeding in the upper reaches of higher education institutional life (see reports from the American Association of University Women at owww.aaup.org/Issues/WomeninHEW). To counter the forces maintaining these exclusive networks, other organizations have arisen to provide networks to traditionally excluded groups. There are associations of women and minority professionals, for example, such as the American Association of University Women (AAUP) or caucus groups within professional associations such as the International Black Professionals and Friends in TESOL (IBPFT) caucus. It is to the advantage of the language program leadership to take advantage of such professional networks or any other associations within the institution for creating social networks and increasing the presence in the program of those from underrepresented groups. The professional networks and advocacy groups such as NAFSA-AIE, AAIEP, UCIEP, and others provide invaluable sources of information and support outside one’s own institution as well. The appendix contains a list of professional associations in the fields of language teaching and learning. Mentors can greatly increase a new or young professional’s access to an organization’s inside network. New language program directors should seek mentors to ease their way into institutional culture. This is especially important because language program directors tend to be either institutional outsiders with no pre-established, intra-institutional support structure relative to other department heads (Pennington & Xiao, 1990) or faculty who have come up from the teaching ranks and so may have developed little in the way of administrative support structure within or outside the program. Inclusion in personal networks can also come down to hard work and a conscious decision to focus on self-promotion, presence, and making connections. Although it may be the hardest-working and most dedicated administrators who stay in the office and work through their lunch hour, they will not necessarily be doing their best for their own futures nor for their programs. This is because they will be losing out on important opportunities to be seen and to make connections outside the program. Spending time in institutional social functions or at a faculty club rather than staying in the office working may feel like a waste of time but can remind other faculty and administrators of the director’s presence and the presence of the program, while also providing an opportunity for making useful connections. At the faculty club, the director may get the chance to talk to graduate advisors about their international teaching assistants or see colleagues in the first-year writing program who want to talk about ESL

Situating the Language Program

83

students. For the one who is leading the program, working smarter is more important than working harder; and making the right connections must take priority over many other demands on the director’s time. To build these all-important connections, the language program leader can set up meetings among the key players in international education on campus. For new directors, the key will be learning everyone who should be included and not excluding key constituencies. No matter where it is situated, the language program is a unit that works with constituencies across the university. However, while establishing connections with other units, the program leader must avoid all appearances of trying to establish a new reporting line. Even if another reporting line or connection seems more valuable to the language program than the current one, formal hierarchy and reporting relationships must be maintained. The institutional punishment for seeking to jump or to cross reporting lines is usually removal. Higher education also has a surprisingly hierarchical culture. This can be seen in the ‘‘pecking order’’ of faculty in a typical academic department as lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors. It can further be seen in the position of department chair as mediating between the faculty and the higher levels of the administration through a dean. Observing the ‘‘chain of command’’ and the protocol of hierarchical communication channels is necessary, such as going through the department chair before communicating with the dean even about information requested from the dean. The drive within English language teaching towards egalitarianism and shared decision-making (Pennington & Brown, 1991; Soppelsa, 1997), which is consistent with the academic tradition of faculty self-governance, flies in the face of the hierarchy of higher education, which has become increasingly characteristic of educational structure in the current era.

The Politics of Power Traditionally, the major power struggle in a university is between the faculty and the administration. Faculty are concerned with tenure and academic freedom, while administrators are concerned with workload, budgetary and resource constraints, customer service, and, increasingly, political ideology. For historical reasons related to the language program constituency and subject matter (Jenks, 1997; Kaplan, 1997; Pennington, 1992d), the English language program on campus is often not a major player in this larger power struggle.

84

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

In understanding the politics of an institution it is important to first understand its culture and rules for success. What value is most rewarded in this institution? For traditional academic departments, the emphasis is on publishing and research (the creation of knowledge) over teaching (the delivery or passing on of knowledge) and service. For those not on a tenure track, the administrative staff and the lower-rung auxiliary and adjunct faculty—and sometimes the language program leader—expectations are different, and a different career and benefit structure applies. In some cases, the value of the language program to the larger unit and institution overall is simply teaching the largest possible number of students without student complaints (as opposed to showing a good grade distribution or proving student learning). For the education of international students in English, the question the program leader must ask is: What is/are the most important programmatic function(s) from the parent unit’s or the institution’s perspective? Is it bringing in revenue to support budgeting at a higher level? Is it keeping the institution in compliance with state laws for international teaching assistants? Sometimes the real or most important mission of a language program is based on administrative requirements or expectations that are not formally stated and that differ from the program’s own view of its mission—such as centering on quality instruction. Knowing the real mission and purpose of the language program, and of the larger unit to which it belongs, and playing politics successfully is a necessary step to maintaining program health and achieving program mission in other senses. A knowledge of how the program is viewed by higher level administrators and the ability to manage their expectations is also essential to performing well and remaining (or advancing) in leadership. The years following 9/11 when revenues fell and programs engaged in desperate attempts to advertise and prove their worth to their home institutions was a time in which language programs began to discover the ultimate value of their programs to their universities. A number of language programs folded as examples to the rest of the profession of the potential outcomes of failure to achieve revenue; some suffered threats of takeover, and others were folded into a more supportive structure. Such events as these following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center emphasize the vulnerability of language programs in a time of falling enrollments. They also highlight an underlying expectation within the profession and the individual institutions that the language program will strive to remain viable through a focus on satisfying needs and on attempting to gain good will, support, and linkages on campus, in the community, and the world at large—both by being highly customer-service oriented (a point of pride in

Situating the Language Program

85

the profession) and by trying to be indispensable to the institution. This has meant that language programs have characteristically been flexible and responsive in doing whatever instructional task is asked of them and in being willing to provide a share of their revenues to other units, even if they must trim their own operation. The high adaptability and strong orientation to satisfaction of the needs of others belies the strong service orientation of language teaching as well as its limited academic power. In a continuously and rapidly changing world, language programs typically seek to be the most context-friendly of ecosystems, adapting whenever, and as much as, needed to stay alive. Yet in so doing, they risk losing their raison d’etre, their core mission of instruction, and so their identity. They also risk becoming so reactive that they lose opportunities for major innovation and development. In the new environment of rapidly internationalizing institutions of higher education, new issues emerge, such as the role of the language program in the international mission of the institution, its location and reporting line, the revenue expectations for its work, and the program’s involvement in institutional strategic planning processes. All of these areas provide opportunities for being proactive rather than reactive, and for creating new and more powerful structures within the larger institutional, educational, and global context. The current bottom line in the politics of language programs in higher education seems to be that language programs have tried to be maximally cooperative and indispensable, functioning ‘‘more like the infrastructure than . . . the content of the curriculum’’ (Pennington, 1992d, p. 8), in lieu of being truly powerful in traditional academic terms. Seeking to be indispensable, while playing to the interests of higher levels of administration, may not ensure the health and long-term viability of the program. This strategy should therefore be complemented by one of seeking to build the academic prestige of the program through the traditional academic currencies of research, publication, external funding, and strategic partnerships with valued and powerful external bodies and organizations, including business partnerships.

THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADER’S ADVOCACY ROLES Language program leaders have the opportunity and obligation to create programs and to provide a climate for language study that raises awareness

86

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

of the importance of second-language study, international exchange, and intercultural understanding. At their best, language programs are wellsupported and well-functioning ecologies where international students from every continent come together to learn language in classrooms in which significant sharing about culture among the students and teacher occurs in a respectful and stimulating learning environment. The program leadership has responsibility for the promotion and advocacy for the program’s students, who comprise a special population within the university by reason of their enrollment status, English language proficiency, and international diversity (Jenks, 1997, p. 118). While other departments advertise their offerings and recruit majors, they do not have to advocate for special services such as prayer rooms on campus or explanations in the gym on how to use U.S.-style lockers. The potential of international students on campus in terms of internationalizing the campus is still underutilized. Most of the outreach has occurred from the language program to other campus groups, with little in the way of organized outreach going from campus groups to the language program and its students. The language program leadership has an obligation to advocate for the value of international educational exchange, which is not only monetary but intellectual. The United States would be a much poorer country if the doors of international education and exchange had closed as they began to do in the years after 9/11. The influential response of the IEP community and other advocates of international education following this crisis led to major advocacy initiatives on behalf of maintaining language study and other international study in the United States. Language program leaders have the obligation to advocate for international students, language study, and initiatives such as internationalizing the curriculum to facilitate cross-cultural exchange and learning on campus. In undertaking and encouraging foreign travel and language study among faculty and staff, the language program leader models its value and thus advocates for language and culture learning and internationalization of the curriculum. In relation to supporting second-language study, international exchange, and intercultural awareness, there is an aspect of the work of the English language program members that needs scrutiny. Too many English language teachers and leaders have become content with being monolingual themselves, with perhaps only one study abroad experience long ago. In contrast, foreign language faculty tend to live much more multilingual lives. English language program faculty and staff can be encouraged to personally take the time on a regular basis to become language learners again, to risk

Situating the Language Program

87

the indignities and unknowns of travel to another country in order to learn its language and culture. In so doing, they will gain valuable empathy and common experience with their students which they can draw on in their teaching.

PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OPERATION Structuring a Language Program Language program design is based on the program mission, which is itself based on considerations of program location and the mission and expectations of the larger institution in which the program is housed, the needs and expectations of program sponsors and students, and the availability of human and other tangible resources. These factors represent an important set of constraints as well as potentials for initial program design and ongoing development and management of the program once it is set up. Decisions about program design, in consideration of mission, constraints, and potentials, should be made with a view to establishing a sustainable position among other programs of similar type and other matters of long-term viability, such as starting out ‘‘lean’’ and small, but with plans for staged build-up of resources and consequent expansion. The structure of a language program starts from its institutional position, which will partially determine the type of instruction provided, the types of faculty and staff positions, and the facilities in terms of office spaces, classrooms, meeting rooms, etc. Yet whatever the institutional location, a language program will have a degree of flexibility in its structuring based on the number and type of students it serves and the amount of revenue it generates. Whether designing a program initially or developing it at a later stage, the available and potential physical, fiscal, and human resources are enabling as well as constraining factors on program features. In the language program ecology, a decision made about development of, or change in, a language program in one area will affect and be affected by the choices made in other areas, since all aspects of the structure and functioning of the program are interrelated (Pennington, 1989a, p. 99). To name some of the more important areas, the type and number of classroom spaces, class size, the composition of the faculty, the size of the student body, and the number of curricular divisions or levels in a program are all interrelated factors in decision-making. ‘‘Theory and experience, in addition to program-internal and externally imposed guidelines and operating

88

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

constraints, will guide the decision-making process involved in setting up or running a program’’ (ibid.). The types and numbers of students is a central factor affecting the entire language program ecology. Student characteristics will be a determining factor in the program curriculum and levels of instruction. Program structure and potentials for growth are intimately linked to the number of students and the related revenue that is available to it (Pennington, 1984a, 1989a, 1992a, 1999a, 1999b). Larger numbers of students mean more bodies to place in classes. If more space is available, the larger numbers of students make possible smaller, intensive teaching patterns. As enrollments increase, the administrative staff and the faculty can also be expanded, thus making possible new types of positions such as administrative director or curriculum coordinator. On the other hand, if and when enrollments decline, the program leader will need to trim or consolidate resources. If the types of students change, there will also be necessary changes in such features as curriculum and allocation of resources. It is therefore crucial when setting up a program to ensure a structure that is flexible enough to be able to quickly adjust as needed in response to the students in the program. The program leader will thus need to structure the program from the outset in a way which anticipates changes in enrollment, such as by setting up a small core of permanent positions and a physical location that has potential for growth. With an eye to both growth and downsizing in response to circumstances, the program leader must consider ways to optimize resources, such as by cross-training of administrative staff and faculty and by maximizing the utilization of space, such as in giving evening, weekend, and year-round classes as well as distance education. As a program matures, the program leader needs to remain attentive to its structure and to ensure that it does not become rigid and bloated, but remains flexible and trim (see Chapter Eight for further discussion).

Staffing Matters The staffing of the program must respond to the institutional position of the program and the structural concerns detailed in the preceding section. The number of faculty and administrative staff, and the number of people holding leadership positions—and the types of positions and career structure in each of these categories—will derive in part from the types

Situating the Language Program

89

and numbers of student enrolled. Other contextual factors will have a role in determining the program staff and ongoing staffing matters. The staffing of a language program deserves the leader’s highest attention, starting with the structuring of positions and workloads and the need to keep a balance between a core faculty and staff to meet ongoing needs and an adjunct or part-time faculty and staff to meet seasonal fluctuations and special program needs. Faculty Qualifications for faculty can and should be set high and need to include both proficiency in the language being taught and educational training. The ACTFL oral proficiency standards (owww.actfl.orgW) can be useful to describe a standard of ‘‘superior’’ language proficiency for teachers (or any other appropriate standard). The ACTFL levels range from ‘‘novice’’ to ‘‘superior.’’ This is a technical description as measured by trained ACTFL oral proficiency interview (OPI) testers. A language program leader who starts a program ‘‘from scratch’’ can set standards that correspond with the newest accreditation requirements. A leader who comes into an older, established program will find faculty with a much wider set of educational backgrounds coupled with their years of experience. In either case, faculty need opportunities for renewal, or they can become ‘‘stale’’ with regard to the courses and students they encounter term after term. Supervision and evaluation of faculty so that growth continues, excellence is rewarded, and poor teaching is addressed is not easily accomplished (Pennington, 1989a, 1989b, 1992b), but it is necessary for the long-term excellence of a language program (Pennington & Brown, 1991). An understanding of the dynamics of teacher change and its stages and cycles (Pennington, 1989a, 1989b, 1995a, 1995b, 1999b) is important to the program leader’s approach to development of the faculty over time (Chapter Five). Administrative Staff The program leader also must have an intimate awareness of the nature and career path of the non-faculty staff who function in an administrative capacity within the program. The administrative staff, who cope with the daily demands of a language program on a continual basis, must have wellstructured positions with clear responsibilities; must have appropriate educational and experience backgrounds in program administration; and must receive regular opportunities for professional development and review.

90

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Real opportunities for rest and renewal are also vital for the staff, who usually are the ones who have to handle emergencies such as unplanned arrivals with no housing, student mental health breakdowns, program staff illness, broken water pipes or other facility breakdown, and database system emergencies. Depending on the organizational infrastructure, these emergencies can occur quite regularly. Positions for administrative staff require a detailed job description, a thorough orientation, and an annual review that functions as a time to go over past performance and set goals for the coming year. Reviewing past performance sets the stage for pay increases and promotions as well as creates necessary notification of poor performance if this has occurred. Goal-setting is a crucial part of the staff evaluation process because it sets the areas and standards against which performance will be measured. There is a substantial literature within human resources on setting goals and criteria for evaluating whether these goals have been met.

Career Structure of Faculty and Administrative Staff Once faculty and staff have been hired, they become part of the human resources of the program (Pennington, 1992a, 1999a) and must be managed well (Geddes & Marks, 1997). Staff and faculty job descriptions usually vary in hours, pay structure, sick leave, vacation, and other benefits. Job classifications, titles, pay rates, benefits, and promotional opportunities will be more defined in a program that is within an existing university or corporate structure than in some other program locations. It is desirable for personnel to obtain the institution’s benefits and protections, including potentially unemployment insurance in cases of work downturns, even for part-time workers. Long-time workers who have limited employment packages as offered by the program or institution—few or no health benefits, little or no retirement benefit, etc.—can become marginalized as workers over time and feel embittered towards the institution and its representative, the program leader. It benefits the health of the program and all concerned for the program leadership to advocate for proper employment status for positions at every level. The continuing reliance on part-time instructional faculty is not limited to English language programs in the United States If anything, English language institutes, because they have had the ability to generate revenue, have often been able to create more full-time positions than their foreign language counterparts in university departments, where patterns still exist that require heavy teaching loads for those teaching language rather than

Situating the Language Program

91

literature classes, and that give adjunct work to language teachers while tenure is earned through creation or analysis of literature. In fact, there continues to be disparity in many institutions between the humanistic orientation of the language program leadership and the organizational expectations for financial return that rely on part-time workers and low benefits cost. The inequality in benefits, loads, salaries, and long-term security of full-time versus part-time teachers in an institution can be difficult to address. Because the program leader is limited by the larger institution’s policies in this regard, she or he may not be able to effect change immediately but should advocate for better positions in the long run. In the meantime, the language program leader can announce opportunities for full-time positions, make the employment ladder as equitable and transparent as possible, and advertise opportunities for new program development, professional development, and other opportunities for growth as widely as possible throughout the program so that all faculty members and administrative staff have the opportunity to continue to enhance their skills and qualifications. Otherwise, because of the intensive nature of language teaching work, the faculty and administrative staff will increasingly become ‘‘institutionalized’’ over the years, in the sense of becoming habituated and accustomed to one program without continuing to innovate in their work, to develop their capabilities, or to respond to changing student and program characteristics and needs.

Examples of Staffing Structures Gawienowski (2002, Part II) examined the type and number of positions in the programs of the six IEP directors whose programs she visited as part of her dissertation research. One program was structured with co-director positions, while two others had a director position with two or three assistant director positions. Another was structured with the three positions of office manager, assistant director, and academic adviser under the director; the assistant director supervised five instructional coordinators. One of the programs had positions for a director, an associate director, and multiple coordinators (administrative, marketing, and programs/activities). All of the programs included administrative staff positions such as staff assistants, secretaries, computer lab assistants, and student workers. The proportion of full-time faculty ranged from 0 to 95%, with most of the programs having a mix of full-time and part-time faculty, sometimes also teaching assistants.

92

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

The staffing of three of the programs described by Gawienowski (2002, Part II), as outlined below, suggests the variety in language program structure (FT ¼ full-time, PT ¼ part-time): Program 1 2 Co-directors, 1 for Academic Programs, 1 for Special Programs 1 PT Administrative Teaching Assistant 2 Secretaries and Student Workers 17 PT Teachers 17 Teaching Assistants Program 2 1 Director 2 Staff Assistants 5 Computer Lab Assistants (work study staff) 5 FT Teachers 10 PT Teachers 2–3 Teaching Assistants from MATESOL program Program 3 1 Director 1 Office Manager 1 Assistant Director 1 Academic Adviser (50% for IEP) 5 Coordinators (grammar, writing, reading, listening/speaking, credit courses) Receptionist Clerical Staff (2–3 student workers) 20 FT Teachers 1–8 PT Teachers Program 1 is notable for the lack of full-time faculty and the large number of teaching assistants. Program 3, the program with the most complex structure, is also the one with the largest number of full-time faculty positions and the one with other leadership positions for faculty—the five coordinator positions. Other than the large number of computer lab assistants, Program 2 is probably more typical in its staffing, including the proportion of full-time to part-time faculty (30% vs. 70%). However, the variation across these three programs is not uncommon and suggests the highly variable nature, structure, and working conditions found within language programs.

Situating the Language Program

93

Financial Structures For some time now, the English language program has had to attend as much to fiscal as to administrative concerns. Saltzer (1982) examined the nature of English language programs from the perspective of the supervisory unit, noting that in the past the English language program was viewed as a testing center for international students, whereas at the time he was writing a program also had to answer to criteria of fiscal viability. Therefore, English language programs are often judged within academia as much or more in terms of profits than in terms of academic considerations. This is a point that was also underscored by Fox (1991). At that time and in the present day, language programs have had a variety of financial structures. No matter what the budgetary model, a key concept in budgetary planning is the relationship between the program’s budgetary goals, its strategic planning process, and the goals of the larger institution. This is the highly ecological budgetary environment within which the language program must operate. With a well-developed strategic plan (see Chapter Eight), the program’s specific fiscal activities, including the management of surpluses, are linked to specific strategies for their accomplishment (Staczek, 1997). In a traditional academic budget, a certain amount of money is made available to the department by the central administration at the beginning of the fiscal year. Expenses are charged against the account in a declining balance model. At the end of the fiscal year, any extra amount is ‘‘swept’’ into a general fund and there is no carry-forward balance into the next fiscal year. In a fiscal year running from July 1 to June 30, the budget planning process usually begins at least six months ahead, with planning for new initiatives, personnel costs, and other expenses, leading to submission of a budget to the supervising unit. In most cases, the amount allocated to a department in one fiscal year is very similar to that in the next, with any increases normally driven by inflation or being the result of special one-time allocations for specific purposes. For programs which are self-supporting and for those which are expected to return a percentage of revenue to the institution or parent organization, the budget structure may be quite different. ‘‘Carry-forward’’ accounts may be established, which enable both profits and losses to roll over into the next fiscal year. Programs are allowed to deposit tuition revenue directly into department revenue accounts and must pay both personnel and operating expenses from their funds along with any administrative overhead cost. In one scenario, the program may be forwarded—in effect, lent—money at the

94

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

beginning of the fiscal year by the central administration, but that money is taken back throughout the year as the program earns its revenues term by term. Language programs may be accorded a great deal of flexibility in managing finances. For all financial activity, oversight mechanisms must be firmly established. In some units, supervising units such as traditional academic departments may not even realize the amount of cash or credit deposits brought into the program. International students may bring large amounts of cash with them and expect to be able to pay tuition and other fees directly. It is essential for the protection of the program leadership as well as all staff who have access to cash payments that cash payments be limited and procedures established for dealing with money where amounts are verified and double checked between program bills and cashier’s receipts. On-campus English language programs often find themselves asked to deliver services to the university in the way of workshops for international students, testing and evaluation of international teaching assistants, courses for employees, tutorial support, and other activities which support or enhance the language skills of students and other members of the university community. It is important for the program leader to budget appropriately for these activities. Under some types of budgeting, for example, the model that has been called ‘‘revenue-centered budgeting,’’ the English language program will be expected to charge fees to recoup costs associated with these activities. However, it is often the expectation of the other units of the university that these services will be available on a very low-cost or free basis, or they will not be used. An alternative approach is to estimate the costs of pro-bono services to the university and build them into the annual budget forecast, as charges against profits to be returned to the university. Often a mixed model of budgeting will be used, so that the services offered by the language program will be hard-funded by the university through a traditional department budget, while profit-generation will be associated with other activities within the language program, such as testing and assessment services, short-term programs, and new initiatives. Revenue and Expenses The revenue expectations for language programs can differ widely, depending on the mission of the unit and of the larger organization. The program may be expected primarily to return revenue, to provide services and support, to provide academic education (as in TESOL Masters degree

Situating the Language Program

95

programs), or to serve as a recruiting arm for the university. Each of these dictates a different focus for program activities and the program leader’s attention. Generally, the expectations for the program involve a combination of a number of these purposes, though with differing emphases or weights which it is crucial for the program leader to be aware of. As revenue returns fell in the years after 9/11, program leaders who could not meet their institutions’ expectations for revenues became more focused on becoming ‘‘indispensable’’ to their university campuses in other ways. Murdock (1997) describes a variety of campus outreach services that a program can provide to contribute value to the campus and the wider community. On campus, the language program can serve as a campus-wide testing and assessment resource and a research and teacher-training site among other activities. For the larger community, the language program can provide translation services, tutoring in the public schools and continuing education courses for community members. By seeking to offer a range of these services, the language program leader can add value to the program and ensure its survival in leaner times. In imposing revenue expectations on language programs, different types of expenses are expected to be carried by the program. In some cases, all personnel and operating costs are to be borne by the program, with a revenue overhead tax on incoming revenue. In the case of tax on revenue, the amount contributed rises or falls with revenue but is not related to expenses, that is, it is a percentage of gross income. In other cases, language programs are expected to contribute a set amount at the end of the fiscal year to a larger unit, regardless of the amount of incoming revenue. Other programs may be required to contribute a percentage of net profit, taking both revenue and expenses into consideration. Branch campuses of proprietary organizations often have set amounts that they are expected to contribute both to their host organization and to their parent organization. Program expenses may be handled differently from program to program. Expenses for the building and custodial staff may be charged directly to the program or may be borne by the central administration. In some cases, the program leader’s position or other positions such as that of international student advisor may be fully or partially funded by the university rather than being charged solely to the program’s revenue account. Marketing expenses may be born at least in part by other units as well, such as the admissions office. In the case of branch programs, many of the admission expenses are centralized into a single admissions unit. It is of crucial importance for the program leadership to have a good understanding of the budget structure and the expected contribution of the

96

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

language program revenues to the parent unit. The program leader also needs to have good information and skills for projecting income and costs, and for keeping the budget under continual oversight and control. The leader should also have a knowledge of alternative budgeting models to be able to argue effectively for a change in the basis of the budget where this is dictated by circumstances or is otherwise desirable. Financial Planning Language programs can be particularly susceptible to the ups and downs of the market. Language program leaders and their supervising units need to realize that there will be times of plenty and times of scarcity and plan accordingly (Eaton, 2003). If possible, contingency funds should be built up that allow a buffer for a bad year. This is not always possible under budgeting models where funds are swept at the end of each fiscal year. Even in cases where carry-forward accounts allow funds to build up, the contingency funds will begin to look very tempting to money-starved departments or to the central administration unless it is secured in a special account or can be part of a record-keeping system so that the program can build up a financial reserve. It is therefore essential for the program leader to be aware of the options for ‘‘ring-fencing’’ and protecting surpluses and to have ready arguments for maintaining these. Forecasting Revenue In forecasting revenue, a number of models are available. For ongoing programs, there is the track record of existing revenue to be used as a base. For new programs, or for programs starting major new initiatives, a multiple-year business plan can be developed, with benchmarks for each stage of development. The generation of higher revenue requires increased expenditures on salaries and goods, so in forecasting increased revenue, the operating expenses and personnel lines must also be increased. In language programs, by far the greatest category of expense is personnel, which can be 80% or more of program expenses. The expenses associated with instruction do not always neatly fit into a one-size-fits-all formula. It is the nature of language teaching that the number of classes and their levels cannot be scheduled until students show up for the program and are tested. How then can very few students at the lowest or the most advanced levels be accommodated? If small sections are to be maintained, what will the necessary effect be on class size at the middle levels where most students are placed?

Situating the Language Program

97

It will be helpful for the language program to have developed policies to handle these situations in advance. The legal requirements of the student visa for language study are for an 18-hour per week course load. Hence, under-enrolled courses cannot necessarily be cancelled as other university courses would be if they do not attract a certain minimum number of students. Solutions such as combining program levels or classes, or rescheduling students into other courses are all possible but need to be considered in terms of their ramifications for the program and its future; and, once decisions have been made, these need to be clearly spelled out. Larger programs will in general have more options than smaller ones. The development of the policies themselves will be made easier by reference to a mission and strategic plan (see Chapter Eight) that focuses on the core mission and strengths of the program and the larger institution. Since these matters impinge on instruction, the entire faculty should be involved in discussion to develop solutions as problems arise and policies for the future.

Marketing and Recruitment There are several major sources of marketing the program and recruiting students. These include educational fairs, recruiting agents, government resources such as the U.S. Commercial Service, print resources (brochures, posters, and advertisements in relevant publications such as guides to language programs or convention literature), the internet, multimedia materials, and of course, word of mouth. The internet is increasing in importance in marketing language programs, as in other sectors (The ultimate marketing machine, 2006). Marketing and recruitment are the subject of many workshops at professional conferences (see also Jenks, 1991), and those in the leadership should attend these on a regular basis for their professional development and to remain current, as marketing and recruitment is an area of continual change and innovation. Promotional materials should stress the program’s ‘‘differential advantage’’ (Jenks, 1991, p. 175) while giving a true picture of the program and not overselling it. Recruitment processes should be designed not simply to maximize enrollments but to match the right students with the right program and to help suitable students make the decision to join the program (Pennington, 1992a, p. 38). The recruitment plan and recruitment processes should therefore be designed with considerations of clarity and ethics in truthfully representing the program in terms of what it offers in the way of instruction

98

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

(e.g., levels and types of curriculum and classes, achievements of past students, classrooms and other learning facilities), and other services. If the program uses recruiting agents overseas, it will be especially important for them to represent the program accurately and not to oversell it or recruit students who are not well-suited to it. An alternative to recruiting agents is to make use of program alumni networks to spread the word about the program and identify potential students. Jenks (1991, p. 185) notes the effectiveness of keeping language program alumni up-to-date and wellinformed about the program as a way to recruit new students by word of mouth, in contrast to largescale mailings to university alumni. When tried, the latter strategy resulted in not a single response by a potential student but rather in more than two dozen responses from alumni seeking teaching jobs. An important issue in recruiting that has ethical implications is the fit of students within the ecosystem of a specific language program. Is the student recruited likely to do well in a specific program? Those in leadership will have an idea of the ideal profile for student in that program. The program leaders and faculty will know on the basis of experience which students are most likely to suffer culture shock, lose their motivation to study, or simply transfer out. Factors such as degree of urbanization (large city or small town), weather (northern or southern climate), support services such as housing, surrounding community resources (e.g., mosques or halal food), and the level of language proficiency needed to do well in the program and the university all affect fit. Universities have their ideal student profile based on years of experience, although they may not have much experience with international students. In language programs operating on a quarter system, the short, frequent terms require students who do well in managing change and can orient themselves quickly to new course material within a short time period. Semester programs allow a longer, more integrated approach to material that favors a different kind of student. Liberal arts colleges may expect more intensive writing skills than other universities. Community colleges may have a more linguistically diverse student body due to the immigrant population and so include more support services for language learners within their creditbearing programs. The issue of fit is even more important when recruiting students into a language program as part of a conditional admissions program into a college or university. In recruiting students for conditional admissions, in the case of a language program that acts in whole or in part as a ‘‘feeder’’ unit for the larger institution, relevant questions are: What is the degree of

Situating the Language Program

99

guarantee of admission? What are the consequences of subpar performance in language courses prior to matriculation? These are important questions to articulate and answer for potential students. Recruiting students who are unlikely to do well in the program, the institution, and the surrounding community without serious disclosure of the risk factors is unethical. There is a cost as well in the long run. Colleges and universities increasingly consider retention issues within their costs of recruiting, and language programs should do the same. The larger issue is accurate, truthful disclosure. As Heaney and Ott (2009, p. 12) note, the intent of the standard of truth in recruiting is not just accuracy of information but the larger context of being able to evaluate and understand the meaning of the information. Another aspect to consider in recruitment is student diversity. What are the effects on the program when a large majority of students are from one country? When a program’s primary requirement is to return revenue, the program leader’s priority will be to increase numbers. Yet when a majority of students come from one country, the imbalance as regards students from other countries can affect the program climate. The language and other needs of the majority group will influence classroom instruction and ultimately may drive curriculum and other program activities and priorities. As a majority in the program, students from a particular country may use their first language much more frequently among themselves and may transfer their home classroom culture into the new environment. The ecological model predicts that there will be an effect on the other students as well. Other students may enjoy the majority students, but they may also start to feel overlooked and marginalized. The potential for substantial intercultural learning is there, but there is also the potential for negative impressions to result from this interaction. Thus, the program leadership must carefully consider the numbers and nature of the students already in a program when recruiting further students. From the point of view of the institution, a question to consider is whether there is ever such a thing as too many students. The model of continuing growth in numbers is built into many strategic plans. However, growth in numbers entails consequent growth in resources, and the cost to expand them may in turn use too many resources. In some urban areas, for example, the cost of expanding office space, classrooms, and student housing—which includes not only new expenses for buildings or rent but also a great deal of additional staff time and resources—may to a significant degree counterbalance the benefit. The same issues may constrain the growth of language programs themselves.

100

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

The global market for language and academic study is so large that competition will continue to increase until profitability is reduced. Starting in 2005–06, as the international exchange market started to rebound, major corporate players such as the British corporation INTO University Partnerships (ohttp://www.intouniversitypartnerships.com/W) entered the international market in an aggressive bid for international student recruitment in the United Kingdom and in the United States. Commercial language programs also created combination language and credit-bearing preparation programs packaged and sold as proprietary programs on U.S. campuses (see, e.g., Kaplan’s Global Pathways program at Northeastern University, ohttp://global-pathways.com/Northeastern/W). It is likely that the bid for international students will become increasingly competitive in the years to come, as the U.S. student population falls. The next trend in international student recruitment on the part of U.S. universities is the use of agents, a practice forbidden in recruiting U.S. nationals. This practice promises to radically change the current recruiting practices for the international student market (The Americans are coming, 2009).

Record-Keeping Systems and Databases Record-keeping and the setting up and maintaining of a computerized database is a type of work which those in leadership perform with the aid of their administrative staff. Records and databases are needed for managing students’ status in the program and in the country in which they are studying, for checking on individual students and alumni, for performing statistical analysis of trends in student enrollment and test scores, and for managing program accounts and financial affairs. Accrediting agencies have standards relating to accurate and secure record-keeping. For example, the Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA) Administrative and Fiscal Capacity Standard 13 states, ‘‘All financial, student, personnel, program, governmental, and contractual records are maintained and kept current accessible, complete, accurate, and when appropriate, secure. Reporting is done ethically, and in compliance with the law’’ (owww.cea-accredit.org/standards.php# administrativeW). As Ponder and Powell (1991) maintain: ‘‘The concept of data management involves all procedures for organizing, arranging, updating, or otherwise manipulating the variables in a data collection’’ (p. 159). The program leader must have knowledge of the various options for setting up,

Situating the Language Program

101

maintaining, querying, and manipulating records on computer, and must make decisions about these in starting a program from scratch as well as in expanding or modifying an existing program. It is also important to have good procedures for archiving information on a regular basis and for deciding how long records of different types need to be kept. The utility (Ponder & Powell, 1991, p. 161) or usefulness of keeping certain kinds of records must be considered and balanced against the effort, time, and cost involved. Like all program decisions and use of resources, the gains and potential value for the future need to be balanced against the impact in the present context. In particular, the program leader must consider the value to the program of certain records, databases, and statistical information for strongly positioning the program within its ecological niche. A few examples from Ponder and Powell (1991) suggest the potential value and uses to which a good computerized database can be put: Curricular decisions can be enhanced by observing student performance trends by level or over time. When an English language program earns (and sustains) a role in the admissions process based on meaningful correlations between the program’s evaluations and standardized tests important to the students (e.g., the TOEFL), then both the program’s ‘‘report card’’ and, more importantly, its curriculum can attain a substantial practical significance in the eyes of the students. A database can also serve to bolster internal face validity by providing students with a record of past achievements . . . . [A]n ‘‘ideal student’’ profile can be developed, depicting the characteristics of the ‘‘successful’’ student at a given level in terms of academic performance, skills, attendance, test scores, and so on. Such a profile . . . can educate students in the reality of language learning by confirming perceptions of progress, encouraging greater effort, or avoiding unnecessary heartbreak over not ‘‘passing’’ the TOEFL, especially after that first elementary level. On the business side of an English language program . . . , enrollment trends can be plotted to forecast future program size, either by semester or by year, or to explain historical tendencies. (pp. 168–169)

Analysis of the database can help to substantiate program achievements and the effects of changes in policy or student characteristics. Program databases also provide opportunities for research in different aspects of program functioning and achievements in relation to such factors as the characteristics of students, revenues, changes in curriculum or tests. A language program leader with a good knowledge of database management and statistics can potentially support and bolster the program in many

102

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

ways, and those who do not have this expertise can generally bring it into the program in new leadership or staff positions, or find it nearby. Yet given the rapid pace of change in world affairs and hence in most language programs, there are some pitfalls to be aware of: ‘‘A changing student population may no longer fit the picture painted by a historical database . . . . Using yesterday’s data might not serve today’s students’’ (Ponder & Powell, 1991, p. 170). In addition, ‘‘[a] database can encourage curricular stasis, since any changes in program organization or curriculum would suggest recreating the database anew’’ (ibid.).

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER THREE The discussion of this chapter has aimed to situate the varied concerns of language program leadership in relation to organizational structure and the academic and business nature of the program. In considering the location, structure, and functions of the language program, we have raised a number of issues and concerns related to where a program is situated and how it is designed and managed. The particular niche which a language program occupies affects its operation and its relationships with its environment. Its positioning determines its connection to other units, the politics of relationship and of power, and the reporting relationship of the program and its leadership. This chapter has also emphasized the need for program leaders to know about financial structures and to carefully manage program revenues and expenditures. The types of considerations involved in budgeting and forecasting revenue, marketing the program, recruiting students, and managing a program database have all been reviewed. As we reach the end of Part I, we have introduced the themes that will be developed further throughout the book. Issues often seen as unrelated concerns and activities are all part of a larger, interactive system operating in a complex, global as well as local context. In the next section of the book, we take up the human resources of the language program ecology—the students, the faculty, and the leadership—and show how their concerns interact with and impact on the other elements of that ecology.

PART II THE PEOPLE

CHAPTER FOUR THE STUDENTS Students are an essential human resource in the language program ecology. Their backgrounds, languages, cultures, and motivations are an important determinant of the program focus and culture. The students’ characteristics and needs are also a central concern for the program leadership.

THE CULTURE OF THE STUDENTS Students are the reason for the existence of the language program ecology and what holds it together, as everything in the ecology is ultimately connected to the students. They are linked to the instructional frame as learners, to the academic disciplinary frame as bilinguals or second-language speakers, to the service frame as international scholars or immigrants, to the professional frame as clients, and to the business frame as customers. In these different ways, students can be understood as one of the language program’s major human resources, and resources more generally. In the classic sense of resource, students bring energy, intelligence, purpose, connections, and other intangible as well as tangible assets, including revenues, into the language program. They also bring their cultures into the program and in fact are a main source of the program culture. Along with their attitudes, experiences, and beliefs, students bring their home music, clothes, translation dictionaries, foods, and medicines to the language program. As individuals, they bring their own personal issues, learning styles and difficulties, and particular ‘‘life-event’’ trajectories. They also bring their languages and the connection of these to their identities and communicative behaviors. Even in programs which make explicit policy to reduce other language use through ‘‘English-only’’ injunctions in the classroom, the students’ languages erupt as they are released from class and begin talking to each other just outside, in music they listen to on the way to class, and in communication with family and friends on cell phones or other mobile communication devices. This is the reality of the multilingual, multicultural world of the language program that makes it such a rich and 105

106

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

complex ecology. It is the responsibility of the program leadership to nurture this multilingual, multicultural environment as well as its linkage with the students’ world beyond the program and with the larger institution within which it exists. As international citizens, the students bring their cultural norms into the language program ecology, including living requirements, religious practices, and expectations about teachers’ and students’ roles, language learning methodology, curriculum content, and rules of behavior for the classroom. As speakers of other languages, they bring these other languages, spoken and written, into the ecology of the language programs and schools where they are enrolled, along with their ideas of literacy and language learning. In second-language study, students must typically become intercultural or transcultural ‘‘border crossers’’ (Canagarajah, 1999) who negotiate competing discourses, cultures, and pedagogies as they negotiate their own identities and adapt culturally in order to fulfill their needs and achieve their learning goals. Differences in formality between teachers and students, and matters of classroom etiquette and appropriate behaviors may be more or less major and difficult for students. Individual awkwardness may be further compounded by loneliness, culture stress, or culture shock (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). In the extreme case, a student used to a formal transmissional classroom in which students speak only in unison or in brief and prepared answers to homework or test questions will generally be uncomfortable with or resistant to communicative or interpretational classrooms in which they are expected to speak out spontaneously, give opinions, and interact with classmates or the teacher. Students coming from a ‘‘high-context’’ culture (Hall, 1959, 1966, 1976) such as Japan, in which much information is conveyed through nonlinguistic means, may have difficulty learning to express themselves with sufficient directness or explicitness in a ‘‘low-context’’ culture such as Germany or the United States, in which information tends to be conveyed explicitly through words. Similarly, students coming from a ‘‘negativepoliteness’’ culture (Brown & Levinson, 1987) such as Burma or Thailand, in which politeness often demands staying in the background and not speaking out, will have to learn when it is considered appropriate in a ‘‘positive-politeness’’ culture such as the United States or Australia to speak up or take center stage. Students coming from a ‘‘low-context’’ culture, on the other hand, will need to learn to read subtle signs from less explicit language combined with body posture and gesture in order to understand the intended messages from speakers in a ‘‘high-context’’ culture; those

The Students

107

coming from a ‘‘positive-politeness’’ culture will need to learn ways to resist the urge to speak out. Other aspects of cultural difference can be seen in students coming from different countries in comparison with each other and with their teachers and other language program members, as well as members of the surrounding community. A well-known set of distinctions was developed by Hofstede (1980, 1992), who described different cultures as varying along five cultural dimensions: Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism Masculinity

Time Orientation

The extent to which cultures accept unequal distribution of power; The extent to which cultures tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity; The extent to which cultures are based on individuals or groups like the extended family; The extent to which cultures have high sexrole identification, value assertiveness, and independence; The extent to which cultures focus on past, present, or future.

Differences along these dimensions have been examined for the United States and many other cultures. For the United States, power distance and uncertainty avoidance are low, whereas individualism is high, and the time orientation is relatively short-term. For Japan, in contrast, power distance and uncertainty avoidance are high, whereas individualism is low, and the time orientation is relatively long-term. The masculinity index, which is high for Japan, is lower for the United States but still above the average for 40 countries surveyed. All of these differences make a difference in the students both as learners and as resources for the program and the wider community. It is therefore incumbent upon the program leadership to know the students’ cultural backgrounds and to ensure that the program provides the information and support they need for any necessary cultural adjustments. It is also an important aspect of the program leader’s job to make the best possible use of students as resources for the program and the wider community, such as by including students on program committees and by incorporating cultural topics and opportunities for community activities and service in the curriculum. The cultures of the students may be various and—even in the case that the students are themselves teachers—will differ from those of the language

108

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

program faculty in small or large measure. In addition to their different national and regional customs, students will bring with them a range of cultural differences that will impact their learning and overall experience studying in the language program, while also impacting the other students, teachers, and people outside the classroom with whom they interact. Much can be learned on either side of these interactions, and the language program leadership can help facilitate connections and positive experiences for all concerned, while also ensuring that the students have the best possible experience as language learners.

STUDENTS AS SECOND-LANGUAGE LEARNERS In a language program, the students are, most obviously, the reason for the program to exist in its primary purpose of instruction. The teacher is there as a knowledgeable expert who can facilitate the learners’ goals and process of learning. The students are those to whom instruction is targeted and meant to satisfy in terms of meeting their communicative needs. The classroom ‘‘belongs’’ to the students more than to the teacher: it is a place for them to make their own in the sense that their personalities and needs should be guiding—in fact, creating—the teaching-learning process and content. Students must therefore ‘‘own’’ the content of the curriculum in order to reap substantial benefits from education. Learning does not ‘‘take’’ and does not ‘‘stick’’—that is, does not become permanently incorporated into the learner’s cognitive structure—without real involvement with the subject matter coupled with a commitment to learning. Thus, it is an important goal of every language program to ensure that students are affectively and cognitively ready to learn and then that they are actively involved and committed to the learning of the language they are studying. This means knowing the students’ motivations and background, including their academic background, and helping them to feel comfortable and energized to learn and to maintain focus in their program of study. Students have different motivations for language study. The majority of students in most English language programs are learning the language for instrumental reasons having to do with present and future study and employment. Their instrumental motivations are often coupled with some degree of intrinsic interest in the language and its value as an expressive medium. At the same time, students may have some negative attitudes towards the language in relation to the difficulty of learning it in general and their own specific problems in doing so, or they may resent needing to learn

The Students

109

a second language at all. They may also feel some resistance to acquiring the language due to its sociocultural associations or the way they are treated as a speaker of the language by peers or others. Students often struggle with a combination of feelings about the need and value of learning the language, on the one hand, and with various difficulties and barriers they face in doing so. When students learn a new language, they are learning to use that language as a rich and highly complex, multifaceted symbolic resource. Not only is language a symbolic resource in the basic sense of being a system for learning about the world, registering and accumulating that knowledge in the brain, and expressing ideas in a form that others can understand, it is also a symbolic resource in its capacity for denoting or connoting personal and social characteristics, wealth and power, and resistance or adherence to groups and ideologies. Each language has a specific history and set of usages and thus a specific set of contexts and meanings associated with it. As a consequence, in acquiring a new language, a learner will have to adopt the associated contexts and meanings of the new language, creatively adapt these to her/his own purposes and contexts, or actively question or contest those values and meanings in an attempt to acquire the language but not the culture underlying it. Although teachers are the most directly involved in ensuring that the students are actively involved in and committed to their own process of learning and negotiation of language and identity in the second-language context, the program leadership has important roles in the design, support, and evaluation of curriculum and student services and in the support, professional development, and evaluation faculty and administrative staff. Through these functions, the program leadership is able to continuously monitor and improve the quality of students’ classroom interaction, academic performance, and overall experience—all of which goes a long way to ensuring curricular and overall program effectiveness so that students will achieve according to their aims. A teacher who is having to deal with a ‘‘problem student’’ may be encouraged to ask for a ‘‘descriptive review’’ in which all of the teachers who know a student come together to descriptively put together a picture of the student as learner and as full person. Assembling such a picture and seeing the student as the ‘‘whole person’’ rather than just a difficult student can be enormously relieving for the teacher who is having trouble. More information about the descriptive review process can be found on the website of the Coalition of Essential Schools (owww.essentialschools.org/ cs/resources/view/ces_res/57#6W).

110

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

CASE STUDY 4.1 JAE-WON: A ‘‘PROBLEM STUDENT’’ Jae-Won is a Korean student who has enrolled in a university English language program for three terms. He wants to go to the university but has yet to take the TOEFL test; he is taking the TOEFL preparation course. His knowledge of sayings, idioms, and conversationally and culturally appropriate expressions such as awesome and TGIF is surprisingly large. However, he never seems to make any real improvement in his academic spoken or written skills. He is older than the average student in the program and has local contacts with whom he lives. He has been in Level 4 Reading and Writing for two semesters (summer and fall). At the end of fall semester, Jae-Won was evaluated for his language and advised to repeat the same level of the course. Since he failed to be promoted for the second time, the assistant director called for a ‘‘descriptive review’’ session regarding Jae-Won, with the input of all teachers who had worked with him. A descriptive review is a particular form of discussion in which behaviors of a student are described but deliberately not evaluated or judged. For example, in describing a student, one might say, ‘‘He arrived late ten to fifteen minutes every day’’ but not ‘‘He was lazy and couldn’t get out of bed.’’ In a descriptive review, all faculty and other program staff who have had experience interacting with a student are asked to come together and contribute their perspectives on the student. The descriptive review is led by a facilitator who asks questions about the student, such as: What are his strengths? What are his weaknesses? What else do we know about this student’s goals, motivations, and difficulties? Typical in a language program is that each person who interacts with the student has an experience of that student but like the three blind men and the elephant, this individual knowledge can be convincing yet deceptive. With a descriptive review, a more complete picture of the student begins to emerge. The assistant director knew that Jae-Won’s failure to be promoted would be the second time; his current teacher, who was new to the program, did not even know that Jae-Won had repeated the same level of the course this semester as last. His reading teachers current and past contributed a picture of a painfully slow reader who made frequent spelling mistakes. His spoken English teachers described JaeWon’s easy conversational skills and knowledge of idioms. The director knew that he was on an immigrant visa rather than a student visa. His TOEFL test teacher knew the vast amount of time Jae-Won was putting into studying for the TOEFL. His scores on practice TOEFL tests were still only in the low 400’s. As a result of the review, a fuller picture emerged about Jae-Won as a student with a potential learning disability in reading. The amount of time he was putting into his study, his low scores, and his failure to achieve promotion to the next level after two semesters of study, all suggested that he was struggling unduly with learning issues. The director made an appointment for Jae-Won with the campus disability services for further diagnostic attention.

111

The Students

There are many lessons to be learned from a case such as this one. First, the program leader needs to make sure that individual students do not ‘‘fall between the cracks.’’ Second, it is important to have procedures for dealing with problem students who fail to make progress in the program or who present other problems. Third, the program leader needs to counter any tendency to isolation or lack of interaction among the faculty by providing opportunities for communication across the program and for holistic approaches to solving students’ learning problems.

STATUS OF STUDENTS The status of language students in a language program is often marginalized on a university campus. Language courses are for the most part categorized as non-matriculated coursework and language students are considered not ‘‘real’’ students in the way that matriculated students are. The special nature of language study—generally for much shorter periods than matriculated study—and the fact that language students by definition are not fully competent users of the host country’s language—contribute to the language student’s often marginalized status. At the same time, the typical wealth of international students distinguishes this population from refugee populations who may be permanent residents and citizens within the country but who are limited by their general lack of access to economic or social resources. After 9/11, the institutionalization of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS owww.ice.gov/sevis/W), which required registration for both language (non-matriculated) and matriculated students, raised the visibility and equalized the footing of the language program student vis-a`-vis the matriculated student, as both groups needed to comply with new regulations. Still, language programs may find their students left out of university planning for food and housing options, classrooms, library access or privileges, and other campus resources. They may also find the program and its people left out of campus planning for emergencies, as universities with intensive programs have reported following evacuations on some campuses in natural disasters. The program leader must constantly seek to keep the language program and its priorities in the sights of the parent institution, outside agencies, and sponsors, who can assist in making sure the needs of the program and its students are met.

112

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

STUDENTS’ ADJUSTMENT Students living away from home may not be able to handle the freedom well, especially the social isolation that comes from being out of family networks for an extended period and often for the first time. Students coming into very hot or very cold climates with no prior experience of this type of weather can be inadequately or inappropriately dressed to get to school and may simply not come. Students with extended religious or holiday activities that differ from the patterns built into the U.S. calendar (the month of Ramadan is a good example) may find it difficult to keep up their studies while engaging in holiday activities. International students going on an extended period of study face challenges not faced by a student studying a foreign language in the home country. Unlike short-term tourists who may decide to use their own language in travel, as works well in many countries for English language speakers, second-language students who want to practice their language skills in the community at large in the country where they are studying may have experiences that cause them embarrassment or pain. Classroom language can differ remarkably from the language that international students encounter on the street. Depending on their background, race, religion, and style of dress, students from a different language and culture may face unanticipated prejudice in their everyday encounters in the new country. International students may find themselves struggling against substantial fatigue and homesickness after several sessions of study in a foreign country, but may not be able to take a break or a vacation to go back home due to visa regulations or limited financial resources. They may also begin to be demoralized because they have not achieved a desired level of fluency or communicative competence, or other hoped-for goals within their timeframe of study. Students on longer-term stays may experience adjustment issues that can be described as culture stress or culture shock, including emotional swings, anger, or depression (Ward et al., 2001). The following case study reflects the issue of a long-term intensive English program student who has lost her motivation to continue language study.

CASE STUDY 4.2 MARIA BERMUDEZ Maria Bermudez, after graduating from her home university on the tropical coast of Venezuela, arrived in September at a university in an urban area of the northern United States to study English. Her goal was to study for three terms

The Students

113

(nine months) at the English language program and to complete a TOEFL examination and application for graduate school before returning to Venezuela in June. She was placed in Level 3 (intermediate) of a six-level academic program. Instead of living in nearby student housing, Maria lived with her aunt in a small town about forty-five minutes away by commuter train. This was seen as a good family solution since her aunt’s husband had died in the previous spring and Maria could keep her aunt company while studying in the United States. Maria was an excellent student during the fall term, and was promoted to Level 4 (advanced-intermediate) for the winter term. During the winter, her performance fell dramatically. She began to develop lateness and attendance problems and so was in danger of being dropped from the program. When she was asked to speak to the advisor after the first probation notice, she explained her problems. The train schedule that had been relatively reliable in good weather frequently ran late in the winter due to snow and ice. Maria was also not accustomed to the short, dark days of winter in the northern United States and developed sleep problems (first insomnia and then oversleeping). She was not accustomed to the cold and ice and felt increasingly unable to go out. Also, her aunt had also been ill, relying on Maria for picking up groceries and other supplies for her during this time. Falling behind in her work was also demotivating. As a good student, she did not want to come to school unprepared. All of these factors were behind Maria’s dramatic fall from an excellent to a near-failing student. This kind of scenario is not uncommon. While millions of people living in northern climates carry on their lives successfully in the winter months, the weather and darkness may present a difficult challenge for students from tropical areas who have not experienced these conditions. The extra burden of unreliable public transportation can seem overwhelming. In addition, Maria was at a difficult stage in her studies. Level 4 (advanced-intermediate) is the first academic level in the English program where she was studying and required an additional investment of time for success. After four months of living in the United States, Maria might also have been at the nadir of the culture shock curve, and might have lost confidence in her own goals and reasons for study. She might have been experiencing depression as well as sleep problems. Her aunt had become ill and taking care of her had become more important to Maria than struggling to come to school where she might be late. Further, since she was falling behind in her work, progress in language learning was becoming ever more elusive. Sensitive counseling and program support, possibly in addition to involvement by the student’s family or sponsor, might be able to turn this situation around, though it could require a major investment of staff time and might therefore be beyond the capabilities of some programs. Information regarding the stages and plateaus in language learning would be useful for Maria as well as the encouragement of faculty and administrators who are knowledgeable about student problems and the program context.

It is a responsibility of the program leadership to provide information for not only the students, but also the faculty and the administrative staff, about what to expect in the way of needed adjustments and support for students to manage in the new environment. It is also the program leader’s

114

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

responsibility to make sure the needed support is available in the program itself or in readily available and nearby services, and that referrals are made when problems arise. As this case study makes clear, many ecological factors, both physical and psychological, beyond the classroom impact students’ experience and adjustment to the context of the language program. As in the previous case study, it illustrates the importance of looking beyond the most immediate context for the information needed to effectively handle problems.

LEADERSHIP FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO STUDENTS Supporting and Building Relationships with the Students There are many different program functions required to support the students and deal with them professionally and effectively (Middlebrook, 1991; Pennington, 1992a). Beyond classes and instruction, there are matters of admissions, visa status and immigration matters, housing and settling in, orientation and advising, social gatherings and other extracurricular activities, and alumni relations. For those programs teaching language to international students, there are special requirements related to keeping the students in legal status and providing support for their mental and physical well-being. Provisions for mental health screening and services (especially in the student’s home language) should be available, either within the language program’s own student services unit or through the larger campus student services or health care unit. In addition, it is crucial for the language program to ensure that students enrolled in the program carry sufficient health insurance to get daily health needs met as well as major medical needs covered. While some programs have personnel hired to handle visa and immigration counseling, homestay placement or other housing needs, academic and personal advising, other programs provide limited or no services in these areas. In such cases, it is expected that students will handle some or all of these matters either through the international office of the larger institution or through their own initiative or networks of other students. However handled, each of these functions is of critical importance in providing strong support for the instructional program and for the individual students, and so they should be planned and monitored by the program leadership with great care.

The Students

115

Admissions The first Student Services Standard articulated by the Commission on English Language Program Accreditation addresses issues of admissions of students to the program: Admissions policies are consistent with program objectives and with the mission of the program or institution (and with the host institution if applicable), and are implemented by properly trained and authorized individuals. The admissions process ensures that the student is qualified to enroll and benefit from the instructional program. Both the policies and the personnel who implement them adhere to ethical standards and good practice. (Commission on English Language Program Accreditation; ohttp://www.ceaaccredit.org/W)

Interviews can be included during the admissions process to collect as well as to give out necessary information. In addition, students can be asked to fill in relevant (private and non-private) information, some of which is for record-keeping purposes and some of which can be for purposes of informing program faculty and staff about the students. Educational background, purposes for study, interests, local contacts, and family in the area are all information that needs to be recorded and shared with program staff and faculty. For those interested in a homestay, questions about diet, smoking, allergies, and pets help with appropriate placement. Personal contact at admission is important for ensuring a positive initial experience and impression of the program, so it is advisable to have one or more program members meet with each student individually, if this is feasible, or if not, the interviews can be conducted in groups of three. Often students have the same or similar needs and questions, so the small-group format can save considerable time and repetition of information. The smallgroup format has the further advantages of peer support and not putting individual students on the spot; and with only three students, the group is small enough to allow individual students to have time to ask their questions. Faculty, administrative staff, and continuing students can assist with meeting all students initially and ensuring that they are given a warm welcome and directed to the appropriate locations and people to accomplish their initial entry into the language program and its context. Visa Status and Immigration Matters The language program must be able to provide the support services needed to manage the international students’ visa status appropriately and to liaise with and report to the international office or other visa authority on students’ compliance with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS; owww.uscis.govW) rules. There are visa regulations that

116

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

apply differently to language study than to other sorts of study—for example, the required number of hours of study per week. Drawing on Levitov’s (1997, p. 301) list of immigration principles for the language program director, we note the importance of:  Developing a thorough understanding of the regulations of exchange and finding a means to stay updated on these regulations;  Learning the terminology of the visa application process and being ready to assist students to understand that terminology; and  Ensuring legal compliance for the student and the program. The importance of legal compliance with regulations has increased in the post-9/11 world, where students who fail to maintain status face serious consequences, including deportation and even imprisonment. An important resource on international student regulations is NAFSA-AIE; most regional NAFSA-AIE affiliates have advising group networks that meet regularly and maintain listservs for communication. Housing and Settling In The program leader oversees the planning and implementation of the support which the program provides to students for housing and settling in to their new environment. In the area of housing, a decision must be made about how far the program will go in assisting arriving students with securing accommodation and about the type of assistance given, such as in finding dormitory rooms, rental accommodation, or homestays. Health care is also an immediate concern of settling in requiring the attention and support of the‘ program to ensure that students are properly insured (medically and otherwise) and know how to obtain medical services and other services such as utilities and telecommunications, including which numbers and agencies to call in case of emergencies. As in all matters of communication with students, time and care must be taken to ensure that students understand important information, and especially critical information may need to be given not only in English but in the student’s native language. Once their basic needs for health care, insurance, housing, and related services have been taken care of, students will need other kinds of settling-in assistance, such as in procedures for securing internet and library access, identification cards, and other types of registration related to their presence in the program or the larger institution in which it is housed. Students may also need help interpreting information on labels, forms, and contracts. Program members can also assist students by making recommendations as to where to shop and by helping them read street maps and find their way

The Students

117

around. By being as helpful as possible in the first days of new students’ arrival, program members will set a positive tone and a welcoming climate while getting to know the students and their individual interests and needs— information that will be valuable in ensuring that they have the best possible outcomes in their course of study and a fulfilling experience overall. Orientation and Advising Special efforts are required for international students to fit into the new context, in order to ensure that they have the information and services they need. Christison (1997, p. 147) reviews the dimensions of cultural adjustment involved, which include adaptation to new institutional structures and procedures, neighborhood contexts such as for shopping and public transportation, differences in food and climate, and difficulties in communication. All of these areas of adjustment should be included in an initial orientation overseen by the program leadership and should ideally also be the subject of ongoing communication by student services personnel or teachers in individual meetings or group settings such as regular ongoing orientation sessions or classroom discussion. Beginning when they arrive and continuing throughout their time in the program, students should receive a thorough orientation to the program and ongoing support to help them have the best possible experience and results during their time in the language program. A student orientation should be offered in the first week after the students enroll—not on the first day, when matters such as housing, insurance, locating services, and other matters of settling in naturally take precedence. The initial orientation can have a number of functions, serving to:  Inform: clarify the nature of the program and provide other kinds of necessary or useful information;  Commit: obtain the student’s commitment to the values and purposes of the program;  Direct: project a target and a goal for the student to try to achieve;  Motivate: offer a ‘‘pep-talk’’ to motivate incoming students to achieve those goals;  Integrate: provide a social experience to get together with other students and with program staff. (Adapted from Pennington, 1992a, p. 39) Clear and explicit expectations and consequences should be given to students about visa regulations, program services, attendance and classroom behavior, drugs and alcohol, and other matters of program or institutional policy. Students need to be aware of the restrictions they may have to agree

118

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

to and live with in homestay arrangements or in dormitories and rental accommodations. Students also need information about legal matters beyond the program, to be sure that they can remain in status and in the country. Students can get into legal trouble when the laws of the country where they are studying are different from those of their home country or other places they have lived or traveled before. They can also get into legal trouble when they take advantage of their lack of supervision by their family or take refuge from the pressures of their studies by engaging in risky behaviors. On all of these matters, the program leadership needs to be up-to-date and well-informed and to continually monitor and improve procedures for disseminating crucial information and for catching and handling student problems as they arise. Some students come from countries where the norms for sexual encounters or the legal drinking age, especially for consuming wine or beer, is not the same as in the country of study. Whether it is the home country of the new country that has a lower drinking age, the student may respond to the difference by drinking to excess. On the college campus, international students may see other students engaging in drinking, drug use, and sex behaviors without clear consequences. In addition, in a language program, there may be a mixture of students of different ages, so that older students of legal drinking age may make friends with younger students under the legal drinking age, and they may socialize together. Yet some homestay families may not allow students to drink in their homes or to bring in outsiders, and some may not want to take responsibility for students under the age of 18, or even under the age of 21, especially if they engage in risky behaviors. Social behaviors and the legal and health consequences of sexual encounters, drug use, and underage or excessive drinking can be addressed in initial and ongoing aspects of student orientation, including as a topic in class discussions. Many different types of cultural information and ongoing cultural awareness and orientation may be needed for students coming from backgrounds very different from the host culture overall or in the classroom. In addition, advice may be needed on how to cope with new kinds of living arrangements and different kinds of housing and appliances. Weather patterns and climate may need to be explained as may use of air conditioners and heaters. Each of these areas of information and orientation, which may directly affect the student’s ability and motivation to study and their experience in the program overall, can be part of the orientation program and also be connected to the content of the curriculum. In addition, information on typical difficulties and problems faced by students,

The Students

119

as well as solutions to these, can be provided in student services handouts or classroom activities such as role-plays. Beyond providing many different types of information, language programs, and hence, the program leadership, should aim for high overall student satisfaction as an indication of performance, rather than only proficiency gain or course satisfaction. Sometimes students perceive the methods of instruction in the language program as being in conflict with their accustomed teaching orientations or methods. Since ‘‘[h]igh customer familiarity with the service process is linked to higher levels of customer satisfaction’’ (Walker, 2003, p. 56), it is important to orient students and gain their commitment to the program and its goals and teaching approaches: Conventionally, service [organizations] manage customer expectations by delivering what they promise or even overdelivering, thus creating positive disconfirmation and delight. Complex, professional services such as TESOL may need to go further, devoting resources to educating new clients about the nature of the service—including, for instance, teaching methodology—and specifically, about what the client can realistically achieve in a given period of time. (Walker, 2003, p. 57)

Gaining students’ commitment to the program mission and instructional goals, objectives, and methods of achieving these can be accomplished in part through the orientation process and then continued in longer-term contacts with students through advisement and in classes. The leadership as well as the faculty and staff involved in student advising need to keep in mind the importance of gaining and maintaining students’ commitment to program mission and instructional purposes and approaches by continuous reinforcement of these at a programmatic level and by significant time spent on introducing and orienting students to the goals of specific courses and the approaches taken by specific teachers. Such introduction and orientation will be most successful if directly tied to outcomes which have been achieved by past students in the program. Thus, there is considerable value in keeping detailed records of student performance and achievement over time and in sharing these with new students as a strategy to gain their commitment and to motivate their study. Social Gatherings and Extracurricular Activities Organized social encounters and extracurricular activities can be viewed not as an optional ‘‘frill’’ but as a central aspect of building relationship and climate and meeting students’ needs, thus ensuring a high quality of experience and satisfaction with the program. These encounters might include after-hours program parties, dinner at the homes of program leaders, faculty members,

120

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

program staff, or others connected with the program who have an interest in meeting and supporting the students, as well as speaker programs or other after-hours events connected to the academic program, cultural orientation, or current events. The program faculty or leadership may also organize or provide information on off-site activities, such as trips to local attractions or visits to nearby cities of interest. In some programs, social gatherings and/or field trips and other off-site activities are linked to the curriculum or individual classes, providing cultural content or other discussion topics. When officially sponsored or connected to classes, off-site activities will need careful planning and supervision to ensure the safety of the students and compliance with regulations related to travel and their visa status, in addition to adequate insurance. Programs offering extracurricular activities that take the students away from the program classrooms and building(s) should clear with their legal office the general procedures by which institutional risk is managed. It is standard procedure to have students sign waivers before engaging in activities or getting photographed, especially if photos are to be posted on the web or used in promotional materials. A major issue with English language students is their comprehension of trip rules and regulations, times for arrival and departure, and even the language of the waivers themselves. The program leadership must make every effort to ensure comprehension and safe participation by the students. Alumni Relations As mentioned above, an active alumni network can disseminate information about the program overseas and provide support for recruiting new students (Jenks, 1991). Pennington (1992a, p. 40) suggests maintaining regular contact with past students through an alumni newsletter, which besides maintaining contact between the alumni and the program, can report on their activities and successes, thus potentially motivating current students. Ongoing contact with alumni can also help to feed information into the program in terms of what is happening in the parts of the world where alumni are located, the concerns of people in those locations, and any suggestions alumni might have for the program curriculum, structure, or orientation to best meet the needs of students from their region.

Program Members’ Interactions with and Knowledge about Students The leadership, the administrative staff, and the faculty need to be knowledgeable about the dimensions of cultural difference and how they

The Students

121

might affect their interactions with students and the students’ lives inside and outside of classes. They can also benefit by knowing, or knowing about, students’ native languages, countries, and their cultural and social background, as well as their particular motivations for language study, their previous language study, and their academic background. An initial sense of student characteristics can be gained during the admissions and orientation process, with the program leader providing for the sharing of non-restricted information with faculty and other program members. Additional knowledge of students is gained in ongoing contact with them, in classes as well as other program activities, such as field trips and social gatherings, and in advising sessions. Information about students’ progress, adjustment, and needs should be shared on a regular basis among program faculty, administrative staff, and leadership, while always keeping in mind the need to ‘‘[m]aintain the confidentiality, integrity, and security of participants’ records and of all communications with program participants . . . [and to] secure permission of the individuals before sharing information with others inside or outside the organization, unless disclosure is authorized by law or institutional policy or is mandated by previous arrangement’’ (ohttp://www.nafsa.org/about.sec/ governance_leadership/ethics_standards/nafsa_s_code_of_ethicsW). In the United States, there are strict rules about the privacy of student records following the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA; owww.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.htmW). Language programs are subject to these laws too, but it can be hard to explain to international student sponsors, parents, or other guardians that student progress and records cannot be released without the student’s permission. International students’ parents may have more expectations about being informed of the progress of their children than will be the normal practice or will be legally allowed in the United States. Students in trouble with their studies or with other matters may need to be encouraged to be proactive in their communication with their parents or other sponsors before final penalties come into play. All of the challenges students face are part of the experience of study abroad that can make it one of the greatest times of learning and growth in a person’s life. Each hurdle surmounted can be a source of pride for the individual who learns with growing confidence and language ability to navigate the new environment and to make friends with other students who are also going through or have gone through these experiences. At the same time, the language program faculty and staff need to be aware of the potential pitfalls of (especially long-term) language study in a foreign

122

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

country and to guard against serious student problems. Safeguards should include expectations of attendance and a proactive system of staying in touch with an absent student or one who is chronically late to class, and following up with students who have been absent once they return to class. In addition, faculty and all other program members should always be on the lookout for signs of potential problems such as a student’s lack of participation, shows of anger, or aggressive behavior. All program members need to support the students in ensuring that they are able to negotiate the social and cultural issues surrounding language learning and to develop and maintain high motivation, commitment, and focus on achieving their learning goals, while also assisting students with needs involving housing, visa requirements, medical needs, and communication outside the program. It should be a program goal in establishing good relationships and climate and in providing a quality experience for the student to ensure many and varied interactions with students. Through frequent interactions, individual students, their motivations for language study, and their academic, cultural, and personal characteristics and needs will become known by program members, and, in the best case, both their successes and struggles will be shared by many helpful others.

Professional Standards for Student Services The professional working in language program leadership or international educational exchange generally has a special imperative to adhere to professional standards in working with international students. Both NAFSA-AIE and CEA have established professional standards for dealing with students in international educational exchange contexts. NAFSA’s code of ethics for relationships with students aims to protect their individual and human rights and to ‘‘[p]rovide information, orientation, and support services needed to facilitate participants’ adaptation to a new educational and cultural environment’’ (ohttp://www.nafsa.org/about.sec/governance_ leadership/ethics_standards/nafsa_s_code_of_ethicsW). The NAFSA standards overall speak to appropriate aspects of the role of professionals in international education with regard to their power and authority as representatives of the institution as well as their access to information and the appropriate use of their knowledge and training in cross-cultural aspects of educational exchange. The Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA; ohttp://www.cea-accredit.org/W), which focuses on intensive English

The Students

123

language programs, has nine standards directly treating student services, Student Services Standards 1-9. The CEA student services standards overall speak to the provision of services and the programs’ ability to fulfill promised services, the importance of student comprehension of information related to student services, the provision of orientation activities to facilitate adjustment to the new environment, and the provision of services to comply with visa regulations. These standards clearly mark the importance of professionalism in language program activity with regard to enrollment of students who have come to a new country to study in the language program. Other CEA standards refer to the importance of the curriculum and matters related to student academic achievement within the language program. The entire set of CEA standards is worth studying in depth by anyone in a language program leadership position, regardless of whether the program intends to seek accreditation through CEA or not.

Supporting Students by Outreach Beyond the Language Program Those working with international students or immigrant populations can provide additional support for the students by seeking to educate the larger community about their culture, language, and differences in such areas as food, dress, and religious holidays. This may be done in part by supporting public events in which people from outside the program have a chance to interact with program students, such as receptions, cultural fairs, or visits to classes. It may also be done by getting the students involved in the large institutional or local context, such as through students visiting other schools or classes, tutoring others in the student’s own native language, or volunteering for community service projects. In addition, it is part of the program leadership’s responsibility to educate others about the students in the program. The professional working with international or immigrant students within the context of the U.S. university campus or public school may find that expectations of other educational professionals about student autonomy and independence which are assumed for U.S. students do not fit the ESL learning population, especially those with low language skills. These students may in fact be highly dependent on the aid of others and may make considerable demands on support staff as well as teachers and classmates who speak their language. It is therefore important for the program leadership to articulate with other educational units to raise their awareness

124

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

about the students’ needs and the resources available, and to provide information and support. Christison (1997) gives a wide variety of examples of how language program leaders can advocate for students beyond the language program. Some of her suggestions that directly affect the students are summarized below:

THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADER AS STUDENT ADVOCATE (Summarized from Christison, 1997, pp. 144–151) Classroom Advocate  Explain to mainstream faculty about student behaviors such as ‘‘the quiet student; ‘‘the student who makes no eye contact;’’  Explain to faculty about cultural assumptions in plagiarism;  Explain to faculty about ‘‘cheating’’ behaviors. Culture Advocate  Help students and other advisors or support personnel regarding cultural adjustment issues, including culture shock and other adjustment issues (climate, community);  Provide information to university personnel about intercultural communication processes;  Serve as cultural ‘‘ambassador’’ by becoming knowledgeable about other cultures. Language Advocate  Explain to mainstream faculty the nature of continuing surface errors in students’ academic work;  Explain to faculty the needs of L2 students in responding to writing assignments, knowledge of conventions, and listening comprehension issues. Academic Advocate  Help L2 students in the university succeed in mainstream classes through strategies such as tape-recording lectures, taking advantage of faculty office hours, and getting a study partner;  Advise mainstream faculty on classroom strategies that help L2 students, such as getting individualized feedback and encouraging student questions;  Advise faculty on strategies for enhancing lessons such as writing key terms on the blackboard and improving lectures for L2 student comprehension.

125

The Students

Leaders of English language programs for immigrant populations may also advocate for multilingual families in the United States The overwhelming pattern of language shift within immigrant families has been for the grandchildren of immigrants to have minimal proficiency—such as some awareness of everyday vocabulary and expressions—or no proficiency in the grandparents’ language. These grandchildren come to college and must enroll in foreign language classes to learn the language that could have been their birthright. At the same time, the United States finds itself with a scarcity of professionals with second-language skills. Multilingual families need support and encouragement to maintain their home language while the children learn English in school and through every other major educational, entertainment, and social venue.

STUDENTS’ INFLUENCE ON THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM ECOLOGY There are many variables that can cause change in the language program ecology. Kaplan (1997, p. 12) lists some of these, including student background variables such as academic experience and language ability, student objectives and desired emphasis in study—all of which affect the nature of the program instruction. As one of the elements in the ecology of the language program, the student body can have enormous impact on the other components of the language program, including its overall mission. A change in the student body can cause change in the other elements of the ecology as well. On the programmatic level, the nature of the pedagogy, schedule, and classroom instructional formats can also change in relation to changes in student characteristics or needs. In order to remain competitive, language program leaders need to be highly responsive to conditions in other countries that might result in more student applications. If the program remains responsive to opportunities and is successful in attracting new audiences of students, it will need to make adjustments to support the new clients and their sponsors. These may involve program structure, functioning, and budget, and they may affect the roles and jobs of faculty, staff, and others who articulate with the program to a greater or lesser extent. Students from other countries will also be affected whenever they have new types of students as their classmates. The following case study discusses the effects of a change in the student body on all aspects of a language program.

126

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

CASE STUDY 4.3 SAUDI STUDENTS IN U.S. LANGUAGE PROGRAMS In fall of 2005, several thousand Saudi students entered the United States as part of an educational plan including English language and matriculated undergraduate or graduate study funded by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Higher Education. The impact of this population on English language programs throughout the United States was substantial. The influx of Saudi students in some language programs reached over 50%. The influx of this population had effects on all aspects of program delivery in the schools where the Saudi students enrolled. Discussions held at TESOL and NAFSA meetings in 2006 and 2007 captured the kind of changes this population had on all aspects of language programs (Hoekje, Atkins, Brown, McNerney, Sesker, & Stevens, 2006; Hoffman, 2007). Hoekje et al. (2006) presented information collected from five intensive English programs regarding the teaching and learning issues associated with students from Saudi Arabia who entered the United States in unprecedented numbers starting in fall, 2005. The five university-based programs had enrolled approximately 150 Saudi students sponsored by the Saudi Ministry of Higher Education over the 14month period from September 2005 to October 2006, 85% male and 15% female. The students, all of whom were bound for graduate and undergraduate programs in the United States, for the most part were placed initially into beginning and intermediate levels in the English language programs. Issues emerged in the programs regarding academic placement and preparation for post-ESL academic programs, classroom behaviors, cultural expectations and values, and cocurricular issues including homestay and acculturation activities. The following is a summary of the information presented by Hoekje et al. (2006). The population had an immediate effect on classroom culture within the program as Saudi students brought their own backgrounds, expectations, particular language learning profiles and experiences into English program classrooms. Most of the Saudi students showed greater proficiency in speaking and listening skills compared to their literacy skills. For language programs with integrated skills curricula, this was problematic because the Saudis’ verbal skills were strong enough to dominate the lower-level reading and writing courses and to cause frustration among the Saudi students themselves. However, even in courses with separated oral and written skills classes, the interaction of literacy with oral skills was problematic—for example, on tests of listening comprehension where it was necessary to read and distinguish between distractor responses in choosing the right answer. The greater fluency in managing everyday classroom communication tasks masked at times a lack of more formal academic spoken language skills. In the literature, this has been referred to as the distinction between ‘‘basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS)’’ and ‘‘cognitive and academic language proficiency (CALP)’’ (Cummins, 1981). Because literacy skills were low in this population, the preparation tasks of university admission such as writing an application essay could not begin in a timely manner with some to meet the expected deadline of

The Students matriculated study after one year of English language courses. The overall profile of the Saudi students indicated that they would profit greatly from extra tutoring and support programs for university admission, even at an extra tuition charge. The curriculum was impacted as the language program faculty and leadership, who were familiar with the learning profiles of students with stronger literacy than oral skills, had to adjust to a new population with the opposite profile. The relatively low literacy skills of some Saudi students compared with their generally higher oral skills had an effect on the curriculum, as additional literacy support courses were developed for the curriculum. The need for students to achieve a certain score on the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) in order to continue on to academic study led the programs to increase their focus on TOEFL test preparation. Special supplemental classes were created around literacy issues (handwriting, spelling, word roots) making use of the more advanced oral skills in the classroom, for example, to give directions for complex tasks that students could understand. Faculty members with expertise in the Middle East and with Arabic language skills were in particular demand. From the administrative point of view, holidays and traditions such as Ramadan impacted classes and the organization of the program calendar, food services, and student lunches. Student services were also impacted with the influx of the Saudi population. The desire for homestay placements required additional staff time to arrange these and also led the program to increase orientation and support for homestay families unaccustomed to the practices of Muslim students. Most U.S. homestay families were not Muslim and were not familiar with Muslim practices or food needs. Cultural differences in communicative style, expectations, and interpretation also impacted interactions of the students with their teachers and the program leadership and administrative staff. The effect of cultural context had also to be considered, as the exchange program was initiated in the midst of a national and international discourse of post-9/11 politics in which Saudi nationals had a special visibility. Classroom behavior was affected by the holiday of Ramadan, which fell in the first month of the fall term for most programs. The observant students fasted during the day and stayed up late at night to eat and celebrate together. This activity over the month led in some cases to excessive fatigue, lateness, and absence. During the final celebration of Eid-al-Fitr, policy had to be made about whether any of the days (which are comparable to Christmas and Yom Kippur in importance) would be excused by the program. In some cases, the program had to bring the policy questions to the university within which it is housed. In addition, program receptions could not be scheduled during the daytime in the fasting month of Ramadan. About ten percent of the Saudi students discussed in this panel arrived with family members, and for this group transition to the United States included special challenges. Paying for child care is enormously expensive in the United States, and was especially seen so by families who were used to the help provided by their extended families at home. Many of the single Saudi students wanted a homestay with an American family. It turned out to be particularly important to have orientation for non-Muslim American families hosting Saudi students because of a variety of issues leading to misunderstandings, not least of which was that U.S.

127

128

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD bathrooms, especially in older houses, do not lend themselves to the splashing and water on the floor resulting from purification activities. In addition, there were issues about food, and halal options needed to be provided in homestays and program lunches. Communicative issues related to culture focused on the relationship-centered nature of Saudi society, the importance of saving face, and the centrality of negotiation. With a relationship-centered approach, rules, and regulations (which according to U.S. values preserves an equality of treatment) are less important than maintenance of a relationship. A student receiving a warning letter of probation might think that the teacher or program director did not like him or her. Similarly, a teacher warning a student of possible failure in the presence of others might rupture a bond of trust as well as damage face irretrievably. Utmost care had to be taken to preserve face, meeting with students privately as needed. Negotiation is a well-known feature of the Middle Eastern marketplace and along with debate is a valued verbal skill. Saudi students are used to negotiation in areas that are not typically negotiated in the United States such as grades. To U.S. language program faculty and leadership, ‘‘No means no,’’ and to seek a different answer either through negotiating or by going to another person is felt to be subverting authority. In a predominantly female field such as English language teaching, it can also feel disrespectful towards female authority. Classroom practices therefore had to take into account not only differences in classroom pedagogy, but also issues of grading and female teacher authority. Attendance and lateness were issues with some students, especially during religious holidays not accounted for in the program calendar. Faculty had to address these matters with sensitivity to the students’ culture and to learn ways to mediate stereotyping and judgments by other students about such matters as arranged marriage, wealth, religious practices, and other aspects of Saudi culture. Other changes were needed that affected faculty and staff. All program members, including the administrative staff and the teachers, needed additional information which the program leader had to plan into the work day and budget as professional development. This included learning about Saudi culture and customs; educational system and classroom practices, including the nature of English language instruction in Saudi Arabia; and Arabic language (phonology, grammar, discourse structures, and communication patterns) in relation to English, in order to anticipate and understand the types of problems students might have. These were all important areas of new knowledge for faculty and staff who had little prior experience with this population. In all these ways, the change in student population led to change throughout the program ecology. Since the Saudis experienced less trouble orally and culturally expressing their needs and feelings than some of the other students, they were at times able to help other students to negotiate meaning and better express their needs and feelings. As a resource for the program, the Saudis exhibited hospitality and a desire to share their culture with others that could be showcased in international festivals, culture fairs, on-site and off-site visits, and other activities.

The Students

129

As this case study demonstrates, an influx of a new type of student impacts the distribution of program resources and nearly every aspect of program functioning, especially in the academic program and the support provided for students. Planning for a new population of students must take into consideration matters of:  Testing;  Curriculum;  Orientation and development of new knowledge and practices of faculty, staff, and others such as homestay families to the culture and needs of the students;  The additional time needed for implementing changes;  The possibility of additional staff or job expansion/alteration needed for implementing changes;  Management of the new student population in relation to other students’ needs;  Balancing new demands in the context of ongoing program demands. Even a carefully planned change effort in response to an anticipated new student population will not be able to anticipate all areas of needed adjustment, much less will arrival of new types of students without intention and careful pre-planning. Given the desirability of remaining fiscally sound and competitive, and of maintaining diversity and strong enrollments, the program must remain flexible, open to new opportunities, and responsive to these in terms of all parts of the ecology.

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER FOUR This chapter has looked at the central program resource of students both in terms of the potentials as well as the challenges different student groups bring to the language program ecology and in terms of the resources required to handle the needs of the students well to ensure they can focus on their main purpose of language learning. If successful in managing the student component of the ecology, the program leadership and all of its faculty and administrative staff keep the focus of the program on its primary source of revenue and its main reason for existing, which is to bring students into the program, teach them the language, and then deliver them to universities for further study or back to their home countries as successful language learners, satisfied customers, more aware global citizens, and good ambassadors for the program, the institution, and the community and country of study.

CHAPTER FIVE THE FACULTY The faculty and the work they do are at the heart of the language program and as such need to be carefully hired, developed, and nourished. A key aspect of managing the faculty is provision of a rich array of career development opportunities and appropriate faculty performance review. In the best case, faculty develop their own individual potentials and learning communities with other faculty members, committing to and leading their own professional development in ways that feed back into and nourish the overall program.

THE CONTEXT OF TEACHING-LEARNING Teaching provides the basis for the continuation of our cultural and linguistic practices, and prepares the next generation for their role in maintaining these and innovating to meet future needs. As observed by Pennington (1989a): . . . [T]eachers are the driving force in every educational enterprise, so that the success or failure of any particular program rests largely on faculty development. In self-supporting language programs, the nature and quality of the teaching faculty can literally ‘make or break’ the operation. In state-subsidized institutions, too, the character of the faculty is largely responsible for many overt indicators of success or failure, such as reputation, size and income from grants. To ensure its continued health and existence, it is in the best interests of a language program for the administrator to commit considerable resources of time, personnel and money to faculty development. (pp. 109–110)

The faculty will affect the language program ecology in many aspects, through their interactions with all of its other resources, and in reciprocal fashion, the nature of the language program will affect the faculty in providing opportunities as well as constraints on their teaching approaches, roles and relationships with students, and career development. Teaching is a complex professional activity that takes place in complex ecosystems and that requires judgment and customization to meet the needs of a constantly changing stream of students in a changing world. Teaching reflects its context (Pennington, 1992c, 1995a, 1995b) and is contextadaptive at the local or micro level of individual events and classrooms, as well as at the broader more macro level of the school, the society, the 131

132

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

individual teaching field, and the teaching profession. The context of teaching and teacher development includes each of these levels, as does the interaction of teachers and learners. The teacher and the learner are in an ecological relationship in which the outputs of both are mediated to become inputs to the other (Pennington, 1992c, 1995a). In like manner, the faculty as a whole forms an interacting microecology, as do the faculty of an individual language program together with the profession as a whole. Teaching is dialogic in Bakhtin’s (1935/1981) sense of invoking and overlaying multiple voices, roles, or discourses, including the teacher’s past voice as a student, the teacher’s current voice as an institutional representative, and the teacher’s separate voices as a member of the community of peers within the school and the larger professional community to which the teacher belongs. The teacher’s identity and the discourse through which she or he expresses that identity includes a distinctive voice as a member of the community outside the school and the profession. This is a voice which may or may not resonate with that of the students, depending upon whether they share community membership with the teacher. Whether in harmony or disharmony, teaching very essentially involves a dialogue between the teacher’s and the students’ voices. Language program faculty should be well-qualified professionals (Pennington, 1989a, 1989b, 1999b). By professional, we mean a teacher who bridges between the personal and the collective aspects of teaching and who feeds theory and research into practice in a systematic way. Language program faculty need to have a good knowledge of the theoretical and research base of their discipline, and to have personal experience of conducting research and writing up the results. We believe in the reflective practitioner model of teacher professionalism in which continual reflection, problemposing, and research are essential elements, and in which teachers make every effort to keep abreast of developments in their field and to bring them into their work. Through reflective practice and reflection-in-action (Scho¨n, 1983), an interactive loop between context and practice is created in which both the context and teaching practices are changed (Pennington, 1995b, p. 706).

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT Hiring Faculty Hiring faculty is a critical process for ensuring program quality. In recruiting faculty, the program leadership should consider factors of the mix

The Faculty

133

and diversity of faculty characteristics, such as teaching style and cultural and linguistic background in relation to the students, in order to make the best possible ecological fit. A further consideration is to have faculty who are flexible in what they want to and are able to teach, balanced with some faculty members who are specialized in relation to program needs. Having all teaching generalists may not meet student needs, such as for high-level academic preparation or English for business purposes. On the other hand, having faculty members who are all specialists will make it difficult to respond, without retraining or new faculty hires, to new audiences of students and teaching-learning needs. Significant time and resources need to be directed to the faculty hiring process. A two-day process is recommended in which each candidate spends the first day visiting classes and socializing informally with faculty, students, administrative staff, and leadership, in addition to touring the campus and the area. The second day can then be devoted to interviews with the faculty hiring committee, a group of students, the program director, and other key members of the leadership such as the student services coordinator if there is one. On one or the other days, it is also important to have the prospective faculty member teach a class, observed by the program leadership and members of the faculty search committee. At best, this will be an actual class of students in the program, but if there are many candidates, it might be necessary to set up teaching demonstrations outside of actual classes. As part of the hiring process, teachers—like students—need a substantial period of orientation and settling into their new ecology. Even highly experienced, excellent teachers may need a period of learning and adjusting to a new teaching situation. A one-year probationary period is suggested in which orientation, training, and close supervision are provided, and with the option to discontinue employment at any time up to the end of the one-year period for a faculty member who does not work out well. Even before they are hired, prospective faculty should receive statements of expectations for their jobs and for the probationary period, so they are aware of what they will need to do to be successful in the new job. Going through all of these stages carefully gives the best chance of a good match between faculty, students, and overall program culture and needs. It therefore helps to avoid the problems and many different types of waste—of time, energy, good will, and money—associated with wrong hiring decisions, such as the one described in the next case study.

134

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

CASE STUDY 5.1 CONSEQUENCES OF A WRONG HIRING DECISION Carole was a finalist for a one-year contract teaching position in a university English language program in Florida. The program had five permanent faculty positions and otherwise hired faculty on contracts of one semester or one year as needed based on enrollment. Carole had graduated from a prestigious Masters program in Teaching English as a Second Language in the northeastern United States and had a letter of support from a nationally known professor of TESOL. The program director, although noting Carole’s limited teaching experience working in an intensive English program, decided in consultation with the associate dean, who was his direct supervisor, to bring Carole to Florida for an interview, based on the high reputation of the professor who had written her a recommendation letter and of the MA program from which she had graduated. The two other finalists were Jon and Harland. The three finalists were brought to the program at different times during a twoweek period for two days of interviews, a teaching demonstration, and a tour of the university and the area. After all of the candidate visits, based on all of the input by faculty, students, administrative staff, the program director, and the associate dean, the clear front-runner was Jon, with Carole in a distant second place. At this point, Harland was eliminated, and the program director and associate dean met to decide whether to hire only Jon or both Jon and Carole. The associate dean was enthusiastic about Carole, but the program director expressed reservations based on her meeting only the minimum requirement of teaching experience (one year in an intensive English program) and some discomfort in his interpersonal encounter with her. The associate dean made light of these reservations and urged him to hire Carole, saying, ‘‘Why not give her a try?’’ Against his better judgment, the director did as urged and offered both Jon and Carole contracts. Carole and Jon both accepted and were hired for one-year contract positions. Before signing them on, the program director told them both that their contracts were only one-year appointments but that they would be free to apply for further one-year contracts, competing with any others who might apply. The director stressed that the availability of further teaching after the one-year contract could not be guaranteed, as the contract positions were only decided year to year based on enrollments and the number of faculty needed at any given time. Carole and Jon were also told that the program had requested to the dean for two further permanent faculty positions, which might or might not come through; and if they did, they would be eligible to apply for these, along with anyone else who was qualified. The permanent positions required a Masters degree in TESOL or a related field and a minimum of two years’ teaching experience. Although she had lived all of her life in a big city up North, Carole expressed interest in moving to the South permanently and starting a new life there. Jon was a Florida native and lived only one hour’s drive from the program. Both Carole and Jon moved to the suburbs near the city where the university and the language program was located and rented houses there.

The Faculty Both Jon and Carole made friends with the other teachers and otherwise seemed to fit well in the language program. At the end of the first semester, Jon had outstanding ratings from the students in all four of his classes, which included two advanced classes, one intermediate class, and one advanced-beginner class, in addition to two outstanding observation reports, one from the program director and one from the associate dean, who always observed new teachers within their first semester. Carole had equally outstanding evaluations from students in her two beginner level classes but only moderate ratings from the students in her one intermediate and one advanced class. The program director also gave her a moderate rating in the intermediate-level class observed. The associate dean, on the other hand, who observed her beginning level class, was highly complimentary. In connection with comments from the students in her intermediate and advanced classes, the program director made suggestions for Carole to help her address the points raised. In addition, Carole requested being taken off the advanced class and teaching at only low or intermediate level. She stated that she was particularly interested in and comfortable with teaching at the beginning level. It was therefore decided to give her one intermediate, one beginner, and two advanced-beginner classes in the next semester. Jon was assigned two intermediate and two advanced classes for the second semester. At the end of the second semester, Jon again received uniformly outstanding student ratings and observation reports and was offered another one-year contract for the following year, which he happily accepted. Carole’s student ratings in her beginning class were superlative; in her two advanced-beginner classes, they were good though not superlative; and in her intermediate level class, they were just satisfactory. As in the previous semester, the program director noted areas for improvement and offered to send Carole to a regional TESOL conference that took place in the middle of the semester, an offer she accepted. Carole returned enthusiastic, and the program director thought she showed sufficiently good performance and desire for improvement that she could be offered another oneyear contract, which Carole accepted. One month into Carole’s and Jon’s second year of teaching, the dean approved one new permanent position. It was decided to allow only those currently working for the program on short-term contracts to apply. Jon, Carole, and two other contract teachers met the requirements and submitted applications. A normal hiring process was undertaken, including formal applications, teaching demonstration, and interviews over a two-week period. At the end of the period, the program director and associate dean met and agreed that all of the candidates were qualified, but Jon was the clear choice for the one position which had been agreed. At the end of the first semester, in December of that year, it was announced that Jon would be hired for the next academic year in permanent status. The program director met with Carole and the other two candidates individually and sought to be encouraging about their prospects for the future, noting that as long as enrollments remained strong, the program would continue to need additional faculty beyond the six permanent core positions and they could apply for those positions. The three teachers who had not been hired for the permanent position were disappointed. Carole seemed to take the news especially

135

136

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD hard; the other two were more accepting that Jon was a very strong candidate and they could see how he was the one selected. Carole on the other hand immediately questioned the decision. The next day she asked for a meeting with the associate dean. In that meeting, Carole told the associate dean that she felt the program director had not evaluated her teaching fairly. She also claimed that she had been led to believe in conversations with the director when she was hired that she would be able to get a permanent position in the program. The associate dean called in the program director the next day to discuss the points raised by Carole, and the director denied making any type of promise to Carole about a permanent position and also denied any type of unfair evaluation of her teaching. The director reminded the associate dean that he had had reservations about Carole from day one and still had some reservations as he noted that Carole was limited in what she seemed willing and able to teach in the program. He offered the opinion that although Carole seemed to be their best teacher at beginner level, they had never needed four sections of that level and possibly never would, so it would be important for Carole to branch out and develop greater competency to teach at higher levels, though she had expressed some lack of interest in doing so. The associate dean was persuaded that the director was doing his job properly and said she would support his actions in relation to Carole and not interfere. She also said it would be important to handle Carole ‘‘with care’’ as she was angry and was planning to go to the Human Resources office to make a complaint. Over the next semester, Carole became a constant complainer and increasingly negative, to the point of disturbing other faculty in their common workspace and even complaining about the director in front of students. Near the end of the semester, two of the long-time permanent faculty came to the director to request that he ‘‘get rid of’’ Carole, as they felt she was poisoning the atmosphere of the program. As luck would have it and to everyone’s great relief, at the end of the semester, Carole left the program and enrolled in a Doctoral program in a different field and at a different university. During the break between semesters, the director and the associate dean discussed Carole’s case at length, deciding that it had been a mistake to hire her in the first place, given the director’s misgivings about her limited experience and the on-campus interview with her. The lesson learned was never to hire anyone when there is even a minor reservation about them, and the associate dean resolved not to attempt to counter the director’s judgment about faculty in future. In addition, it was decided that they needed to put more details in writing about what prospective and newly hired faculty could expect in their jobs, including very specific understandings about the terms of the position, its limitations, and conditions of service. For future positions, they would always develop a detailed position description which faculty would need to indicate in writing that they had read and agreed to as part of the hiring process and signing on to the job. It was further decided that the position descriptions for short-term contracts and permanent positions should make clear that all faculty were required to teach effectively at all levels of the program.

The Faculty

137

From Teacher Education to Teacher Practice, Theory, and Research Beyond considerations of staffing the program faculty development involves the education of teachers as well as their transition from formal education into teaching practice. Ecologically oriented teacher education would ensure that candidates are familiar with a range of different methodologies, have practical experience with these, and have an understanding of the circumstances under which they are appropriately used. It would ensure that teachers are aware of the different factors which affect classroom instruction and have developed the observational, reflective, planning, and decision-making skills needed to implement instruction in consideration of those factors. It will therefore ensure that they have experience in needs assessment, goal-setting, and negotiating these interconnected factors. They should entertain an openness to change and innovation, along with an action research approach to teaching that continually seeks to improve the fit between learner needs and characteristics, on the one hand, and the instructional approach, on the other. While some of these types of knowledge can be gained in formal education courses, many of the orientations and skills described here are developed on the job, as teachers interact in their daily work contexts and personalize what they have learned, each creating a unique teaching framework (Pennington, 1997a, 1997c, 1998g) that incorporates their knowledge, values, and beliefs as well as their teaching practices. Over time, teachers develop their teaching framework through ‘‘reflection-inaction’’ (Scho¨n, 1983) that builds professional practice by integrating classroom experience and personal characteristics with knowledge gained from external sources. In this way, the teaching framework becomes increasingly integrated into a system of skills and practices backed up by an articulated philosophy of teaching. Teaching is thus individual and personal, involving each teacher’s own knowledge and interpretation of theory; practices and skill set, or ‘‘craft,’’ of teaching; and personal ‘‘artistry’’ in putting theory, interpretation, and skills into action in the classroom. At the same time, a teacher’s unique and individual response in teaching is shaped by others, both other members of the teaching profession in teacher education programs and in specific teaching contexts, and by the students whom the teacher instructs. Thus teaching is ‘‘a socially constructed activity that requires the interpretation and negotiation of meanings embedded within the context of the classroom’’ (Johnson, 1996, p. 24) and the context of the profession. From the

138

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

perspective of profession, teaching is both personal and social, art and craft, involving . . . [integration of] internal and external knowledge, personal and shared experience. In this sense, teaching-as-profession bridges between the subjective and the intersubjective aspects of teaching . . . , mediating between the individual and collective aspects of teaching. (Pennington, 1999b, p. 99)

At both an individual and a collective level, teaching involves both theory and practice, and the application and adaptation of these to particular contexts. Language teachers, like other teachers, should be ‘‘active readers, users, and producers of theory’’ (Sharkey, 2004, p. 281) in contexts and communities of practice, where they can integrate different facets of their knowledge (Freeman & Johnson, 1998). Teachers must build their own unique synthesis of knowledge and find their own individual voice by means of which they can ‘‘create and fashion meaning, assert standpoints, . . . negotiate with others, [and participate] in a social world’’ (Britzman, 1991, p. 12). As teachers build their own situated practices and theories of teaching and learning, they build ‘‘knowledge . . . [as] lived practices, not just accumulated information’’ (Johnson, 2006, p. 237). Teachers situate their knowledge as ‘‘the processes of learning are negotiated with people in what they do, through the experiences in the social practices associated with particular activities’’ . . . [and] through the knowledge of the communities of practice within which the individual participates’’ (ibid.). In her study of curricular change involving a group of elementary ESOL teachers, Sharkey (2004) observed how the teachers formed a ‘‘conceptual framework for curriculum decision making’’ (p. 296) through the intellectual process of contextualizing: a process involving ‘‘contestation and negotiation, a process where teachers struggle to define their work while recognizing the factors that define it for them’’ (ibid.). In her research, Sharkey (2004) demonstrated how teachers’ process of ‘‘contextualizing is a form of teacher praxis . . . an articulation of the theory-practice dynamic’’ (p. 296). Echoing Sharkey (2004), Johnson (2006) argues that ‘‘L2 [secondlanguage] teachers are users and creators of knowledge and theorizers in their own right’’(p. 241). Johnson (2006) points out that accepted ways of practicing ‘‘teacher research positions teachers as investigators of and interveners in their own practice while making their investigations and interventions, in essence their learning, visible to others’’ (p. 242). In addition to teachers being able to study and learn from their own

139

The Faculty

classrooms, Johnson reviews a range of approaches to professional development that are controlled by teachers themselves, in their own communities of practice. These include:       

Teacher inquiry seminars; Peer coaching; Cooperative development; Teacher study groups; Narrative inquiry; Lesson study groups; Critical friends groups. (Johnson, 2006, p. 243)

These approaches to professional development ‘‘are all designed to create more equitable social roles and typically take place in settings that are more connected to the daily activities of teachers and students’’ (Johnson, 2006, pp. 243–244). Most importantly, all of these approaches to teacher reflection legitimate the classroom as a site for teacher learning (Johnson, 2006, p. 244), thus locating the site of practice, reflection, and theorizing within the language program. Such ‘‘located L2 teacher education’’ (Johnson, 2006, p. 246) can function to help teachers realize the ideological underpinnings of their work and contest aspects of institutional agendas as they ‘‘scrutinize and navigate the consequences that broader macrostructures, such as educational policies and curricular mandates, have on their daily classroom practices’’ (ibid.).

The Career Path of Language Teachers According to Pennington (1989a, pp. 106–109), teachers go through initial and advanced stages of a teaching career, as summarized below: Initial Stages (1) Supervised teaching; (2) Teaching across the curriculum (i.e., in a number of different areas, as teachers familiarize themselves with different levels and skill areas); (3) Teaching in favorite areas (as teachers learn the areas in which they feel most comfortable and competent); and (4) Teaching in new areas (as teachers tire after some years of teaching the same areas and seek new challenges).

140

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Advanced Stages (1) Supervising teaching (i.e., mentoring new teachers); (2) Developing curriculum; (3) Developing materials; and (4) Developing new areas of expertise. At each stage, Pennington maintains that different curricular assignments, professional orientations, supervisory approaches, and sources of input are appropriate. The program director, curriculum coordinator, or faculty supervisor should know individual faculty well and have knowledge of their teaching history and preferences so that it will be possible to match curricular assignment, supervisory approach, and professional development opportunities to the needs and interests of individual teachers and the faculty as a whole. While some teachers may naturally continue to progress in their teaching career and professional development, seeking out opportunities for learning and growth, others may benefit from the assistance of the program leadership . . . in identifying a new pathway at certain stages in their career. Thus, a faculty supervisor should be on the lookout for signs that a certain job assignment may have outlived its usefulness for a certain instructor. If a faculty member seems to be dissatisfied or to be stagnating or performing below standard in an assignment, it may be advisable to try to move that teacher out of one curricular assignment and into a more advanced stage in the teaching life-cycle . . . . The administrator should encourage any kind of professional activity, whether engaged in by the faculty as individual or as a group, by offering release time or other types of allowances and incentives, including raises and promotions. For as faculty members increase their status and mature professionally, so does the program in which they work. Moreover, faculty members who are benefiting professionally from association with a program gain in loyalty and job satisfaction and are likely to maintain a high level of productivity throughout their careers. (Pennington, 1989a, pp. 108–109)

The following teacher development goals are suggested for individualized, long-range career growth:  A knowledge of the theoretical base of the field in language learning and classroom research;  Informed knowledge of self and students;  Attitudes of flexibility and openness to change;  Decision-making and communication skills;  The analytical skills necessary for assessing different teaching situations and the changing conditions in a classroom;  Awareness of alternative teaching approaches and the ability to put these into practice;

141

The Faculty

 The confidence and the skills to alter one’s teaching approach as needed; and  Practical experience with different teaching approaches. (Pennington, 1990a, p. 150) Teachers’ Adoption of New Practices Research suggests that a teacher change cycle is associated with learning new practices in their procedural, interpersonal, and conceptual dimensions: Procedural Interpersonal

Conceptual

Matters involving techniques, materials, and logistics; Matters involving the teacher’s and the students’ reactions, feelings, roles and responsibilities, motivation, and classroom atmosphere; Matters involving personal meaning, explanation, integration of theory and practice. (Pennington, 1995b, pp. 718–719)

When teachers first try out new teaching approaches, they tend to do so ‘‘piecemeal,’’ by experimenting with new techniques and materials. Their focus is of necessity on mastering these techniques and materials. As they become more comfortable with these, they are able to shift their attention increasingly to their interaction with students and to that of students with each other. In this way, teachers learn to integrate a new approach into their personal teaching repertoire. It is only at a later stage, after applying new elements in their classroom for a period of time, that teachers begin to integrate it into their conceptual framework. A faculty member’s adoption of new ideas can be modeled, following Pennington (1995b), as a teacher change cycle with the stages outlined below.

STAGES OF TEACHER DEVELOPMENT IN ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS (Adapted substantially from Pennington, 1995b, p. 719) Stage 0

Stage 1

Consideration Main focus Backgrounded

Conceptual/Procedural Interpersonal

Try-Out Main focus Secondary focus Backgrounded

Procedural Interpersonal Conceptual

142

Stage 2

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Getting into a Routine Main focus Secondary focus Emerging focus

Interpersonal Procedural Conceptual

Stage 3

Integrating Practice into Personal Teaching System Main focus Conceptual Secondary focus Interpersonal Moving to background Procedural

Stage 4

Long-term Practice Main focus Secondary focus Backgrounded

Interpersonal Conceptual Procedural

At the pre-implementation stage (Stage 0), the teacher has gained some knowledge of a new approach—such as from observation, reading, or other teachers’ reports—and is considering it in relation to her/his classes. Sometimes teachers are attracted to an approach through some new technique or procedures that it offers for classroom instruction. Sometimes they are attracted to an approach because of the philosophy of teaching and learning that underpins it. It is common that teachers feel attracted to the underlying philosophy and rationale for an approach, such as Communicative Language Teaching or the Process Approach to writing, but have concerns as to whether it will be practicable in their teaching situation. Thus in considering a new approach, the focus of the teacher’s attention tends to be either on the philosophy of the approach, on the techniques that it offers, or on the tension between the attraction of its philosophy and the practicalities of its implementation. The teacher’s early concerns in considering a new approach thus tend to center on conceptual and procedural matters. Once a decision has been made to implement an approach or some aspect of it, the teacher’s attention as regards the innovation shifts over time such that procedural, interpersonal, and conceptual matters occupy center stage in sequence, with the other concerns having a lesser importance or being backgrounded at each stage. At the initial try-out stage (Stage 1), matters of procedure (e.g., communicative or process-oriented pair activities) are naturally of primary concern, as the teacher learns how to implement the new approach in teaching and learning. Since implementation of new techniques involve the interaction of teachers and learners, interpersonal concerns will also be a concern once the techniques are in play. At this stage, conceptual matters involving reflection on the teaching-learning process in relation to such matters as long-range planning and personal teaching

The Faculty

143

philosophy are backgrounded in comparison to practical physical and behavioral considerations. As the teacher gets into a familiar routine involving the new practices (Stage 2), teaching techniques are mastered and the primary focus shifts to the learners and interactional concerns, while conceptual matters remain in the background. Eventually, the teacher will have practiced an approach for long enough to have become comfortable with its procedural and interpersonal aspects and to begin to reflect on its impact and to consider it in relation to longrange planning and teaching philosophy. Assuming that reflection results in a positive assessment of the value of the new approach and an intention to continue to apply it in instruction, this is the stage (Stage 3) at which the teacher will incorporate the new approach into her or his personal teaching philosophy or system. At this stage, conceptual matters occupy the teacher’s primary attention, in the context of attention to interpersonal matters of classroom interaction on a base of well-established procedures. After long-term application of practices (Stage 4), the teacher can background attention to procedural matters and focus on interpersonal matters of ongoing interaction involving the people and day-to-day events of the classroom, while maintaining a secondary focus on conceptual matters involving ongoing reflection on students and teaching. Teachers’ adoption of innovations and their progressive response to them are affected by their pre-existing cognitive and affective state (Pennington, 1996b). Based on her research with teachers in Hong Kong, Pennington (1996b) found that their values formed a cognitive-affective frame, or ‘‘filter’’ determining how and how much new information they took in (intake) and how and how much of this eventually made it into their teaching practices (output). The teachers she studied in Hong Kong could be described as falling along a continuum from the most transmission-oriented to the most interpretation-oriented in their teaching approach. The nature of individual teachers’ cognitive-affective filter and the extent to which they carry out reflective practice are important determinants of the way they perceive innovations, the way in which they attempt to incorporate innovations into their practice, and the extent to which they succeed in new practices.

THE PROGRAM LEADER’S ROLE IN FACULTY DEVELOPMENT A program leader who is aware of what is known about teacher development and teacher change can structure positions and development opportunities for faculty accordingly. During evaluation and career review,

144

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

the faculty supervisor or program director can also take into consideration the stage of the faculty member’s career. From a human resources perspective, development of the faculty is beneficial both to the individual employee and also to the organization at large. From a human resources perspective, the manager’s basic role is to make the best use of previously ‘‘untapped’’ human resources, creating an environment which encourages the participation by employees to the full extent of their ability, and broadens their self-direction and control. The assumption made by this perspective is that work is not inherently distasteful. It is an area where people want to contribute and have important aspects of their identity invested. In general, people’s jobs demand less responsible self-direction and control than most people are capable of (Pennington, 1991, 1992b, 1997b). The following case study shows how the intangible resources that faculty bring to a language program can fail to be properly utilized and so can be squandered or dissipated through lack of nurturing and good linkage to the program ecology as a whole.

CASE STUDY 5.2 ROBERT: A CASE OF TEACHER BURNOUT Robert has been teaching in a university intensive English program (IEP) for almost ten years. The position requires teaching four quarters per year, yearround, including summers, which in the United States are one of the busiest terms of the year for an IEP. Robert has been teaching two intensive courses per quarter since he returned to the States with his family from five years overseas teaching in Saudi Arabia. Having reached his forty-fifth birthday, he is officially ‘‘middleaged.’’ Robert has taught every course at the IEP at least five times. His strengths are in teaching reading and vocabulary. He has an undergraduate degree in classics (Greek and Latin) and loves the way words are put together, their roots and prefixes, and their semantic families. He would study Sanskrit and other classical languages if he could. While he was in the Middle East, he began to study classical Arabic and gained a small reputation in the school for his pursuit of this subject. He liked his living situation in Saudi Arabia and had a good job there. He came back to the United States with his family to be near his parents, who are getting old. Truth be told, Robert is getting bored with the same courses and some of the constraints of intensive program teaching in his current job. He is angered by the incessant focus on customer service. With a Master’s in teaching, specific expertise in vocabulary, and twenty years’ experience teaching, he knows his subject matter and prefers serious-minded students who appreciate his rigorous approach. Students who are less serious about learning or who have come to the United States as a vacation both annoy and upset him. He does not like teaching students

The Faculty who are not interested in learning material in the rigorous way he expects: he gives a lot of homework, and student lateness and absence bother him. What really upsets him, though, is his course evaluations. Robert’s course evaluations have been a problematic area for him for several years. An increasing number of students (20–30% of the students in his classes) rate him poorly in a number of areas, including willingness to help students and ability to ‘‘make the class interesting.’’ Students have written such comments as ‘‘He does not listen to students’’ and ‘‘He is not patient with us.’’ On the other hand, most of the reviews are good, and there are usually several students who are particularly appreciative of Robert’s knowledge and experience in teaching and his special expertise in teaching vocabulary. Comments such as ‘‘He has passion to teach’’ and ‘‘He is very smart teacher’’ are frequently written in his evaluations. He makes good connections with the Saudi students and sometimes ends up explaining Middle Eastern student behavior to the other teachers. The director has discussed the issue of course evaluations with Robert and asked him to set goals to address the issues mentioned by the students and improve the ratings. Robert’s response has been one primarily of frustration and anger. He feels that he is being judged according to capricious principles in a sort of popularity contest and that the students don’t appreciate him. He feels increasingly frustrated by the conditions of his teaching and has begun to leave the program as soon as possible after his classes and office hours are over. After ten years teaching in the program, however, he has begun to feel stuck. Several issues are at work here. First, it is easy to see how the principles of selfdirection and self-control are important in Robert’s sense of satisfaction. He feels judged by factors that feel out of his control. The situation is worsening and should be interrupted before it spirals too far downward. The more Robert feels judged according to principles that feel out of his control, the more he will withdraw from the opportunities and investment in the program that would cause him to have more control. One important issue in Robert’s case is the role of student evaluations in assessing teacher performance. He agrees that some form of student feedback on teaching performance must be gathered, but questions whether end-of-term evaluations by students the best form of this. If teachers do not feel the evaluations are valid—if they feel, as Robert does, that they are just a popularity contest—they will not accept them as legitimate feedback on their activity. How can teachers be involved in designing ways that feel valid to them to get student feedback on their teaching? What other sorts of feedback and measures can be used to evaluate teaching for the purposes of both teacher development (formative assessment) and (formal) teacher evaluation (summative assessment)? There are many ways to evaluate faculty and these are discussed in more depth below. From an organizational point of view, it is easy to see how the organization loses when an employee is not contributing all her or his potential to the organization. Robert came to the program with years of experience with Middle Eastern students and Arabic and seems to have maintained his standing among these students. In what ways did the organization allow him to develop and contribute his expertise in this area? Over the ten years Robert has taught in the program, has the organization utilized his increasing experience as a teacher or has

145

146

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD he been allowed to ‘‘silo’’ it in the classroom? What opportunities lie ahead for this instructor? He has reached the highest level of teaching within the program. Is what’s ahead just more of the same course teaching that he has already done? Can he be given course development or administrative responsibilities and the opportunity to have more control in the running of the program? Finally, what opportunities for rest and renewal are possible for full-time faculty? Year-round intensive program instruction takes its toll on a teacher. Sabbaticals and summer breaks are valued aspects of many teachers’ lives and allow them substantial periods to rest and renew themselves. For teachers to stay fresh, they need opportunities to learn new ideas and reflect upon their practice.

The case of Robert just described illustrates the need for many and varied opportunities for teachers to remain actively involved in the entire program ecology and in their own professional development. Even career English language teachers can lose motivation if they are not sufficiently challenged, do not have enough diversity or autonomy in their jobs, or do not feel that their efforts are properly recognized. Motivating English Language Teachers Pennington (1992b, pp. 203–205) adapts a model of work motivation proposed by Hackman (1987) to characterize the internal rewards of faculty work which increase such features as challenge, responsibility, personal growth, advancement, and recognition, in relation to three basic components: (a) core job dimensions, their resulting (b) critical psychological states and (c) personal and work outcomes. Core job dimensions include skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Skill variety refers to the extent to which the job relies on routinized, repetitive skills or a variety of different types of skills. Task identity refers to the extent to which the job allows completion of an entire process, piece of work, or whole activity. Task significance relates to the importance of the task on the organization, on others, or on the external environment. Autonomy relates to the extent of independent decision-making required by the job, and feedback refers to the extent to which the job provides direct and meaningful feedback. In Hackman’s model, these core dimensions are related to psychological states such as the employee’s experienced sense of the meaningfulness of the work, experienced sense of responsibility, and knowledge of results. Experienced meaningfulness increases in relation to skill variety and task identity and significance. Experienced responsibility relates to the job characteristic of autonomy. The more feedback provided by the job, the

The Faculty

147

more the employee can experience knowledge of results. In this model, motivation derives from the characteristics of the job resulting from these psychological states. Individual employees differ in their need for personal growth and respond differently to motivating factors when they are present (Hackman, 1987, p. 476). Pennington (1992b) makes suggestions as to how Hackman’s model can be applied in practice to make the work of English language teaching more employee-centered, thus increasing faculty motivation and commitment, by means of such characteristics as the following:       

Variable work requiring creative responses and problem-solving; Large, complex tasks; Performance of work geared to achieve major, central results; Self-controlled work; Self-managed individualized growth plan; Self-designed action research to assess and change performance; Two-way lateral feedback in group reflection, problem-solving, and ideasharing. (Adapted from Pennington, 1992b, p. 209, Table 1)

Variety and Autonomy Increasing skill variety within the job supports the learning and creative aspect of a teacher’s work, and can lead to increased employee satisfaction, control and motivation. As Pennington (1992b) writes: Although in theory the reliability of performance increases when work does not require mastery of new skills and is repetitive and non-creative, in reality, since human beings are not machines, performance generally suffers, as a result of decreased attention and motivation, when challenge and novelty are absent from work. Work which requires creative responses and problem-solving based on manipulating a variety of different skills, because it is more challenging and variable, is also more motivating. Thus, it is desirable for individual ESL teachers and for the educational programs which employ them to foster the development of different types of work-related skills through variety in job assignment and through support for attendance at outside training courses to acquire expertise in new areas. (pp. 208–209)

Balancing the need for variety are needs for focus and autonomy that may lead to specialization. While some language teachers are generalists and relish teaching in broad areas of the curriculum (e.g., a reading and writing block), in a variety of areas (e.g., reading and conversation), and perhaps at different levels (e.g., beginning and advanced), others tend to specialize in some aspect of the curriculum, often focused around beginning, intermediate, or advanced level. The teaching generalist is one whose teaching job inherently requires use of a variety of knowledge and skills. The teaching

148

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

specialist, in contrast, is likely to develop a routine built around a specific skill set. The following case study, which involves a teacher with such a profile, suggests an opportunity for a teaching specialist to increase variety in her teaching.

CASE STUDY 5.3 THERESA: A TEACHING SPECIALIST Theresa received her Master’s degree in Education with a specialization in reading and a certification in elementary education. This was thirty years ago. She taught in an elementary school for about five years before her husband, an electrical engineer, was transferred to Japan. They lived in Japan for about ten years, raising their two children there. Theresa began teaching English as a foreign language first as a tutor to Japanese children and then to her husband’s colleagues in Japan. When her family came back to the United States, she applied to teach at the university-based English language program during a time of high growth. With her Master’s degree in Education and ten years EFL experience, she was hired and has continued on the permanent faculty since then. In addition to her work in the language program, she also teaches in the ESL freshman writing program for the university. Theresa is a careful and conscientious teacher who make heavy use of literature in her classes and gives substantial feedback on students’ written assignments. Her classes link literature to discussions about culture, vocabulary, and social issues. She uses Reader’s Theater, a technique in which speakers prepare a literature text such as a short story or play for oral presentation, and other techniques to link oral production to writing. In this program, full-time teachers are assigned both reading/writing and speaking/listening courses. Theresa’s teaching in speaking/listening does not measure up to her teaching in the reading/writing sequence. Her classes are content-based and promote conversation and discussion but students do not feel they improve over time. Theresa admits that she finds it hard to teach the development of spoken language proficiency. The general principle from Theresa’s case is that the organization suffers to the extent that the employee is underutilized or misutilized. Theresa, an expert on teaching reading and writing skills, is being required to teach courses which she is neither very interested in nor very good at. Since she has a much firmer theoretical grounding in the teaching of reading and writing than she does in the teaching of speaking and listening, several approaches might be taken: (1) The organization of courses might be reconsidered, so that Theresa would be able to accomplish her full-time load through teaching only reading/writing courses; (2) The curriculum might be restructured so that the courses were not structured into skill levels as they currently are and that the linkages between reading and listening or reading and speaking might be strengthened;

The Faculty

149

(3) Theresa could receive more education or professional development in the teaching of speaking/listening skills through workshops or courses on the development of spoken language skills, observations of expert teachers, or other opportunities to develop skills in the teaching of speaking and listening. Any of these options are of potential benefit to the program and to Theresa and so should be considered.

What is the best way for faculty to learn new skills? In the case above of Theresa, getting interested in, and excited about, the language teaching and learning issues involved in teaching speaking and listening would be important for motivating her to develop new skills and expertise. Increasingly, the expectation for faculty teaching in an English language program in higher education is a Master’s degree in TESL/TEFL, so Theresa should be counseled to consider taking courses for this degree as a way of ensuring proper preparation for all aspects of her work. This maybe a necessary step for a core faculty member wanting opportunities for advancement in her career. Taking graduate courses is not always feasible given the life circumstances of working faculty, and other forms of professional development do exist. For example, the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) offers intensive workshops in oral proficiency assessment and curricular consequences for teaching for spoken language proficiency. In addition: . . . in most larger [English language programs], the collective faculty represent a diversified and highly skilled resource who have much to teach each other, so that workshops presented internally by colleagues may be of equal or even greater value as compared to outside input. Moreover, internally [organized] training and sharing of ideas increases employee participation, responsibility, and cooperation, while also giving opportunities for teachers to be [recognized] for their special skills and achievements, thus enhancing self-esteem and the motivation to continue to increase their skills and achievements. (Pennington, 1992b, p. 209)

Faculty can benefit by developing areas of special expertise that they are known for, as a basis for sharing with teaching colleagues and for research and publication in their own professional development. Thus, it is probably desirable for all faculty to maintain a tensive relationship between generalist and specialist orientations, in order to avoid becoming so specialized that they cannot perform the functions needed in their job, thus risking becoming unemployable, nor so generalized that they lose touch with the specialized knowledge of the language teaching field. The program

150

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

leadership can assist faculty in maintaining a balance over the long term between specialization and flexibility to teach in a range of areas. Other aspects of faculty autonomy relate to performance review, as addressed further below, including self-directed performance review in conjunction with other types of performance review, which can be performed by the teacher as desired or in preparation for a supervisory or administrative review, and personal growth plans (1-year, 2-year, 5-year, long-term future), developed and reviewed with the supervisor, as a way to target and manage professional development and career growth (Pennington, 1992b, p. 211). Task Identity and Task Significance While skill variety is important to building expertise and keeping interest and motivation alive, task identity also contributes to the employee’s sense of meaningfulness in her or his work. The following are ways to increase task identity in English language teaching:    

Having the same students from beginning to end of the course; Teaching all skill areas as integrated into one course; Focusing on one skill area across the whole curriculum; Being involved in curriculum planning and management for a whole course;  Being involved in setting up and managing students’ academic, cultural, and social orientation. (Pennington, 1992b, pp. 209–210) Within English language teaching, task identity increases to the extent that the teacher experiences the overall complexity and value of her/his work from a holistic perspective. For example, it is usual that faculty teach new students each term rather than continue with the same group, in order to vary the students’ exposure to different teaching styles and language accents. But in some cases, an extended teaching contact between a particular teacher and students makes sense and allows a fuller relationship to develop over time, with increased meaningfulness for all participants. Task-based language teaching (Crookes & Gass, 1993; Willis & Willis, 2007), since the unit of instruction is a unified task with real-world application, is a general approach to enhancing task significance. In addition, in a highly goal-oriented curriculum, such as we have suggested for the language program, task significance derives naturally from teachinglearning activities geared to meeting the goals. Through regular assessments of progress and opportunities to show what students have learned, teachers enhance a sense of meaningfulness of their work by being able to see

The Faculty

151

students’ progress in meeting their goals. English language teachers’ sense of task significance can also be enhanced when they teach to relatively immediate, real-world goals, such as ‘‘survival skills’’ or English for Specific Purposes (Pennington, 1992b, p. 210), or to help students prepare for highstakes tests such as the TOEFL, as well as any short-term goals which are important to the students. Feedback Like their students, teachers can benefit by raising their awareness of the gap between goals and outcomes by feedback on their performance. This can be accomplished in many different ways, including:  Student feedback on teacher performance, in relation to the teacher’s own goals and values, on a teacher-designed course evaluation form;  Teacher-designed tests to pinpoint areas for remediation of both learning and teaching;  Action research to systematically examine teaching and learning performance before and after classroom innovation;  Instructional comparisons by faculty peers, such as through pre-structured peer observations, video-based analyses of teaching performance, or problem-based or activity-based discussion groups. (Summarized from Pennington, 1992b, p. 211) The more that faculty members take on their own self-assessment and feedback, the more they will be functioning as professionals defining their own work contexts and norms: Through sharing, brainstorming, and problem-solving with colleagues, teachers develop a common language and common reference points for understanding and interpreting their own and others’ feedback. This in turn promotes empowerment, which is an important element of teacher change and long-term growth. For empowerment among teachers grows from enhanced understandings of practice, from being able to talk about practice and see ways to change it. Thus mutual feedback and group reflection cultivate individual reflectivity and self-development. (Pennington, 1992b, p. 212)

Reflection Beyond feedback on performance, teachers can benefit by reflection on their performance in relation to their personal ideals and long-range goals and vision. A methodology for teachers to compare their teaching ideals in relation to their actual practices was developed by Pennington in the 1990s in relation to her teacher research in Hong Kong and wider Asia, and this methodology has been used in cross-country comparisons of the match

152

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

between teachers’ ideals and their actual teaching practice in several Asian countries (Pennington et al., 1996, 1997) as well as in a study of teachers’ differing concerns in England and Scotland (Sargent, 2006). The original methodology involved scales with endpoints differentiating structural and process approaches to writing which teachers assessed in relation to their ideal and actual practices. The results were then analyzed in terms of how closely the teachers’ projected ideal teaching situation matched their actual teaching situation on each scale. Teachers can raise their awareness of their teaching ideals in relation to their teaching realities in other ways. Teachers might write a description of their ideal workplace, classroom, or type of student (see Pennington, 1990a, for specific exercises) and then match these to descriptions of their actual environment as a basis for projecting actions to improve the match between the two. Alternatively, they might write a series of statements describing their ideal and actual situations, then make a list of descriptors of each, again noting the differences as a basis for action to improve the match between the ideal and actual scenarios. In either case, they can follow this raising of their own awareness of the gap between their ideal and actual practice by trying to develop a vision of what they want to accomplish and where they would like to be in their future as teachers. Such a vision can be a powerful image motivating and guiding action. Faculty can do further analysis of the reasons for the gaps in their ideal and actual teaching practice in order to develop specific plans of action, both short-term and long-term, to work on closing the gaps between their desired and actual teaching situations. As part of this process, teachers can create their own mission statements conceptualizing their teaching philosophy, values, and aims. In these sorts of reflection, and in the vision, goals, and actions developed to move beyond the restrictions of any given teaching situation, faculty can benefit by attempting to relate their teaching ideals, visions, and goals to larger, long-range career and personal ideals and goals. The more that teachers can integrate personal and professional vision, ideals, and goals, the more committed and motivated they will be to achieving them. It can be of value in these types of reflection and reflection-based actions for teachers to work together and also to have the involvement of the program leaders. This wider involvement can help to achieve a wider vision of an individual teacher’s potentials within the overall structure and functioning of the program and may also lead to program actions to remove barriers and constraints to teachers’ achievement of their ideal practices. It will also help to increase the interrelationship of individual teachers’ work and that of the program as a whole.

The Faculty

153

Attending to the Change Principles In addition to the core job dimensions, Pennington (1992b) reviews Hackman’s (1987) model in relation to the design or enrichment of faculty work, offering the following suggestions: Combining Tasks Skill-area blocks New modules initiated and designed by teachers Team-teaching Forming Natural Work Units Work groups formed around common interests Interest groups formed to learn about a new area Program coordination teams Establishing Client Relationships Tutorials and small classes Contacts with students’ families, sponsors, employers Off-site retreat with students, families, sponsors, employers Vertical Loading Supervisory and training responsibilities for new staff Budgetary authority in a particular area Administrative internships and special assignments Research, especially related to teaching and the program as a whole Pair and team projects for program coordination or improvements Career ladders and salary schedules Opening Feedback Channels Video or audio records of classes Teacher diaries or classroom case studies Student questionnaires Long-term records to show trends Public recognition and awards for achievement Promotions (Pennington, 1992b, p. 212) As Pennington (1992b) observes: This approach, which focuses on increasing the diversity and level of opportunity in employment and on self-managed work performance and rewards, is in the dual traditions of human resources development and commitment-based organizational management. These employee-centered traditions value individuality and recognize that the best performance derives from individual initiative and employees’ realization of

154

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

their own higher level needs for psychological satisfaction in their work. According to this motivational philosophy, a committed, high-level performance is achieved through self-determination and self-stimulation, qualities cultivated by the high expectations and high level of commitment towards employees by the employer, in conjunction with the freedom and the opportunities given to employees to meet those expectations. (pp. 215–216) .

This approach to faculty development, and hence to language program leadership, is thus a humanistic one that fits well within the educational and service heritage of the English language teaching field. In addition, by encouraging high performance according to individual goals and motivations, it is also good for the profession, the academic discipline, and the business of English language teaching. In focusing on the interests, skills, and potentials of individuals and their motivation to achieve and develop themselves as people and as professionals, this approach to faculty leadership has positive effects on the individuals involved as well as the larger profession and the program in which they work. In taking this kind of individualized approach to job enrichment and professional development, the language program leader ‘‘builds a diverse and highly skilled group of educators who can adjust to changing circumstances as needed and who collectively represent a strong, context-responsive program which, like its members, will continue to grow and prosper’’ (Pennington, 1992b, p. 216).

PERFORMANCE REVIEW Language programs, like most educational programs, carry out formal faculty performance review on an annual basis. A common component of faculty performance review is student ratings of teaching by means of individual questions, often based on 5-point Likert scales. Drawing on Pennington (1989b) and Pennington and Young (1989, 1991), Pennington (1997d) presented the pros and cons of this method as follows:

STUDENT RATINGS OF FACULTY: PRO Rationale  Students are the main source of information about the accomplishment of important educational goals, areas of rapport, degrees of communication, and the existence of problems between instructors and students;

155

The Faculty  Students are the most logical evaluators of the quality and effectiveness of course elements such as instructors, texts, homework, course content, and general student attitudes towards the course;  Student ratings provide a means of communication between students and instructor which, in turn, may raise the whole level of instruction, or stimulate the institution to consider its overall goals and values;  Student ratings provide information (if published) to students about particular instructors and courses, which may increase the chances that excellence in instruction will be recognized and rewarded;  As the primary consumers and target of education, students have the right to evaluate their teachers, to have their voices heard, and to provide input to employment and curriculum decisions;  Since students’ view of instruction is a major component of departmental and institutional reputation, it should be the goal of every educational administrator to ensure regular and fair evaluation of courses by students as a means of developing the quality and enhancing the reputation of the department or institution.

Validity 1. Face Validity. Student evaluation of teachers has high face validity or face value in the sense that of all educational stakeholders, students are those who are most obviously and directly involved with and affected by teachers and those whose opinions are of greatest importance to the teachers themselves; 2. Construct Validity. Student evaluations have high construct or conceptual validity if they are designed to represent those features of instruction which: (a) students are able to evaluate e.g., enjoyment of lessons, relevance of instruction and materials to their needs, sense of time well spent; (b) students are willing to evaluate that is, things students feel comfortable evaluating, which for some individuals or populations of students excludes any personal comments about the teacher; (c) students think are important (i.e., valid) that is, which evaluate aspects of instruction that are important or salient to them; and (d) teachers think are important (i.e., valid) that is, which evaluate aspects of instruction that are important or salient to them. In other words, construct validity requires that student evaluations of teachers must represent both the students’ and the teachers’ view of the salient indicators of instructional effectiveness. 3. Concurrent Validity. Student evaluation has high concurrent validity in that, in its reliable forms, it is highly correlated with other forms of evaluation of teachers, such as peer ratings of instructional effectiveness. 4. Predictive Validity. Student evaluation has high predictive validity in that, in its reliable forms, it is highly correlated with objective measures of student learning.

156

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD Of course, there is always the ‘‘vicious circle’’ or ‘‘infinite regress’’ problem that the validity of one form of evaluation is established in relation to the validity of another form. All testing theory rests on this same vicious circle or infinite regress.

Reliability If they are:  professionally constructed, including pilot-testing and adjustment;  properly and uniformly administered, that is, with such adequate time given and no ‘‘special instructions’’ for one’s own students; and  filled in as intended, that is, with seriousness of purpose and a clear understanding of the purpose of the instrument and the meaning of individual items and scales, if the instrument includes rating scales, which it probably will. Note that such understanding cannot be assumed for non-native students, because of both cultural differences and limitations of language. Student evaluations of individual teachers tend to be stable over classes and over time. Thus, it is necessary to look over classes and over time to get a stable picture of a teacher’s performance.

Effectiveness  Student evaluation of teachers can improve instruction, especially if part of a professional development system involving feedback, support, training, and rewards;  Student evaluation of teachers can improve student satisfaction, as an effect of the evaluation process, as students feel more involved and attended to;  Student evaluation of teachers can improve student learning, as an effect of student satisfaction and of improved teaching;  Student evaluation of teachers can improve a language program, in helping to create good communications, more reliable results, and a closer interrelationship between needs, intentions, and outcomes.

STUDENT RATING OF FACULTY: CON Rationale  Students are not a good source of information about the accomplishment of educational goals, the effectiveness of classroom interaction, or the existence of problems between instructors and students, as they tend to focus narrowly on their own self-interest and needs;  Students are not the most logical evaluators of the quality and effectiveness of course elements such as instructors, texts, homework, and course content. The director is the most logical person to evaluate these things;  Student ratings formalize and so inhibit communication between students and instructor which, in turn, may have a negative effect on instruction;

157

The Faculty  Student ratings provide information (if published) to students about particular instructors and courses, which degrades teachers and violates their right to privacy;  Since they are novices who are only temporarily associated with a given department or institution, it is unfair that students should be allowed to evaluate the educational authorities—their teachers—who are more permanently associated with the department/institution, and to provide input to employment and curriculum decisions;  The reputation of a department or institution should not be built on the views of students; rather, it should be the goal of every educational administrator to develop the quality and enhance the reputation of the department or institution through such means as peer review, research, and publication.

Validity 1. Face Validity. Student evaluation of teachers has low face validity in the sense that of all educational stakeholders, students are those with the least expertise in a given field and so the least qualified to evaluate the authorities and experts in that field. 2. Construct Validity. Student evaluations have low construct validity if they are designed to represent those features of instruction which: (a) students are not able to evaluate e.g., validity of the curriculum, comprehensiveness or completeness of the course, relationship to program goals, reliability of textbooks; (b) students are not comfortable evaluating e.g., teacher’s ability; (c) students do not think are important (i.e., valid) e.g., lessons start on time; and (d) teachers do not think are important (i.e., valid) e.g., lessons end on time. 3. Concurrent Validity. Student evaluation has low concurrent validity in that it does not correlate strongly with teachers’ rank, salary, or prestige in terms of academic indicators such as number of grants or publications. 4. Predictive Validity. Student evaluation has low predictive validity in that it does not correlate highly with teachers’ future rank, salary, or prestige in terms of academic indicators such as number of grants or publications.

Reliability If they are:  not professionally constructed,  not properly and uniformly administered, or  not filled in as intended, then student evaluations of individual teachers are variable.

158

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Effectiveness  Student evaluation of teachers can have a negative impact on instructional effectiveness, especially if carried out short-term, with minimal feedback or training opportunities, and directly tied to employment sanctions;  Student evaluation of teachers can increase student dissatisfaction, as an effect of the evaluation process, as it pits teachers against administrators, students against teachers or administrators—depending on who they side with—and even teachers against each other;  Student evaluation of teachers can decrease student learning, as an effect of student dissatisfaction and of decreased teaching effectiveness;  Student evaluation of teachers can negatively impact a language program, in helping to create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety that may drive a wedge between administrators and teachers, teachers and their students, and/or teacher and teacher.

In short, student evaluation of teaching is a tricky business which, if carried out professionally and long-term can benefit everyone connected with a language program but which, if conducted without great care, can have disastrous effects on a program and all its members. Alternatives to student ratings in faculty performance review are summarized below.

ALTERNATIVES TO STUDENT RATINGS OF FACULTY (Pennington, 1998a) 1. Student Lesson Reviews An alternative to student surveys is to have students write a lesson review at the end of a class period stating their view of (a) (b) (c) (d)

the content of the lesson; the teaching approach of the lesson; what they learned; how closely the content and teaching approach matched their expectations, preferences, and needs; (e) the extent to which they were at their best as students for the lesson (e.g., in terms of being attentive, having prepared for it in homework assignments, etc.). In this way, the teacher gains valuable input into how lessons are being received by students, as the students are encouraged to participate more fully in and to take more responsibility for the educational process. The result is a productive mutual adjustment and fine-tuning of the teaching-learning process.

The Faculty 2. Co-Observation Reports Co-observation can serve as an indirect form of co-evaluation and development for teachers, if it is done in a spirit not of assessment but of gaining awareness, knowledge, and understanding. An effective procedure is for selfselected teacher partners to visit each others’ classes on the same day or during the same few days. During the visit, the observer takes running notes on what is happening in the class, in as much detail as possible, and with time indicated every few minutes. The observer types these up soon after the visit in the form of a detailed moment by moment description from beginning to end of class. The report should be entirely descriptive, and no evaluative comments of any kind should be included. The partners exchange reports and meet soon afterwards to reflect on what was described in each written report in relation to (a) the observed teacher’s own view of what was happening in the class; (b) the observed teacher’s lesson plan and more general goals for the class; (c) the differences in the two classes. Such discussion in relation to the descriptive reports results in a great deal of thought and self-evaluation leading to improved understandings and new ideas for teaching, in addition to building communication and solidarity with colleagues. 3. General Self-Review of Lesson Teachers who make it a habit to review their own performance on a regular basis need not fear review of their performance by others. Three questions teachers can ask themselves in relation to a lesson (a) Did I do what I set out to do? (If not, why not?) (b) Were my goals realistic and appropriate for this particular class? (If not, why not?) (c) What did I learn from carrying out this lesson that will be useful for later? These questions encourage faculty to analyze the basis for lesson planning and classroom behavior. By analyzing the reasons for discrepancies between what is planned and how lessons are actually carried out, teachers can gain a greater understanding of the teaching process and the process of decision-making that underlies it. In this way, they are encouraged to evolve both more realistic and appropriate goals and more effective teaching behaviors. The writing process itself often helps to develop insights, and the written answers can be saved and used as a starting point for reflection on the next lesson or to review at a future date in comparison with reflections on other lessons. They can also be kept as a historical record (like a diary) of a teacher’s development. 4. Problem-Centered Self-Review of Lesson Considerable insight can be gained by examining a teaching-learning problem in detail. An event or situation can be selected for examination as either a recurrent problem or a problem that occurred unexpectedly in one particular class session. Once the problem focus has been determined, then the teacher considers different levels of ‘‘causes’’ of the problem, starting from what appears to be the most specific and immediate cause to more general and distant causes. On this basis, the

159

160

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD teacher then develops a plan for resolving the problem that might include ‘‘solutions’’ of more than one type and on more than one level. The causal analysis begins with an attempt to identify an immediate cause or causes by examining what happened in the specific lesson just before the problem occurred. The teacher then proceeds to consider the possible or actual impact of other causal factors such as: the students, the teacher, the physical layout and features of the classroom, the subject being taught, materials, curriculum, other teachers, the school and its administration, the educational system, and the wider culture. As a final stage, the teacher develops a problem-resolution procedure that will go beyond the immediate causes to also address some of the larger issues and more distant causal factors. By reviewing problem events from many different levels of generality, teachers widen their perspective on teaching and the context of their students’ learning. Such a widened perspective heightens awareness of the great chain of causes and effects that impact what goes on in a classroom, thereby helping teachers to improve their command of the complex of contextual factors which directly and indirectly affect their teaching and to develop new approaches to handling and solving problems. As before, carrying out the analysis in writing helps to develop it in depth and detail. In addition, written problem analyses can be usefully shared with other teachers for mutual benefit in dealing with the same problems, students, subject area, etc. They may also form the basis for discussion and problem-solving sessions. 5. Materials-Sharing When teachers share their self-made materials, they are in a sense giving their best advice about how to teach a certain class or subject area. Materials-sharing is thus an indirect but very practical way in which teachers evaluate what they are doing in their classes in the light of other possibilities.

Approaches to faculty performance review should take account of individuals’ personal interests and areas of expertise and career stage, and they should be linked to individualized faculty development plans that take account of the motivation and job enrichment principles reviewed above. This means that they should increase challenge, responsibility, personal growth, advancement, and recognition through such characteristics as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. With the goal of increasing program unity, there should be opportunities to the greatest extent possible for communication about individuals’ roles in creating and helping to realize their own mission, vision, and goals and those of the program as a whole, so that faculty develop shared goals for the future. It is recommended that the program director or faculty supervisor provide faculty performance review on a yearly basis, aiding individuals to

The Faculty

161

design professional development plans for the short-term (1-year plan) as well as for the longer term (5-year and 10-year plans).

BUILDING COMMUNITIES OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICE Richards and Farrell (2005) give a number of examples of how teachers can continue to develop their learning throughout their teaching career through a variety of reflective activities. Activities such as team-teaching, action research, portfolios, journals, and peer observations all serve to promote teacher control, self-directed learning, and the building of strongly reflective teaching communities. All of these activities are ways that teacher learning can occur within the community of practice by creating a conversation between the individual teacher and other people in the community, both peers and supervisors. Activities that make use of social structures such as team-teaching and peer observations of other classrooms are more overtly social, but even individually based reflections or portfolios can be incorporated into the conversation of the community. From the point of view of a language program as a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), the leadership and membership should have ways for newcomers to enter the community and learn its best practices from its core membership. In any community, different members will have different types of expertise to share with others. Some of the most valuable forums for sharing practices are those organized locally by the teachers themselves in response to immediate interests and needs. Hoekje (1999) describes a system of reflective teaching activities which provide teachers with opportunities to meet together and talk one-on-one about any issue of concern to one or more faculty members. The meetings can occur over lunch or snacks subsidized by the department. The types of discussions include choosing texts and supplementary materials for upper-level classes, working with students’ individual needs, and learning about specific teaching activities. An Example of Reflective Practice in One Teaching Community Hoekje (2002) describes how the reflective process has been used as a source of learning for English language program faculty in reviewing student course evaluations and discussing them with their supervisor. Student

162

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

ratings of faculty can be difficult to learn from because they collect information in aggregate form, anonymously, and in terms that are administratively-centered rather than student-centered. They are also posthoc so that the instructor cannot use the information to make changes with the immediate group of students. In order to make use of the information on students’ course evaluations, it can be of value for faculty members to go through a process of structured reflection in which time is spent thinking, writing, or talking about the students’ responses in light of their own planning and execution of the course. Written reflections, when shown to the supervisor, also provide insights about the instructor’s thought processes in planning and teaching the course. Hoekje (2002) discusses eleven written reflections that were submitted to her as course supervisor by faculty members reflecting on their course evaluations in the intensive English program. In one case, an intern instructor described his discussion with an experienced instructor regarding a confusing student comment. The student had written that the teacher should ‘‘concentrate the students’ attention’’ in class (Hoekje, 2002, p. 139). The new teacher felt the critical tone of this comment but did not know how to use it to improve. The conversation with the experienced instructor became an opportunity to discuss a range of classroom management techniques, including ways to keep students’ attention focused. Thus, an individual student comment served as the basis of significant teacher learning for the newer teacher and demonstrated to the supervisor his ability to learn from even one ambiguous student comment. It also provided a valuable opportunity for the more experienced faculty member to take on a mentor role and to participate in a teaching-learning process involving a colleague. In so doing, both teachers were strengthening their community of practice as a site for reflective activity. In another case, the reflection on a class evaluation revealed how deeply issues in classroom interaction dominated the teacher’s experience in the classroom. ‘‘I had a problem with three non-traditional students, who made me uncomfortable. One student (who is a professor in his country) took up too much air time and gave me advice on how to teach the class in front of other students. Another student (who is a psychologist) would say anything that was on her mind and make negative comments about class topics and activities—e.g., this topic is hard to discuss, or this activity is too easy or boring, etc. How should I have responded to that? And the third student would sit in class and talk to another student while someone else was speaking. I felt like no matter what I did, I couldn’t please these high-maintenance students.’’ (Hoekje, 2002, p. 141)

The Faculty

163

Bringing a classroom interaction issue into conscious awareness makes it possible for it to be more systematically addressed. Interactional issues may arise individually and idiosyncratically and are sometimes not recognized as affecting the classroom dynamic until it is too late. The teacher writing this reflection had substantial classroom experience, mainly with highly compliant and not very talkative students. His characterization of the students in the reflection as ‘‘high maintenance’’ indicates his own expectations about student behavior based on his experiences in the program earlier. The ‘‘high maintenance’’ students referred to in this reflection could have been three unusual individuals in the traditional student body or they could be indicative of change in the student population. Different students bring different needs and expectations regarding instruction. The supervisor reading this reflection might be spurred to offer more development opportunities on classroom management or to sponsor an informational session about the new student population. In a third reflection from Hoekje (2002), midterm student-teacher conferences during which students expressed the desire for more grammar instruction was valuable feedback for an instructor of an advanced writing course. He changed his instruction to focus on more grammar as a result of this feedback. Yet an influx of students with very different needs into the course for the second half of the term changed the dynamics of the course. In the final course evaluations, he received negative student feedback about the amount of detail which he was providing in his grammar lessons. The teacher felt aggrieved because he had tried to adapt to student feedback but was then criticized by the next group of students for this action. The language program leader supervising faculty and encouraging the use of student feedback can remind faculty that curricular adjustment in response to individual student comments should take a larger ecological approach. Too much change in response to one factor (one group of students) can lead to swings in response that can be counterproductive. In this example, an influx of students at midterm changed the classroom ecology. The teacher made major changes on the basis of feedback from a group of students who had already left the program. In short, faculty must find early and frequent ways to sample student response and make small adjustments, but major changes in curriculum should follow a more thorough analysis of student characteristics and needs in the context of program context and teachers’ philosophy and accustomed practices. There is a further hazard in using student evaluations or equating student requests with students’ real needs. A request by students for ‘‘more

164

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

grammar’’ may mean many different things. It is up to the professional teacher to assess the students’ language needs in light of their requests and respond from her or his wider viewpoint. A request for more grammar on the part of students who struggle to speak may in fact translate to more feedback in communicative activities rather than explanations of grammatical rules. Listening to the students’ requests nevertheless provides valuable input and is a first step towards understanding their expectations for instruction.

TEACHER CHANGE Just as language programs and their leadership must have a high degree of nimbleness and flexibility, so must language teachers be responsive to contextual factors and ready to change as needed. The next case study shows the extent of change which a teacher might undergo in a new cultural context based on student feedback.

CASE STUDY 5.4 GAIL SUMMERS: A TEACHER TRANSFORMED All teachers have had the experience of adjusting instructional content or approach to a specific group of students. Those who have experience teaching students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds are likely to be quite accustomed to making these adjustments and to expect them as a normal part of teaching. Yet even for a teacher very accustomed to teaching students of different cultures, the adjustments to teaching practice that are necessary when teaching a homogeneous groups of students in their home country will normally be greater than expected and also greater than those required in the teacher’s home country. In today’s highly competitive market for English language teachers and for graduates with a high level of language competence, it is especially important for teachers to meet student needs and demands. Gail Summers, a teacher who had substantial prior experience and success teaching Japanese and Chinese students in her English-speaking home country, found that she had to make major changes to her approach when she went abroad to teach first in Japan and later in China. Class sizes that were almost double those of her classes at home made the students harder to manage, as it was difficult to maintain a focus on every student at one time and there were reduced opportunities for individual attention and feedback. This meant a more structured and less spontaneous approach to instruction than she believed was best for motivating language learning and for getting the students maximally involved in communication. Compounding this problem was the fact that some classes were

The Faculty assigned to large lecture theaters with non-movable seats while others were assigned to classrooms just barely large enough for all the students. In both cases, the use of group work was severely constrained. Moreover, the students were not used to group work nor very receptive to it. As a consequence, major grouporiented lesson segments generally did not accomplish their purpose of increasing student interaction in English. In carrying out group work, the students tended to shortcut the aims of the activities and to speak in their L1 rather than in English. A further problem was that students had an expectation of the teacher providing them with information about the English language in the way of lists of vocabulary, grammar rules, and examples of these, along with exercises to check their knowledge of the provided information followed by discrete-item tests. Students complained that their teacher was not providing enough information to them in the way of notes and study sheets. Gail responded that there was sufficient information of this type in the textbook, and her job was to help students use this information to communicate. The students did not accept this response and continued to complain about the instruction they were receiving. Their evaluation of Gail at the end of the term rated her as friendly and kind, but she did not come out well on the items rating her teaching. Typical comments stated that she did not prepare enough for class, that her class was too easy, and that students were not learning enough. Gail realized that she had to make changes but at the same time did not want to give up on certain core practices and beliefs, especially regarding the value of student interaction for language learning. The changes she made involved a great deal of time and work, but the extra effort was ultimately worthwhile. Not only did it have the desired effect on the students’ attitude and their achievement, but it also helped Gail to develop a range of new skills and materials. After a considerable amount of experimentation and trial and error, she developed a number of techniques which students responded positively to and which facilitated their learning, both from their own perspective and from hers. In response to the students’ requests for more information about vocabulary and grammar, Gail gave them supplementary lists and examples related to the material in their textbooks but contextualized in popular culture such as films, song lyrics, websites, literature, and magazines. To the delight of the students, she increased use of those media in her classes and taught the students popular songs and famous lines from English-language films. She added related points of language from those sources, providing handouts on Mondays that previewed what the class would learn that week. In her revised schedule, Gail arranged her teaching so that it was approximately 70% information-transmission, reinforcement exercises, and testing; 15% pair and group activity; and 15% other creative activity involving film, songs, internet, etc. This balance worked well for both her Japanese and Chinese students in the years when she was teaching abroad. In place of most major group activities, Gail substituted brief pair activities that could be carried out with students sitting next to each other. To add variety to this activity, she developed a seat rotation chart to pair students with different partners every week. One major group activity was retained. This was a consolidation and review activity that took place in the last class of the week, preparatory to weekend homework and a quiz every Monday. The students enjoyed the brief pair activities that were interspersed with more standard information-transmission activities,

165

166

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD and they accepted the major group activity at the end of the week and used the time productively. The class was now happy and productive, and at the end of the term, Gail received excellent student reviews. The changes had required great efforts on Gail’s part. During the first term she taught in the new approach, her weekends were spent almost entirely preparing for the next week’s classes, but the effort paid off in highly successful classes and happy times teaching overseas, as well as in publications that helped Gail advance in her career. When she moved back to her home country, Gail maintained the same types of activities but shifted the balance to 50%–50% for informationtransmission versus pair/group and creative activities. The success of her teaching approach influenced the other teachers in the program back home to include more structured, book-centered activities. She was also able to model effective teaching in large classes when these became necessary due to a last-minute increase in students without a compensating increase in classrooms.

As this case study suggests, a program that is responsive to different groups of students must have teachers who are flexible and responsive in their teaching approach, and who are willing to put in extra effort to adjust their teaching to meet student needs and expectations. This requirement sets a number of aspects of the program leader’s job that involve devising and applying effective criteria used for hiring, mentoring, evaluation, retention, and advancement of faculty. The requirements of nimbleness and flexibility require the program leader to apply technical, human, and conceptual skills for:  Hiring the most skilled and flexible teachers from the outset, such as those who are knowledgeable about new methods and have teaching experience in a wide range of contexts; and then  Orienting, mentoring, and assisting them in developing an ‘‘action research’’ approach to teaching that is student-centered, that has an expectation of continual growth and change, and that maintains an openness to new ideas; and  Offering opportunities and incentives for teachers’ general career development as well as for their ability to respond to specific program needs.

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER FIVE The development and nurturing of faculty is a central aspect of English language teaching, and committed, motivated, and high-performing faculty are a critical factor in a language program’s success. In addition, the

The Faculty

167

involvement of faculty in curriculum and other aspects of program development fosters unity while also providing informed, intelligent, and creative input towards solving problems and pursuing opportunities for change and realization of program potentials. Hence, a major focus of the work of the language program leadership must be directed to the hiring, supervision, motivation, and professional development of faculty. If done well, this aspect of leadership has many types of benefits for the program in terms of its tangible and intangible resources, as good teachers are a main source of program effectiveness, reputation, and innovation potential. These attributes, as well as the faculty themselves, are main reasons students enroll in, stay with, and promote the program to others. The importance of the faculty to the language program can therefore not be overestimated.

CHAPTER SIX THE LEADERSHIP This chapter considers different ways of conceptualizing leadership, through a review of key literature in management, some of it specifically targeted to English language program administration. The language program leader’s job is considered in the light of this literature in terms of different types of focus on leaders and leadership. We begin by examining the notion of leadership and the specific functions of the language program director. While traditionally leadership has been cast as a set of traits or skills, more recent theories have focused on the role of leadership of people and in specific contexts and the importance of managing for change. These types of leadership are described and critiqued in relation to the ecological model of the language program, to develop concepts of ecological leadership and the ecological leader.

CONCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP FOR THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM Management and leadership in language programs can be viewed from many different angles, as leadership focused on:    

The leader, i.e., leader traits, styles, functions, and roles; Others, people whom the leader supervises or motivates; Culture and the differences in orientation entailed; and Change and leading into the future.

In this chapter, we examine leadership from each of these perspectives, relating them to the language program ecology. During the course of the examination, we review a number of studies which point up the uniqueness of the language program director job, including those of Reasor (1981), Matthies (1984), Pennington and Xiao (1990), Gawienowski (2002), and White (2000). The chapter ends with a consideration of the unique requirement for language program leadership and the needs for education and training for language program leaders. 169

170

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Focus on the Leader Beginning in the 1940s, the focus of the management literature was on describing and classifying the leader’s characteristics. This orientation includes a focus on the traits, styles, and skills of leaders. Leader Traits Prior to the rise of the middle class during the Industrial Revolution and the advent of universal education, it was believed that people’s inherent characteristics, or traits, determined their fate. In the early modern era, it was widely believed that certain people, by dint of their inherent characteristics, were ‘‘born to lead.’’ Traditionally, there has been a strong emphasis on leadership ability as central to effective administration or management. In reviewing this tradition, Graham (1982, p. 241) speaks of a ‘‘Boy Scout Theory of Leadership,’’ what we will refer to as a ‘‘traitist approach’’ or ‘‘traitist model.’’ According to this conception of leadership, a good leader, like a good boy scout, can be recognized by a certain array of positive personal traits. Graham enumerates a list of these traits, as put forth by many authors writing on business and management in the period from the 1940s to the 1970s:            

Intelligence Experience Originality Initiative Receptiveness Personality Justice Fair Play Teaching Ability Tenacity Courage Human Understanding

In one of the later studies in the traitist vein, Ghiselli (1971) discovered through his research six traits which appear to be important to effective leadership. These are shown below in an order of descending importance according to Ghiselli’s study:  Supervisory Ability  Need for Occupational Achievement

The Leadership

   

171

Intelligence Decisiveness Self-Assurance Initiative

All of the traits enumerated in the two lists above are meant to apply to any kind of leader or manager, including those involved in educational enterprises. There are problems, however, with this traitist model (cf. Graham, 1982, pp. 241–242; Katz, 1955/1974/1983, pp. 23–24) when one attempts to apply it in any particular case. First, the traits mentioned are rather abstract and vague. They are abstract in the sense that they seem to describe potentials rather than actual characteristics of performance. They are vague in that it is not always clear what specific qualities are meant to be associated with each trait in the models. Second, these models do not specify any optimal level or proportion for individual traits or combinations of traits. All of the traits mentioned—and this will probably be true of any other trait that can be mentioned—have the potential for becoming, if taken to the extreme, negative characteristics; in other words, they are positive only up to a point. To see that this is true, let us examine Ghiselli’s traits one by one. Under supervisory ability are included planning, organizing, directing and controlling the work of others. Yet most people do not want to work for a person who directs extensively or who controls employees with a heavy hand. Generally speaking, people prefer a leader who can be flexible and who gives them room to develop. Concerning need for occupational achievement, while a leader will seek responsibility and desire success, this should not be carried to the point of either (a) trying to ‘‘do it all,’’ that is, spreading oneself too thin and not delegating tasks to others, nor (b) putting achievement ahead of other leadership functions. Leaders are expected to be intelligent, that is, to have the qualities of logical judgment and reasoning ability. There may be a desirable limit to intelligence, though, since a person who is technically a genius may not be the best leader. Some brilliant people tend to abstractness and impracticality in their thinking, and these habits of mind may run counter to the development and fulfillment of realistic objectives. In addition, some people who would be categorized as highly intelligent prefer solitary pursuits, such as reading or solving puzzles, to working with people. One would not normally think of such people as having great leadership potential. A large part of the leadership function involves decision-making and problem-solving, so that decisiveness is important for the day-to-day management of an organization. Decisiveness is also an important part of

172

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

a leader’s image since those who appear indecisive cause anxiety among their followers or employees. On the other hand, the successful leader needs to be receptive to input from staff in decision-making and, while decisive, should not be prone to either dogmatism or hasty judgment. In addition to decisiveness, a leader needs self-assurance, feeling capable of handling problems and having the courage to tackle difficult situations. Self-confidence is the source of much power and influence in organizations, and it makes those who work for the leader feel secure that the organization is in good hands. At the extreme, though, self-assurance becomes snobbism, egocentrism, or obstinacy, and these traits would ordinarily not be desired in a leader. Initiative would seem to be a valuable characteristic for a leader, to be a self-starter and to be able to act creatively and independently. At the same time, it is essential for a person in a leadership position to be able to work within a group and to be a team player, and this means not always taking the initiative. Since these traitist models do not specify what is actually required in the way of traits for successful leadership, they are not very useful for either describing or developing real leaders. What these traits describe is not any actual leader, but an abstract ideal type, or stereotype, of a leader. However, effective leaders are not generally of this ideal type, nor is there only one type of successful leader. The following case study contrasts four different leaders in terms of their traits, how others respond to them, and the leadership roles for which they might be most compatible and in which they might function well, based on their traits.

CASE STUDY 6.1 ‘‘DIFFERENT STROKES’’—LEADERS FOR DIFFERENT CONTEXTS T. C.

A Highly Charismatic Leader

Traits T. C. is outgoing and clever, entertaining and a bit of a show-off who likes to make jokes and be the center of attention. T. C. is also very confident and very highachieving, with very high expectations of followers and hard to please.

Response of Others Some find T. C. entertaining and motivating; others find T. C. overly dominant or intimidating.

173

The Leadership

Compatible Leader Roles T. C. is well-suited to the role of a high-profile, externally oriented leader, one who needs to spend a lot of time in politicking outside the program and in roles such as speech-making, recruitment, personal selling and promotion, building the program’s image and reputation through personal contacts, and fund-raising. T. C. is a good person to be in the leadership of a program that is large enough or has sufficient resources to support the director in these external roles. Such a program would have sufficient resources to hire one or more internally oriented leaders to oversee the day-to-day program operation and management of faculty, staff, and student affairs. The internal leadership could have roles in helping to balance T. C.’s demanding and sometimes intimidating manner, in translating T. C’s high expectations and standards into achievable goals, and in helping faculty and staff achieve these.

PAT

A Skilled Administrator

Traits Pat is highly organized and efficient, hard-working and skilled in work process, and quietly confident. Pat knows the ropes and is well-connected with all others in the organization, pleasant and respectful, a good listener, and avoids making waves.

Response of Others All find Pat likeable and easy to deal with.

Compatible Leader Roles Pat is a good internal leader for a complex organization, such as a language program that has many parts and/or many connections to other parts of the parent institution. Pat, taking on a mainly internal role as associate or administrative director, could potentially team up well with T. C. in the executive director role.

JACKIE

A ‘‘Charge-Ahead’’ Team Captain

Traits Jackie is gregarious and passionate, hard-working and high-energy, and a moverand-shaker. Jackie is driven, has a strong focus on team and joint goals, sets high standards and targets, and pushes others to reach them.

Response of Others Some find Jackie’s energy and passion attractive and motivating; others find Jackie demanding or overly controlling.

174

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Compatible Leader Roles Jackie is a good leader for relatively inexperienced staff who need instruction and direction. Jackie could work well with T. C. in a subordinate or implementing role applying T. C.’s vision and goals for the program.

MARTY

A ‘‘Hands-Off’’ Mentor

Traits Marty is sociable, supportive and always positive, hands-off and non-meddling, non-directive, and averse to rules and procedures. Marty gives a ‘‘long rope’’ to employees and provides them with resources, taking a mainly figurehead role as leader setting the tone and image of the organization. Marty is highly visible at important functions but entirely invisible for the most part.

Response of Others People either like Marty or have no strong opinion; some feel they do not really know Marty.

Compatible Leader Roles Marty is a good leader for a highly experienced and sophisticated, self-motivated faculty and staff in a well-functioning organization. Pat, as administrative manager, might work well with Marty as a mainly figurehead program director. Marty and T. C. would probably not make a good team, as Marty’s ‘‘low-key’’ style conflicts with T. C.’s ‘‘high-key’’ style, and the two of them could potentially compete for the limelight in external functions.

There are, at least in principle, as many different leadership styles as there are different combinations of traits in human beings. Moreover, those who are recognized as good leaders or effective managers do not necessarily possess any particular set of ideal attributes. In reality, people recognized as ‘‘born’’ leaders or ‘‘natural’’ leaders may be rather different from this ideal leader type. Moreover, the ability to lead may not be ‘‘natural’’ or inborn. Rather than having leadership ability as a natural gift or talent, it is possible for one to acquire, or improve upon, individual characteristics to develop leadership ability. In addition, the exercise of leadership requires flexibility and so is not associated with any consistent set of characteristics. An effective manager or leader will not show the same set of traits in every situation, but will adjust leadership style to match the conditions of different situations. Such a leader has an ecological orientation in the sense of fitting leadership style to contextual constraints.

The Leadership

175

Research carried out to try to match supposedly inborn traits, such as intelligence or energy level, or personality traits, such as agreeableness or extraversion/introversion, to leadership has not found consistent relationships of these to effective leadership. In addition, views of what is inborn and what is acquired through learning and experience have changed dramatically in the last half-century. The ideas that certain traits or personality characteristics are always associated with good leaders or that some people are born to lead are generally no longer accepted (Nahavandi, 2006). In the modern era, leadership theorists have come to accept that leadership is based on behaviors and skills that can be learned. Leader Skills Katz’s Three Skill Model. Such arguments as we have described against modeling leadership by means of traits have led authors and researchers in management to look for a different way of characterizing leadership in administration. Katz (1955/1974/1983, p. 24), for example, states that many organizations, ‘‘in concentrating on certain specific traits or qualities, stand in danger of losing sight of their real concern: what a [person] can accomplish.’’ Katz suggests . . . what may be a more useful approach to the selection and development of administrators. This approach is based not on what good [administrators] are (their innate traits and characteristics), but rather on what they do (the kinds of skills which they exhibit in carrying out their jobs effectively). As used here, a skill implies an ability which can be developed, not necessarily inborn, and which is manifested in performance, not merely in potential. So the principal criterion of skillfulness must be effective action under varying conditions. (p. 24)

Within his ‘‘behaviorist’’ approach to leadership, Katz defined three types of skill which are required for successful administration: technical skill, human skill, and conceptual skill. We can think of the ecological leader as drawing on these different skills sets as needed in response to program needs and contextual conditions. Technical skill is the result of training and experience in a particular field. In Katz’s characterization: technical skill implies an understanding of, and proficiency in, a specific kind of activity, particularly one involving methods, processes, procedures, or techniques . . . . Technical skill involves specialized knowledge, analytical ability within that specialty, and facility in the use of the tools and techniques of the specific discipline. (p. 24)

In the modern management literature, it is widely commented that managers should stay within their area of competence. Peters and Waterman (1982),

176

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

for example, advise companies from straying too far from their core practices, exhorting them to ‘‘stick to the knitting.’’ Other work in leadership (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991) stresses the importance of the leader’s knowledge of the particular enterprise which s/he leads. Human skill, in Katz’s characterization, is the ‘‘ability [of the leader] to work effectively as a group member and to build cooperative effort within the team’’ (p. 24). The manager with strong human skill is able to accurately interpret the communications, both verbal and non-verbal, of others in the organization as well as to communicate to these others messages which will be correctly interpreted by them in their own contexts. In Katz’s words: Real skill in working with others must become a natural, continuous activity since it involves sensitivity not only at times of decision making but also in the day-to-day behavior of the individual. Human skill cannot be ‘‘some time thing’’ . . . .Thus, to be effective, this skill must be naturally developed and unconsciously, as well as consistently, demonstrated in the individual’s every action. (p. 25)

The modern management literature continues to emphasize the importance of human skill such as Kouzes and Posner’s (1999) concept of ‘‘managing from the heart’’ (see below). The third area of administrative skill which Katz defines, conceptual skill, . . . involves the ability to see the enterprise as a whole; it includes recognizing how the various functions of the organization depend on one another, and how changes in any one part affect all the others; and it extends to visualizing the relationship of the individual [organization] to the entire field, the community, and to political, social and economic forces. Recognizing these relationships and perceiving the significant elements in any situation, the administrator should then be able to act in a way which advances the overall welfare of the total organization. (p. 26)

According to Katz: ‘‘Not only does the effective coordination of the various parts of [an organization] depend on the conceptual skill of the administrators involved, but so also does the whole future direction and tone of the organization’’ (p. 26). Much of what an administrator does is steer a course for the organization towards, and into, the future. In so doing, the leader is constantly weighing current risks and cutbacks against future gains. Thus, conceptual skill relates to visionary and strategic leadership (see below). Research on ESL Program Director Skills. Using her own survey instrument, also as her Doctoral research, Matthies (1984) conducted a study to ascertain which job skills the director of IEPs in the United States thought they had or needed. Her study found that the respondents rated those skills

The Leadership

177

‘‘most important’’ that were associated more with the role of a ‘‘manager’’ than with the role of an ‘‘educator.’’ Of the ten skills respondents rated ‘‘most important,’’ two were associated with the educator role, and the others with the manager role. In contrast, of the ten skills respondents rated as their best, three were associated with the role of manager, the others with that of educator. The respondents in Matthies’ (1984) study were found to be ‘‘concerned about their performance as managers, but generally satisfied in their role as educators’’ (p. 14). The ESL program directors surveyed by Matthies thus perceived a mismatch between their actual skills and the skills required for their job. Pennington (1985) was the first to lay out the skills required for English language program administration in the three categories of technical, human, and conceptual skills as identified by Katz. Drawing on that earlier work, we lay out below the areas of skill required for language program leadership. Technical Skill  English language and linguistics (especially spoken and written varieties, discourse and pragmatics, Academic English, English for Specific Purposes);  Academic research and publication;  Teaching methods;  Curriculum and materials;  Educational and administrative technologies and media;  Testing and evaluation;  Immigration and foreign travel regulations and procedures;  Knowledge of other countries and cultures;  Human resources (staffing, orientation, and assessment of faculty and office staff, legal matters of employment);  Finances (planning, budgeting, accounting);  Grants and contracts;  Administrative communication (public speaking, memos, reports);  Record-keeping and database management. There are a very large number of technical areas that the program leadership needs to have knowledge of and skill in, and these are constantly changing and so require frequent updating. The number and diversity of areas of technical competency is so great that one person is not likely to be able to comprehend them all, thus suggesting the desirability of specialization among individual members of the leadership, the faculty, and the administrative staff.

178

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

On top of the technical skill set, the human relations and conceptual (envisioning, planning) abilities of the leader are crucially important (Fox, 1991). Human Skill  Lecture-style presentations (arousing and sustaining interest);  Group meetings (expressing ideas clearly, listening skillfully, interacting successfully as leader and group member);  Orientation and skills development (motivating staff involvement);  One-on-one counseling or review meetings with faculty, staff, students, and others (asking open-ended questions, ensuring mutual understanding, giving meaningful advice);  Matters of curriculum and teaching (negotiating with faculty and students as a group and as individuals);  Problem-solving (dealing tactfully and insightfully with problems and offering effective solutions);  Implementing changes and innovations (preparing for change by disseminating information and building understanding of the need for and the character of the proposed change, practicing persuasion and negotiation);  Maintaining a positive attitude and commitment (making faculty and staff members feel appreciated);  Intercultural communication. Beyond areas of human skill that the language program leadership might have in common with other managers, human skill in language program leadership includes the ability to work effectively with diverse populations. This skill is one of the strengths of the language program leader, who is constantly interacting with students from around the world and their families and sponsors. Modern language program leaders who supervise a faculty teaching many different languages must have intercultural competence in managing the issues that arise among a diverse faculty. These issues can include interactional style, verbal as well as non-verbal behaviors, formality, assertiveness, and many other issues related to language and cultural behaviors. The same issues arise in dealing with students or international visitors from different cultural backgrounds. Conceptual Skill  Analysis (consideration of program needs and functioning in all of its components);

179

The Leadership

 Evaluation (assessment of program needs and functioning in relation to mission);  Planning (goal-setting and laying groundwork for future actions);  Change Management (adjustments of program components individually and as a whole based on analysis and evaluation);  Innovation (conceptualization and implementation of new ideas and creative solutions to problems). The core of conceptual skill involves optimizing all components of the program to accomplish its mission. This requires ongoing and continuous observation, assessment, and adjustment of the components of the ecology in relation to each other and to the wider context in order to accomplish goals and head towards the future. Using a Combination of Skills. Different leaders may be more or less focused in their normal practice on technical, human or interpersonal, and conceptual matters in their jobs. However, there are many types of situations which require the application of all three types of skill sets in managing issues that arise in the language program. The following case study provides a representative example.

CASE STUDY 6.2 USING ALL THREE SKILL SETS When the Saudi Ministry released substantial numbers of scholarships for study in the United States in 2005, the Saudi population in intensive English programs increased. In addition, more men and women from other Middle Eastern countries such as the United Arab Emirates entered programs. In responding to the special needs of this population, the language program leader needed to draw on technical, conceptual, and human skill sets. Starting at the conceptual level, the leader needed to conceptualize the kinds of changes that might occur within the program ecology—such changes as program curriculum, student services, and intercultural issues on campus. For example, places to pray during the day were requested. Accommodations to the program calendar during Ramadan needed to be made, such as rescheduling a program lunch. At the technical level, modifications to the curriculum of the program needed to be made to support the particular learning issues of the new population. Students with advanced oral skills but lower-level literacy skills could challenge both the program design and the classroom instruction. Assessment of skills was complicated as well in integrated tests in which listening responses were interactive with written material. Understanding these issues at the technical, instructional level was necessary in order to provide support and potentially funding for new resources.

180

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD In human skills terms, the program leader had to be open and understanding in working with a new population of students who were now a large enough group to have a major effect on the people of the program. In some cases, this involved sensitivity to the stereotypes and possible prejudices by program staff to an Arabic-speaking, Muslim population portrayed negatively by some in the media. The sensitivity in such cases involved the ability to address these issues with a program staff accustomed to working with diverse populations but unaccustomed to the particular needs and expectations of this population. At the same time, the program leader had to deal with special requests from the new students, such as that given by a student’s husband, who wanted to accompany his wife to her classes even though only she was enrolled in the program. Trying to negotiate cultural expectations tactfully requires enormous human understanding.

Because it is doubtful that any one person will have a high degree of skill in all three areas, an administrative team structure was recommended by Pennington (1985) for the language program that might include positions such as program director and faculty supervisor or curriculum coordinator. An administrative practicum, preferably including an on-site apprenticeship, was also recommended as a way to build administrative skills through practical experience and to learn from mistakes in a context where the results of those mistakes would not be devastating to people and to programs.

Leadership Functions and Roles A skills model can be reconceptualized as a functional model focused on the functions and actions needed to be a successful leader. We have reconceptualized Katz’s three skills as three types of functions which the program leader needs to be able to perform: Practical

Interpersonalcommunicative Analytical-reflective functions

Knowledge of and proficiency in specific practices (methods, processes, procedures, and/or techniques). Effectiveness in communication, personal relations, motivation, group process, and teambuilding. Ability to hold a large amount of information in mind; to notice subtleties and to understand complexities; to think abstractly and in terms of the future; and to make generalizations and comparisons and contrasts as a basis for planning, problem-solving, and decision-making.

The Leadership

181

In performing all of these types of functions, the ecological leader of the language program carries out different types of work and takes different roles in management and leadership. A number of studies have been conducted to look at English language program management from the perspective of the type of work program directors do and their various roles. It is to these that we now turn. A Study of the Job of the ESL Program Director in Comparison to the Academic Department Chair. Pennington and Xiao (1990) drew upon the previous studies and the work of Katz (1955/1974/1983) in examining the job of the English language program director in higher education in comparison to that of the department chair. The authors distributed two sets of 100 surveys, one to language program directors nationally as identified by the NAFSA Association of Administrators of Intensive English Programs and one to department chairs and program heads on the campus of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The results showed some significant differences between the two groups. In background, the English language program directors included more females (56%) compared to the other academic department heads (25%). They were also younger: only 12% were 50 or older compared to the other academic heads (79% in that category). Their qualifications were not as high: 47% had Doctorates compared with 89% for the department heads However, it is worth noting that compared to an earlier study by Reasor (1981), English language program directors in this study a decade later had a significantly higher average terminal degree (Pennington & Xiao, 1990, p. 11). The department heads were almost all (89%) tenured compared to just 32% of the language program directors. The length of time in their present job differed, with the language program directors having predominantly 1–5 years of service (53%) while most (79%) of the other academic heads had more than 5 years in their present job. Both groups had fewer than 15% with less than one year of experience. Many more of the language program directors were outside hires (41%) compared to department chairs (14%), who tended to come from inside their home department. All of these characteristics were statistically significant between the groups based on chi-square analyses (Pennington & Xiao, 1990, pp. 12–13). In terms of prior experience, about three-fourths of the English language program directors had no prior administrative experience compared to slightly over half for the academic department chairs (71% to 54%). Most had no prior or current management or administrative coursework. Both groups had experience teaching outside the United States, with 62% of the

182

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

language program directors and 40% of the other academic heads having overseas teaching experience. In these areas, the differences between the groups were not significant based on chi-square analyses. (Pennington & Xiao, 1990, pp. 12–13). Other significant differences between the groups included the nature of the department and work responsibilities. The number of full-time faculty positions in the two types of departments differed significantly (7.95 in the language programs compared to 13.25 in the academic departments) as well as non-faculty staff (2.66 in ESL and 6.19 in other departments). The language program directors put significantly less time into teaching and less time into research than the other group. No significant differences, however, were found in other categories including time spent on annual budget, professional activities, outside service, and department and university affairs (Pennington & Xiao, 1990, p. 14). Summary of English Language Program Director. Employment Characteristics          

Female Younger Less experienced Without PhD Untenured Recruited from outside department Overseas experience Small faculty and staff Little teaching Little research

The survey instrument also queried the academic program leaders about a set of twenty-four skills including such skills as Budgeting, Writing proposals, Controlling office procedures, Making profits, Communicating effectively across cultures, Maintaining a teamwork environment, Recruiting new students, and Formulating long-range plans. These skills spanned the three types of skills identified by Katz as human, conceptual, and technical in type. Out of these twenty-four skills, the five top skills needed for their jobs were identified by the program directors as the following, all largely involving human skills in Katz’s classification (other than Managing time): (1) Motivating faculty members; (2) Communicating program goals to faculty;

The Leadership

183

(3) Managing time; (4) Maintaining an environment conducive to teamwork; (5) Developing a staff ‘‘team.’’ The five least-needed skills for their jobs were reported as a contrasting list that incorporate significant technical skills: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Computer skills; Writing proposals; Keeping in touch with national/international academic organizations; Recruiting new students; Teaching courses.

Overall, the language program directors reported a high correlation between the skills they needed for their work and the skills they had, as well as (in common with the department chairs) generally high satisfaction with their self-rated job performance (p. 17). Both groups reported putting the most time and effort into Paperwork (reports, budgets, etc.). Department heads had little concern with Making profits—in this study, it was the lowest of their priorities—while the language program directors considered it an area of moderate concern (p. 19). Compared to the other academic leaders, the language program directors did significantly more supervision and less scholarly activity. Pennington and Xiao concluded that this result ‘‘suggests more attention on the part of the ESL directors to their role as managers than to their role as educators’’ (p. 20). For both language program directors and department chairs, Time management is a skill showing one of the largest disparities between the actual and the needed skill level (p. 19). Teaching is the area that the language program directors remarked they put the least time and effort whereas this was not the case for the department chairs, who reported putting a moderate amount of time and effort into teaching. This suggests that the English language program directors were doing less teaching than department heads or had more pressing responsibilities that put it at the bottom of the priority list. Teaching was the area of greatest mismatch between needed and actual skills for the program directors, who reported having a much higher level of skill in teaching than the job required. In response to the open-ended question, ‘‘What are your most important job-related activities?’’ the directors made the following entries:  Promotion and recruitment (10 respondents);  Public relations within the university and the community (10 respondents); Faculty hiring, supervision and evaluation (10 respondents);

184

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

 Program planning and management (8 respondents);  Curriculum (5 respondents). The authors commented that all of these areas with the exception of curriculum are more related to a managerial role than an educator role (Pennington & Xiao, 1990, p. 20). The authors summarized the findings of the study by revising revised their original hypotheses as follows to be consistent with the results of the study: 1. The background characteristics of ESL directors are changing towards a higher level of professional qualifications as measured by highest degree. 2. The situational variables in ESL administration are different from those of other university academic departments. 3. The level of job skills which ESL directors believe they need are generally consistent with those which they actually possess. 4. ESL directors are like other university department heads in assessing their job skills and performance as satisfactory. 5. ESL directors have high human skills and conceptual skills. 6. ESL directors view ESL programs from both a business-oriented and an academicoriented perspective and consider themselves as both managers and educators. (Pennington & Xiao, 1990, p. 23)

Several positive findings required the revision of the initial hypotheses 3 and 4; namely, that in fact the skill set seen as needed by the directors and those they actually possess are generally consistent and can be classified as in the human skills area. Further, both the language program directors and other university department heads in this study believed their job skills and performance were satisfactory rather than inadequate. This finding might relate to the fact that there were few newcomers (with less than one year of experience) in either group in this sample. The satisfaction with job skills reported by the program directors in the Pennington and Xiao (1990) study is encouraging in its divergence from the results of the earlier study by Matthies (1984), which found a mismatch between the skills English language program directors believed they had and the skills they believed they needed for their job. Whatever the reason for this difference, the direction is positive and is a potential indication of progress for the leaders of English language programs. The study confirms the hypothesis that the situational variables in English language program administration are different from those of other university academic departments, thus embodying rather different ecologies. As shown in the findings above, the language program leadership was younger, included more females as a group, and had with less time on the job. Although nearly half had Doctoral degrees, only about a third were tenured compared to nearly ninety percent of the academic department heads, who held both Doctoral degrees and tenure. The department head

185

The Leadership

position was more likely to be an inside promotion compared to the language program director. English language programs had fewer full-time faculty and fewer staff but without a significant difference in the annual budget; and the program directors put less time into teaching, less time into research, and more time into supervision than the other group. This 1990s study painted a picture of language program directors as highly skilled and as likely to view their programs from both a business and an academic perspective and to consider themselves as both managers and educators. The English language program leaders were more likely to be female, to come from outside the institution, to do more with less, and to enjoy fewer of the perks of traditional academe, such as tenure. While they had higher academic degrees than in the early years of language program administration, they did not use them much in teaching or research. The authors concluded, based on the findings in the study, that the English language program director has a unique position in post-secondary education. A further analysis of the open-ended responses by Pennington (1994a) confirmed the managerial aspects of the language program director’s job and the differences in the director’s job in comparison to that of a typical academic department chair. Time Management. The results of the Pennington and Xiao (1990) study highlight some key differences between the traditional academic department chair and the English language program director. One important area is time allocation, as department chairs tended to be spending less time on things they didn’t like to do than the English language program directors, who had a mismatch between the things they said they liked to do (tasks related to the role of educator) and the things they had to spend the most time on (tasks related to the role of manager). Time management is one of the key areas of importance for an effective language program leader: the language program director wears many hats and faces competing demands for attention to both short-term immediate need projects and longer-term strategic planning. The next case study illustrates this point.

CASE STUDY 6.3 TIME MANAGEMENT In one morning, the language program director may come to the office planning to work on the self-study report for accreditation which is due at the end of the week. Upon arrival, she may however be faced with a building emergency in which one classroom is flooded and the class urgently needs to find other space to meet.

186

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD On her desk is a notice that there aren’t enough books for three of the courses. With the main support staff out on maternity leave, these book orders seemed to fall in the director’s lap. Nagging at the back of the director’s mind is the knowledge that her own annual review depends upon scholarship; she had hoped to order some books from interlibrary loan that morning as well. While the reader reading this description may clearly see that this manager has too much to do and needs to perform triage or to delegate, it is not always so easy in real life. The flooded classroom is an immediate concern that must be resolved because students and teacher need a place to meet—and the program needs a replacement room for up to six scheduled hours of instruction that day. The director must be involved in solving this problem because there are no empty classrooms during the peak hours of IEP classes and getting another department to release their special rooms involves asking for a favor that only someone at her level can do, according to the culture of this university. The difference between the IEP and other traditional departments extends in all directions. Other departments have year-long annual planning cycles with advance registration in courses that the language program does not have. The bookstore orders only a percentage of book orders in any case. For a population like the typical undergraduate population who order many of their books online, this percentage may be reasonable; for the international student population in an IEP this percentage will not come close to covering the demand. Educating the bookstore manager about the course differences is an ongoing process. The director should not be ordering the books, but in some small institutional settings, the director is the only person other departments want to deal with. In this scenario, the director’s assistant is on maternity leave, using accrued sick time and still collecting a salary. In the self-funded environment of the language program, the director may not have extra budget dollars for additional hiring and cannot always make use of temporary clerical or work-study student helpers that other departments can. Thus extra work falls on the shoulders of the director unless she can find other staff to delegate it to. Most of the instructors in this program are adjunct faculty and do not have administrative responsibilities. The self-study report for accreditation must be done; this is both important and immediate. Unfortunately, it now has taken a back seat to the program operations, and the director will have to stay late to do what needs to be done both immediately and later under increased pressure. What is inevitably lost is the important (but not pressing) task of her own scholarship, which will always be put off in the face of the more pressing tasks unless she can find a new way to manage the other work. Not until the annual review will she be faced with the consequences of her daily decisions. She will have found herself penalized in a key area of her career—but still with the experience of non-stop, after-hours work on every working day during the year.

Supervisor Relationships. Another key difference between department chairs and language program directors is the relationship of the department administrator and the faculty. In a traditional academic department, the chair

The Leadership

187

is a tenured faculty member chosen from the ranks to serve for a limited period of duty. After a period as chair, she or he typically returns to the faculty or goes on into higher levels of academic administration at the dean’s level. The relationship then is less like a supervisor-subordinate and more like a first-among-peers relationship. Evaluation of the teaching faculty and the administrative staff can be a very different thing in such a circumstance. In cases where there is a union to which faculty but not administrators belong, issues of evaluation and hiring/firing differ, as faculty come under a third party framework whereas neither the program director nor the faculty in a traditional intensive English program are likely to be unionized. Consistent with the language program as ecology, their positions are both more flexible and less secure than those with faculty status under a union contract or academic tenure. A U.S. Study of Intensive English Program Directors. Although one can imagine that directors today would not maintain that computer skills were of low importance for their work, the findings of the Pennington and Xiao (1990) study, and the further analysis of the open-ended responses by Pennington (1994a), though carried out twenty years ago, are nevertheless largely relevant today. This can be seen in more recent research carried out by Gawienowski (2002) as a Doctoral study investigating the role and function of administrators working as intensive English program (IEP) directors at colleges and universities in the Eastern United States. Information about the central questions was gathered qualitatively through questionnaires, detailed logs, and direct observation by the researcher. In examining the literature on academic administration, Gawienowski found little research focused on IEP administrators in comparison to academic administrators such as deans, department heads, and writing center directors. This is in part a result of the difficulty in the 1980s of finding outlets for publishing work on language program administration. Several reports by the first author could not find a publisher and remain available only as working papers or ERIC documents (e.g., Pennington, 1997b; Pennington & Riley, 1991a, 1991b; Pennington & Xiao, 1990). Others appeared in newsletters (e.g., Pennington, 1983, 1984b), conference proceedings (e.g., Pennington, 1985), or journals that are not well-known to many in the field of English language teaching (e.g., Matthies, 1984; Pennington, 1992d, 1994a). Gawienowski (2002) considered the writing center director as the position most comparable to the IEP director, in that both face common challenges such as lack of experience in administration; undefined

188

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

responsibilities; lack of understanding on the part of the rest of the academic community; questions about the function and nature of the unit (as a support service or academic department); and the need to create visibility, goodwill, and strong relationships on campus (Gawienowski, 2002, pp. 12–13). An initial survey was sent to 201 colleges and universities which were institutional members in the NAFSA Region VIII (Mid-Atlantic) region of the United States asking questions regarding the nature of English language instruction on campus. A total of 76 questionnaires were returned, out of which 24 had intensive English programs on campus as defined by number of hours of instruction and other criteria. A second questionnaire was sent to these institutions, of which thirteen were returned; this questionnaire asked for information about the educational and professional background of the director, the relationship between the IEP and the parent institution, responsibilities of the director’s position, the sufficiency of professional preparation, the challenges faced and the skills needed as director. Gawienowski’s results are quite similar to those of Pennington and Xiao (1990). As her respondents represent only 13 individuals we do not report the questionnaire results of the Gawienowski study here. However, six directors allowed direct observation of their activities through an all-day site visit and two kept detailed logs of their activities over the course of two separate weeks. The author transcribed and then coded the material for themes, starting initially with coding for the types of skills necessary (human, technical, or conceptual, following Katz). From her various sources of information, Gawienowski (2002) concluded that IEP directors need all three of the skill types characterized by Katz: human, technical, and conceptual. They also need to be prepared for the unexpected. The author concludes her study with a statement that might almost be an idealized standard for program directors: An IEP director is well-educated and has dedicated many years to the TESOL profession. They are people willing to share their knowledge with other IEP directors, as well as with researchers. Although they might begin with gaps in their experience or knowledge base, they use on campus, regional and national resources available to them to continue their professional development. They value what they’re doing but understand that they are limited in their control of external influences on the IEP, such as the global economy and the attitude on campus towards internationalization. IEP directors realize that they are responsible for creating the working and learning environment and do not take this lightly. It is indeed a difficult job, but infinitely rewarding in the potential effect on the students, staff, faculty, and parent institution. (Gawienowski, 2002, p. 201)

The Leadership

189

A U.K. Study of the Director of Studies. White (2000), the director of the Centre for Applied Language Studies at the University of Reading, studied the role of the ‘‘DOS’’ (Director of Studies) in the UK, a role characterized by the author as one of ‘‘middle management’’ between the teachers, administration, and senior management. He sent out 200 copies of a questionnaire to DOSs in ARELS (Association of Recognized English Language Services; owww.arels.org.ukW) schools with a return of 68, or 34%. The sixty-eight respondents were 40 women and 28 men who were on average 44 years old (43 for the women, 46 for the men) with an average of 17 years in EFL and 6 years as DOS (White, 2000). These figures are comparable to those for the Gawienowski respondents in terms of years in the TESL field and years as director. As White reports, 90% of the respondents had a first (undergraduate) degree, with 60% having a postgraduate teaching certificate, 50% an RSA/ UCLES or Trinity certificate, and 75% an RSA/UCLES or Trinity diploma. A total of 18% had an MA in Applied Linguistics and 14% had an MA in TESOL. One respondent had completed an MBA and 7% had an Advanced Diploma in Language Teaching or Educational Management. Three people (4%) had counseling credentials. Approximately two-thirds worked in owner-managed schools, with one-third in chain schools, and for the most part they were in small schools with fewer than ten permanent teaching and administrative staff positions. With regard to changes in their work, approximately two-thirds noted that academic and business management aspects of their work had increased, with an even higher percentage (77%) noting that the focus on managing people had increased, and 82% said that the amount of administration had increased. At the same time, 41% replied that professional development was a lesser rather than greater part of their work compared to previously. At least half felt that there had been an increase in ESP over general English courses. A large percentage (79%) felt that there was now more attention to treating students as clients. The respondents also saw more competition in the market (92%), more economic uncertainty (83%), and more technological uncertainty (61%) than in the past. They also saw the demands of the job increasing (83%) rather than decreasing (0%), with an increase in role demands (73%) and interpersonal demands (61%). They also saw less job security for the DOS (39%) but even more so for their teachers (63%). Thus, these ELT course managers in the UK indicated a greater focus on business and administrative concerns and less on educational and longrange development in an increasingly demanding job, situated in an

190

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

increasingly competitive, unpredictable, and insecure environment. The results suggest an increased emphasis on a business-with-service orientation and an increased orientation to student needs or demands, with concomitant increased specialization of instruction. White (2000) extrapolates from the data and proposes a future scenario in which ELT organizations are more ‘‘virtual,’’ with three types of staff: core staff (long-term employees), outsourced employees from other industries (e.g., IT), and temporary staff (often teachers). He proposes further that the DOS of the future will be far more involved with HR functions such as recruitment and training, while the academic functions will be distributed to other members of the professionally trained staff. As access to English widens through the internet and other access points, the role of the school will change dramatically, providing ‘‘maps to facilitate access to learning opportunities for learners who are already adept at navigating their way around the Net and other IT-based resources.’’ The school will also serve to facilitate social get-togethers (both in virtual and in real time). In short, while White reports the perceptions of the DOS with regard to change that has occurred in English language teaching, the future looks to be a time of even greater change, as the industry ‘‘re-invents’’ itself, as he puts it. This vision supports our own view of the changes ahead (see Chapter Nine).

Leader Style As reviewed by Reasor (1981), work at a number of universities (Ohio State, Michigan, and later Harvard) in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s evolved a construct of management style as involving the two dimensions of taskorientation (a focus on employees attaining goals) and relationshiporientation (a focus on developing trust and good relationships with employees). A well-known development of this work is the contingency theory of Fiedler (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984), who stressed the importance of a good match between a leadership situation and a leader’s style, a point consistent with our ecological orientation. Nahavandi (2006) illustrates this point by the example of four U.S. Presidents—Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, who were both ‘‘task-motivated leaders’’ (p. 138), and Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, who were both ‘‘focused on interpersonal relations’’ (p. 139). As a result of their high task-orientation and need for control, Nixon and Carter did not perform well in situations which they were unable to control and thus lost popular support. Reagan and Clinton, on the other hand, who were more focused on people, had less need for

The Leadership

191

structure and control, and so remained popular in difficult circumstances that they did not control. Reddin’s Basic Style Indicators. Another development of work on management style is Reddin’s (1970) four Basic Style Indicators. The four basic styles are derived from a series of trait scales which measure the respondent’s degree of relationship-orientation (RO) and task-orientation (TO). Reddin maintained that any of these styles could be effective depending on context. The Reddins, William and Mary, applied their model to education, developing an Educational Administrative Style Diagnosis Test (EASDT; Reddin & Reddin, 1975). A Related style, high in RO and low in TO, is a people-oriented manager not focused on performance of tasks. Such a manager can be quite effective as a ‘‘Developer’’ of others but also ineffective in circumstances in which this orientation is viewed as reneging on responsibilities and giving insufficient instruction or direction to employees The opposite style, high in TO and low in RO, is termed a Dedicated style, meaning dedicated to getting work done—determined, confident, independent—without a strong concern for interpersonal relationships. This orientation when applied ineffectively, is that of an ‘‘Autocrat’’ totally wrapped up in the self and showing no respect for others. When used effectively, this style is termed the ‘‘Benevolent Autocrat,’’ signifying that the manager is able to get people to perform but without any lack of respect shown. A Separated style is one that is low in both types of orientation; a person with this style is cautious, patient, and conservative, and prefers to work in isolation from others. Used ineffectively, the manager’s style projects disinterest and lack of involvement, hence is labeled that of a ‘‘Deserter’’; however, in the right circumstances, this style can be effective, as that of a ‘‘Bureaucrat’’ who maintains order and does not get personally involved with employees. An Integrated style is one high in both types of orientation, and so sets up the workplace to emphasize cooperative accomplishment of goals. When used effectively, in an ‘‘Executive’’ style, it emphasizes teamwork and commitment to organizational goals; when used ineffectively, in a ‘‘Compromiser’’ style, the manager projects weakness and ambiguity. Research on ESL Program Director Style. In his Ph.D. dissertation completed at American University in Washington, D.C., Alfred W. Reasor (1981) conducted a study to identify and evaluate the administrative styles of ESL program directors in universities in the United States, using the EASDT. Reasor found that ESL directors differed significantly

192

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

from other educators in their administrative styles. Fifty-three percent of the ESL administrators showed no dominant administrative style. Reasor (1981) speculates that this result . . . may suggest that more than half of these ESL administrators do not have enough experience in administration to define their administrative style. No previous group of educational administrators had shown such a high percentage with no Dominant Administrative Style on the EASDT. (p. 89)

An alternative explanation for the lack of a dominant administrative style could be that the ESL leaders must wear many hats and so tend not to settle into one particular administrative style. A further possibility is that the EASDT instrument does not capture well the type of work that ESL program leaders perform. By performing a ‘‘style synthesis’’ on all subjects in the study, Reasor determined that 69% of the sample could be analyzed as evidencing a ‘‘Separated’’ style—an orientation which has been determined in previous research to be an uncommon one among elementary and secondary principals and head masters. Those with a Separated style of administration tend to exhibit rule-oriented behavior and to be low in both task-based orientation and relationship-orientation. According to Reasor’s results, only 23% of the ESL program directors had a ‘‘Related’’ style, defined as high in relationship-orientation. Finally, 62% of the ESL directors surveyed in the Reasor (1981) study felt that they were using an ineffectual style in their present position. Again, it may be that lack of background and experience in leadership made it difficult or impossible for these directors to alter their approach to their jobs. The results of Reasor’s (1981) study, which identified a non-relational ESL administrative style, differ from Pennington and Xiao’s (1990) findings, which show the ESL program director as one who possesses human skills and sees them as critical in the job. The difference in findings in the Reasor (1981) study in contrast to the Pennington and Xiao (1990) study could be based on construct differences, sampling differences, or differences due to change over time in the nature of ESL program directors. It would be of value to have further studies to probe these differences in findings. Critique of Work in Leadership Style. Leadership styles can no doubt be classified on more than only the two dimensions of ‘‘Related’’ and ‘‘Separated’’ styles. For example, a highly charismatic leader (see below) may not fit easily into either the task-oriented or relationship-oriented categories. Moreover, the dimensions may not be fully cohesive or internally

The Leadership

193

consistent. Thus, a high task-orientation (completing tasks) is not always equivalent to high goal-orientation (reaching a goal). In some contexts and cultures, a focus on the performance of tasks may be as much about building confidence, loyalty, and relationship as about achievement of goals. Conversely, someone can be highly focused on accomplishing certain goals without having a concern about, or even knowing about, the specific tasks by which they are accomplished. A control-oriented micro-manager may be highly focused on employee’s completion of tasks without strong connection to goals. Moreover, a controlling leader may have a strong need for relationship with employees, but with strong control may develop in employees a dependency relationship which keeps employees in a subservient position and inhibits independent thinking, questioning, and assumption of responsibility. Thus, the task- and relationship-orientations, though they provide some useful insights into leadership, give only a partial view. In an organizational ecology that is continually evolving and strengthening, the most fruitful perspective on task performance and relationship is one of interactive and mutually supportive processes of working together and building interconnections in aiming to realize the program’s vision and mission.

Situational Leadership Each of Katz’s three skill areas comprises a wide range of individual functions and skills, suggesting that leaders would do well to acquire a large bank of knowledge, experience, and skills in order to function well in different aspects of their jobs over the course of their careers. This is the idea behind situational leadership, which echoes Katz’s notion of effective action under varying conditions (p. 24). Although Fiedler (1967) believed that leaders could not easily change their style and that if the match between them and the leadership situation was not a good one, they should not try to change themselves but rather should try to change the situation, current leadership theory advocates leaders matching their behavior to the needs of their followers and leadership circumstances. From the perspective of the organization as an ecology, when the match between the program leader and the ecology is not a good one, the options are: Change the ecology (a) by leaving the organization and going to another; or (b) by seeking to change the ecology.

194

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Change the self (a) long-term, by professional development and training; or (b) short-term, by situational management in response to circumstances. All of these options are in fact feasible ways for the program leader to improve the match between her/himself and the program ecology. Charismatic Leadership Charisma is often mentioned as associated with leaders. In charismatic leadership, the leader is at the center of attention, a ‘‘larger-than-life’’ figure. In charismatic leadership, followers follow out of blind faith and fervent loyalty to the leader. Thus, rather than being empowered to think and act for themselves, they become codependent on the leader, entirely wedded and devoted to the person and her or his ideas and goals. Charismatic leadership involves ‘‘the crucial elements of emotion and faith, as well as mysticism, irrationality, and psychological need, in the bond between leaders and followers’’ (Burns, 2003, p. 26). Thus, according to Burns (2003): At best, charisma is a confusing and undemocratic form of leadership. At worst, it is a type of tyranny. It should be studied . . . as an exotic or lopsided form of transforming leadership . . . . (p. 27)

Charismatic leadership can easily become a cult of personality and a highly controlling form of leadership—though the control may not be exercised in a direct or obvious way—in which the leader overshadows and overpowers followers. Other than possibly for grant-funded or charitysupported language programs made up of volunteers, charismatic leadership has little place in the model of the English language program ecology we are advocating here, which is based on strong two-way interactions between the leadership, the faculty, the students, and all other constituencies involved with the program. Authentic Leadership George (2003) has written about the authentic leader as a down-to-earth and self-aware person who is at the sidelines and empowers followers by being transparent and authentic in all dealings with people, by creating a high level of participation, and by engendering hope and trust. Authentic leadership recalls Katz’s (1955/1974/1983) comment that human skill, to be effective, must become natural and be ‘‘unconsciously, as well as consistently, demonstrated in the individual’s every action . . . [as an] integral part of [the person’s] whole being’’ (p. 25). Authentic leadership is entirely different

The Leadership

195

from both of the more controlling forms of leadership, both the micromanager and the charismatic, and so is entirely consistent with an ecological view of language program leadership as built on strong relationships and interactions. Leader Traits and Skills Revisited Although the trait theory has fallen out of favor and although it is clear that leadership requires skills of different types, certain traits facilitate leadership in providing a necessary basis for acquiring ‘‘needed leadership skills’’ (Nahavandi, 2006, p. 43). One list of these necessary traits, derived from a review of the literature focused on business leadership by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), is the following:      

Drive (achievement, ambition, energy, tenacity, initiative); Desire to lead (leadership motivation); Honesty and integrity; Self-confidence; Cognitive ability (intelligence); Knowledge of the business (technical knowledge).

Four of the items on the above list—drive, honesty and integrity, selfconfidence, and cognitive ability or intelligence—would seem to be traits in the classical sense whereas desire and motivation to lead would seem to be a matter of preference, choice, or commitment and so not a trait; and knowledge of the business—technical knowledge, or, following Katz, technical skill—is clearly not a trait but is learned. In addition, honesty and integrity have to do with deep values, while desire and motivation to lead has to do with the value a person puts on aspects of leadership in a specific situation, such as the challenge, novelty, or view of the organization or group of people involved. As a consequence of previous experience, a person may make a conscious and deliberate decision to behave in a certain manner or to seek out opportunities which allow for a certain type of work approach or interaction with others on the job. A very different list from that above, based on Sternberg and Lubart (1995), is the following:    

Perseverance in the face of obstacles and self-confidence; Willingness to take risks; Willingness to grow and openness to experience; Tolerance of ambiguity. (Nahavandi, 2006, p. 73; highlighting removed from original)

196

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

This second list could be viewed as a set of personality traits but can also be seen as describing a person’s attitudes and values. The four characteristics taken together would seem to describe a person with high drive, selfconfidence, and an ability to solve problems creatively. Interestingly, this list is actually one describing those who are termed ‘‘creative leaders’’ by Sternberg and Lubart (1995). In this connection, it can be noted that Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991, p. 135) list ‘‘charisma, creativity/originality, flexibility’’ as a set of ‘‘other traits’’ which the literature provides ‘‘weaker support’’ as differentiating leaders from non-leaders. Those who lead from an ecological perspective must be both skilled and flexible enough to adapt themselves to the circumstances in which they find themselves. The implication is that they can benefit, as discussed above, by having in their repertoire a wide range of skills to manage under differing and changing conditions, as an ecological model of leadership requires. This is especially important in leading a language program during a period such as the present era, which is one of rapid change and greatly fluctuating circumstances leading to interactions and changes in the global landscape made up of the different types of international flows and scapes described by Appadurai (1996) around the globe, as well as our added factor of linguascape, the shifting global linguistic profile. The ecological leader must moreover have the conceptual skills to be able to view the current state and movements of the flows and scapes ‘‘at the edges,’’ in order to predict where they are headed and to creatively lead at the edge of those coming trends. Yet Katz’s model, and indeed all skill-based models, while valuable, are missing some things about the leader’s overarching raison-d’etre that may be as important, or more important, than the three types of skills, or indeed, any types of skills. Collins (2001), in Good to Great, stresses a combination of personal humility or altruism and an overriding drive to achieve a vision as crucial for leaders. These two aspects of leadership relate to two other categories reviewed below, those types of leadership which focus on others and visionary leadership. In sum, neither specific traits nor skills can adequately define or describe leadership. As Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) point out: Traits alone . . . are not sufficient for successful business leadership—they are only a precondition. Leaders who possess the requisite traits must take certain actions to be successful (e.g., formulating a vision, role modeling, setting goals). Possessing the appropriate traits only makes it more likely that such actions will be taken and be successful. (p. 49)

While actions define leadership more than do a leader’s traits or skills, even actions are not the ultimate criterion of effective leadership. Rather it is outcomes. In the language program ecology, the most important outcome is

197

The Leadership

unity defined by strong relationships and a shared vision and focus on mission. Such unity, as previously argued, leads to effective outcomes according to other criteria. Focus on Others What sometimes goes under the name of ‘‘service’’ can be connected to relationship-centered modes of leadership such as ‘‘people-centered leadership’’ and ‘‘servant leadership.’’ ‘‘Transformational leadership,’’ although it has a strong focus on others, is classified here as a change-oriented mode of leadership. People-Centered Leadership People-centered leadership focuses on the satisfaction of human needs and the actualization of individual potentials. It is therefore a leadership approach that is highly consistent with our ecological orientation and its emphasis on relationship and actualization of potentials. An influential approach to people-centered management is that of Kouzes and Posner (1999), who found that ‘‘encouragement is absolutely essential to sustaining people’s commitment to organizational outcomes’’ (p. xii). Drawing on the discussion in Chapter 2 of their book, the following are the core principles of a management approach that they term ‘‘encouraging the heart’’: 1. Set clear standards 2. Expect the best 3. Pay attention 4. Personalize recognition 5. Tell the story

6. Celebrate together 7. Set the example

Make sure everyone knows and cherishes a common set of standards. Expect people to achieve and they will. Notice and comprehend the significance of people’s actions. Make recognition dramatic, unusual, and fun, with an emphasis on the individual. Tell stories to entertain, to move the audience, and to teach them what is expected to live up to expectations. Bring people together to bring them closer and strengthen their relationships. Practice what you preach close up, by modeling encouragement yourself. (summarized from Kouzes & Posner, 1999, pp. 18–29)

In its stress on building relationship and on the human side of management, the encouraging-the-heart perspective and its core principles

198

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

can be adopted for the language program ecology in leading faculty and administrative staff. It is also an appropriate orientation for teachers towards their students and for the director’s public persona and relationships outside the program.

Servant Leadership Servant leadership is a form of leadership consistent with a service attitude and climate that is focused on human relationship and the serving of other people and worthwhile ends. As conceptualized by Larry C. Spears, the servant-leader has the following characteristics: 10 Key Elements of Servant-Leadership 1.

Listening. . . . The servant-leader seeks to identify the will of a group and helps clarify that will. He or she seeks to listen receptively to what is being said . . . . 2. Empathy. The servant-leader strives to understand and empathize with others. People need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirits . . . . 3. Healing. One of the great strengths of servant-leadership is the potential for healing one’s self and others . . . . 4. Awareness. General awareness, and especially self-awareness, strengthens the servant-leader . . . . 5. Persuasion. . . . The servant-leader seeks to convince others rather than coerce compliance . . . .The servant-leader is effective at building consensus within groups. 6. Conceptualization. Servant-leaders seek to nurture their abilities to ‘‘dream great dreams.’’ The ability to look at a problem (or an organization) from a conceptualizing perspective means that one must think beyond day-to-day realities . . . . Servant-leaders are called to seek a delicate balance between conceptual thinking and a day-to-day focused approach. 7. Foresight. Foresight is a characteristic that enables the servant-leader to understand the lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision for the future . . . . 8. Stewardship. . . . Servant-leadership, like stewardship, assumes first and foremost a commitment to serving the needs of others. It also emphasizes the use of openness and persuasion rather than control. 9. Commitment to the growth of people. Servant-leaders believe that people have an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers. As a result, the servant-leader is deeply committed to the growth of each and every individual within the institution. 10. Building community. . . . Servant-leadership suggests that true community can be created among those who work in businesses and other institutions. (excerpted from Spears, 1994)

The servant leader builds consensus and community and is persuasive and facilitative rather than coercive and authoritarian. In the best case, the leader not only facilitates both employees’ and clients’ satisfaction of their

The Leadership

199

needs but also aids them in fulfilling other desired goals. In so doing, the leader improves their degree of satisfaction and commitment to the organization. De Pree (1995) compares servant-leadership to leading in a jazz band: A jazz band is an expression of servant leadership. The leader of a jazz band has the beautiful opportunity to draw the best out of the other musicians. We have much to learn from jazz-band leaders, for jazz, like leadership, combines the unpredictability of the future with the gifts of individuals. (p. 454)

Even more than conducting an orchestra, leading a jazz band emphasizes spontaneous connections, harmonies, and unexpected innovations that can emerge when individuals cooperate in a unity of purpose. The servant leader model has relevance for language program leadership and its ecology in the key features of creating relationship, unity, and a positive climate and in focusing on the satisfaction of needs and individualized development of students, faculty, and other program members. The concept of stewardship, the holding of something in trust for another, which is part of the concept of servant leadership, can be related to our notions of leadership in language programs. The leader as steward is entrusted with the care of resources and is responsible for their care. Thus a main focus of the leader-steward is taking good care of all the resources—people as well as fiscal and intangible resources—in the language program ecology. Participatory Management in an IEP Hoekje (2002) describes a university IEP in which participatory management is key. This sort of management, which combines elements of the Kouzes and Posner approach as well as that of servant leadership, can be summarized as follows: Participatory management refers to a philosophy of inclusion that attempts to involve major stakeholders in the decision-making process. To this end, the administrative staff meets together weekly to plan and review program activities. Faculty-run committees oversee the major areas of faculty concern, including curriculum and academic policies. There is a weekly staff meeting to discuss common areas of teaching and administrative concern. The philosophy of participatory management extends to the conception of the role of teacher in the program in that teachers are responsible for the majority of professional decisions about their work, including textbook selection and methodology within a set of curriculum guidelines overseen by a faculty committee. (Hoekje, 2002, p. 136)

Participatory management helps to build unity and co-commitment in the program and is consistent with the focus on people and communication that

200

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

is central to both ‘‘encouraging-the-heart’’ leadership and servant-leadership. In meeting frequently to share information and discuss common concerns, participatory management allows many opportunities for putting into practice the principles of ‘‘encouraging-the-heart’’ leadership (setting clear standards, expecting the best, paying attention, personalizing recognition, telling the story, celebrating together, and setting the example) and servant-leadership (listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community). Participatory management is thus a valuable approach to language program leadership that builds and sustains program unity as it also focuses on continual analysis, evaluation, and problem-solving.

Focus on Culture Cultural Differences in Leadership The management and leadership literature has increasingly considered and incorporated cultural differences in leadership style, for example, based on the work of Hofstede and building on the work of Reddin and Fiedler. Trompenaars (1994) characterizes differences in organizational orientations across disparate cultures in terms of two dimensions: an egalitarianhierarchical dimension and a person-task orientation that is reminiscent of Reddin’s and Fiedler’s work. Within these two dimensions, Trompenaars describes four types of cultures, each with a different leadership focus: CULTURE Incubator Guided Missile Family Eiffel Tower

FEATURES EgalitarianþPersonoriented EgalitarianþTaskoriented HierarchicalþPersonoriented HierarchicalþTaskoriented

LEADER’S ORIENTATION Care for individual needs Completion of task Powerful father-figure Maintains steep, rigid, stable structure

Building on Hofstede’s and Fiedler’s work, Triandis (1993, 1995) developed notions of tight versus loose and vertical versus horizontal cultures. In ‘‘tight’’ cultures, such as Japan, uncertainty is avoided by strong rules which people are expected to follow closely, whereas in ‘‘loose’’

The Leadership

201

cultures, such as Thailand, rules are not strict and divergence from the norm is tolerated. The vertical-horizontal dimension is a development of individualist-collectivist cultures. Triandis (1995) noted that both individualist and collectivist cultures can be either hierarchical (‘‘vertical’’) or egalitarian (‘‘horizontal’’). For example, he differentiates the United States and Sweden by describing the former as vertical individualist, meaning that individuals are seen as unique and important and at the same time as superior to others, and the latter as horizontal individualist, meaning that individuals are seen as unique and important and at the same time as equal to others. Japan and Korea are examples of vertical collectivist cultures, meaning that authority is a high value as is the good of the group over the good of the individual, and Israel is an example of a horizontal collectivist culture in which there is a strong group orientation and all are equal. Recent work building on this tradition is that of the GLOBE research project in 62 countries (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), which measured those cultures based on the 9 dimensions of: Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Humane Orientation Collectivism I (Institutional) Collectivism II (In-group) Assertiveness Gender Egalitarianism Future Orientation Performance Orientation

The degree to which power is distributed equally. The extent of reliance on social norms and rules to reduce unpredictability. The degree to which fairness, generosity, caring, and kindness are valued. The degree to which collective action and distribution of resources are valued and practiced. The degree to which pride and cohesion in family and organizations is valued and expressed. The degree to which individuals are assertive, direct, and confrontational. The extent of gender differentiation. The extent of investment in the future rather than the present or past. The degree to which performance and excellence are valued and encouraged. (adapted from Nahavandi, 2006, p. 15)

It is important for leaders to be aware of and to be able to adapt their own behavior in relation to cultural differences along all of these dimensions.

202

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Such awareness and adaptability is especially critical for the language program director working with people from many different cultures and also suggests the value of having those with different cultural backgrounds in the leadership team.

Women in Leadership Women have been in substantial numbers in management long enough to have started to evolve their own approaches ‘‘drawing on what is unique to their socialization as women and creating a different path . . . , seeking and finding opportunities in fast-changing and growing organizations to show that they can achieve results—in a different way’’ (Rosener, 1991, p. 149). Rosener (1991) conducted a study of men and women leaders for the International Women’s Forum, finding that the women leaders she interviewed exemplified leadership that was: Transformational

Interactive

In ‘‘getting subordinates to transform their own self-interest into the interest of the group through concern for a broader goal’’ (p. 150); and In ‘‘[encouraging] participation, [sharing] power and information, [enhancing] other people’s selfworth, and [getting] others excited about their work, . . . allowing employees to contribute and feel powerful and important’’ (pp. 150–151).

Both of these characteristics of women leaders are related to the development of unity as previously discussed and so are valuable in maintaining a healthy human ecology in a language program. They are not specifically feminine and so might be adopted by male or female leaders. In Rosener’s work, these traits are commonly associated more with female than male leaders. Therefore, it would seem sensible and perhaps also strategic to include women in the language program leadership as much as they are in the language program faculty. As Rosener (1991) concludes, ‘‘By valuing diversity of leadership styles, organizations will find the strength and flexibility to survive in a highly competitive, increasingly diverse economic environment’’ (p. 160). Change is certainly the order of the day, and thus it is important to build diversity into the language program and its management team, in order to have maximum ecological responsiveness and innovation potential.

203

The Leadership

Focus on Change Vision-Led Leadership A key aspect of the program leader’s job is to envision the future of the program, and to strategize and plan for bringing that vision of the future into being. This is a major and complex task requiring an intimate knowledge of management, of the field of language teaching and curriculum, of one’s program and its resources, and of the local and global context of the program. Strategizing and planning require updating knowledge of the individual units of the program and then considering these in the context of each other and the bigger picture. Thus, a considerable amount of the leader’s time should be spent in reflection on the nature and potentials of the program in relation to context, in order to create a vision for the program, and in planning specific actions to bring the vision into action. Sashkin (1995) describes visionary leadership as involving the steps of: Creating an ideal image of the organization and its culture; Defining an organizational philosophy encapsulating the vision; Developing programs and policies to implement the philosophy, taking account of the specific context and culture of the organization (p. 403); Expressing the vision, and the related philosophy, programs, and policies (p. 404); Explaining the vision to others and making clear how it is to be achieved (p. 404); Extending the vision by applying it in a variety of situations (p. 405); and Expanding the vision in different ways in a broad range of circumstances (p. 405). Visioning:

In the view of Sashkin (1995), ‘‘visionary leaders must also possess the personal conviction that what they do can make a difference’’ (p. 405), and, on this basis, they succeed by ‘‘[putting] their visions into practice by means of their own specific interpersonal behaviors on a one-to-one basis’’ (p. 406). These interpersonal behaviors are: focus, communication, consistency and trustworthiness, respect for self and others, taking calculated risks, and committing to action once decided on (pp. 406–407). Beyond the key conceptual role of developing the vision and plans for bringing it into being, the language program leader must be able to put these plans into action, to implement the strategies directed at realizing the vision through program resources. These resources may be those in their current

204

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

form within the program, alterations or improvements of these, or new resources which the leader must acquire. Thus, in addition to being a thinker, the manager must be a doer. More than this, the language program leader must involve the people who work in the program, and others who articulate with it, in developing the vision, in building commitment to it, and in carrying out the actions aimed to make the vision a reality. Thus, the leader must be not only a thinker and conceptualizer, but also a communicator and team-builder. The visionary leader is one who goes after a vision no matter what. This leader gets people fired up about the vision, then mobilizes all to go after the vision together. The visionary leader sets up conditions for them to be able to do so, and facilitates their efforts, moving obstacles out of the way. The visionary leader is hence more vigorous and active than a (mere) facilitator—at the very least a ‘‘mover-and-shake,’’ at the very most a ‘‘mover of mountains.’’ To accomplish such movement, the leader must have not only great energy, drive, and total commitment to the vision and the team, but also very good connections and relationships with helpers all over the ecological context. The leader determined to move mountains if necessary is not a Hercules or a Goliath but a Great Mobilizer. Transformational Leadership In the view of Burns (2003), ‘‘an exploration [of leadership] must delve into the anatomy of intended change’’ (p. 15) because leadership is always leading change. This is true in Burn’s transformational model of leadership, which involves changes of a profound and revolutionary kind impacting large numbers of people. Transformation is change of a more profound and deeper kind. It is radical change, from one type of thing into another type of thing, or change in the nature or structure of a thing. Vigorous interaction between transforming leaders and their followers is itself a powerful causal force for change . . . . Leaders take the initiative in mobilizing people for participation in the process of change, encouraging a sense of collective identity and collective efficacy, which in turn brings stronger feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy, described by Bernard Bass as an enhanced ‘sense of ‘‘meaningfulness’’ in their work and lives.’ By pursuing transformational change, people can transform themselves. The word for this process is empowerment. Instead of exercising power over people, transforming leaders champion and inspire followers. (Burns, 2003, pp. 25–26)

Transformational leadership, like servant leadership, involves mutual empowerment: ‘‘the empowering of one makes possible the other’s empowerment’’ (Burns, 2003, p. 27), and like other forms of people-centered forms of management, such as encouraging-the-heart, it focuses on leading

The Leadership

205

through others. Although transformational leaders may be strong figures, as compared to the charismatic leader, in transformational leadership, the leader has a healthy dose of humility and is more in the background setting up the conditions for change and empowering others to implement change. Transformational leadership as conceived by Burns (2003) is distinctive in its emphasis on virtue, ethics, and values as guiding all the leader’s actions. In the best case, the transformational leader creates the conditions and empowers followers to positively transform the lives of large numbers of people. The distinctive features of transformational leadership as described by Burns (2003) can be summarized as follows:

FEATURES OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THAT DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM OTHER FORMS OF LEADERSHIP  The focus on change.  The magnitude of the associated change; the number of people affected should be large.  The quality of the associated change; it should represent a major positive transformation.  The human focus of the associated change; it should represent a major positive contribution to human life.  The moral dimension of leadership; it should follow standards of the three types listed below. Virtue: Rules for proper personal conduct ‘‘the ‘old-fashioned’ norms of conduct—habits of action—such as chastity, sobriety, cleanliness, honesty in personal relationships, selfcontrol. These normally develop early in life, especially in the home under . . . exemplary parental leadership.’’ (p. 28) Ethics: Rules for honorable and effective social interaction ‘‘modes of more formal and transactional conduct—integrity, promise keeping, trustworthiness, reciprocity, accountability—supremely expressed in the golden rule.’’ (p. 28) Values: Rules for good (democratic) governance ‘‘such lofty public principles as order, liberty, equality (including brotherhood and sisterhood), justice, the pursuit of happiness.’’ (p. 28)  The transformation and the enhanced sense of meaningfulness in followers.

206

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

The concept of transformational leadership sets a high goal for the language program director and other leaders as aiming to not just affect but to transform the lives of the students who study in the program, the faculty who teach in it, the others who work in it, and those who articulate with the program ecology in the larger institution and community. From a broader perspective, the leadership of individual language programs are involved in transformative leadership in the effects they have on communication and interaction in the world at large, and thus on global relations and flows of people, ideas, material resources, and language.

Leading into the Future In the two tables below, Nahavandi (2006) summarizes the changes affecting organizations in the current day (Table 6.1) and the consequences of those changes for leaders (Table 6.2): Table 6.1. Changes Structural changes Changing demographics

Globalization New work ethic Learning and knowledge Technology and access to information Emphasis on flexibility Fast-paced change Reconciling individual initiative with organizational focus

Changes in Organizations. Description

New structural forms; use of teams; continued push towards empowerment; telecommuting; outsourcing Cultural diversity in the United States; aging workforce in United States and most other Western countries; generational differences Increased cross-cultural encounters; multinational teams; multinational leaders Disappearing loyalty; changing values about work; push for work and life balance Knowledge workers; focus on learning organizations New technology; increased information; increased speed of information flow; new ways of accessing and sharing information Flexible structures that can adapt quickly; individual flexibility Internal and external uncertainty due to constant change Providing the opportunity for individuals to be unique and follow their strength while pulling everyone together to keep a sharp eye on the organization’s mission

Source: Nahavandi (2006, p. 299) r 2006 reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

207

The Leadership

Table 6.2. Changes

Changes and Consequence for Leaders. Description

Structural Demographic Globalization New work ethic Learning Technology

New roles for leaders; emphasis on followers and teamwork Understanding differences and cultural factors Understanding cultural, international, and global issues Accommodating different working styles and generational differences Continuous training; leading knowledge workers Staying up to date; adapting to change in sources of power; integrating technology in effective leadership Flexibility Learning to manage change Change Staying current and flexible Reconciling individual Creating a fit between the needs of individual employees and those of and organization the organization Source: Nahavandi (2006, p. 301) r 2006 reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Leaders for the Future Nahavandi (2006) envisions the following themes for future leaders:       

Understanding of self; Service mentality; Global and cultural awareness; Understanding of organizations from integrated perspective; Flexibility and openness to change; Continuous learning, training and practice to learn and hone skills; Balance personal life and career, manage own career. (pp. 304–305)

We note the connection from Nahavandi’s list to a number of our framings as well as our ecological perspective. Nahavandi focuses attention on the service, global, and local frames that are relevant for the language program in stressing service mentality and global and cultural awareness as well as the professional frame in stressing continuous learning and honing of skills and the balancing and management of one’s career. His stress on an integrated perspective for understanding organizations and on flexibility and openness to change are key elements of an ecological orientation to leadership. The connection to our notions of ecology can be seen in the following reflection on leadership by Nahavandi (2006): At the heart of a leader’s effectiveness in the dynamic global environment is being able to reconcile individual and organizational needs. People are effective when they are able to contribute and make a difference. A leader’s followers will be most fulfilled when they

208

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

are able to make a contribution to their organization, community, or family . . . . The responsibility of reconciling individual and organizational needs falls on organizational leaders. To create the necessary fit, leaders must accomplish the following:  Be clear on their own values and the culture of their organization.  Actively explore and understand their followers’ values and needs.  Emphasize and encourage follower uniqueness and individuality whether it is based on personality, ability and skills, work background, or culture.  Actively look for common ground between the organization and the person, working with both to create fit. Tomorrow’s leaders face the challenge of redefining themselves to continue to provide the direction, guidance, and nurturing that all followers need. (p. 303)

The tension between continuity and change, stability and novelty has implications for the role of the language program leader in managing this tension.

EFFECTIVE LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP We have described the language program as a kind of ecology, that is, as a context-responsive system of interactive components. The environment within which a language program exists comprises a culture, or set of cultures, which impact the nature and the viability of the program. The individual components of the program include the people (students, faculty, leadership, and administrative staff) and the physical and fiscal resources and intangible assets. At the heart of the language program is instruction and the curriculum, which gives direction for and ties together the characteristics and functioning of the other program components. Since all program components intersect in their structure and functioning, they must mutually adapt to change, whether precipitated internally or externally. Without interactive and mutual adaptation of components in relation to the larger context, the program will function poorly and ultimately cannot survive. Given all of these different contexts, tasks, and roles that language program leaders are likely to be involved in, language program leadership is a highly specialized set of functions requiring many different types of professional expertise in analyzing and visualizing, planning and decisionmaking, and carrying out a wide range of actions to implement mission, vision, plans, and decisions and to monitor performance and functioning of the entire ecology with sensitivity to myriad contextual factors, an awareness of present conditions, and an aliveness to potentialities and future

The Leadership

209

scenarios. The program leader must take a broad view, focusing on the big picture, the macroecology, while also managing the microecology. The leader has to be able to view all of the parts of the ecology individually and as a whole, and to take actions which help to hold all parts of the ecology together and which innovate both to solve problems and to add new potentials to the ecosystem. The leader of a language program is involved in managing and harmonizing all of the components of the program to create a productive academic and organizational environment with a positive climate, co-resonance, and unity so that the ecology can continue to develop, evolve, and realize all of its potentials. At best, the program leader engenders a harmonic response, setting up the conditions for people to make beautiful music together. The effective program leader has a high degree of awareness and a high degree of reflectivity in constantly evaluating the components and the context of the program, considering the ecology at the center and at the edges, using a finely honed peripheral vision. The aware and reflective leader spends time in all parts of the organization learning about program people and other resources, noticing how they are doing, and moving around or providing resources to maximize effectiveness. The leader does not command or direct, but rather conducts, harmonizing the performance of the entire organization by optimizing the performance and the mutual interaction and support of each individual person and component with all of the others. The effective leader’s awareness, reflectivity, and harmonizing efforts extend to the larger context within which the program operates, as the program leader practices situational management and ecological leadership in responding not just reactively but proactively to local and global conditions. Under such a model of organizational functioning, the role that an effective leader plays is very important, but it includes functions that might be overlooked. Effective leadership in an ecological model is less about controlling and directing activities as a single actor than it is about facilitating productive interaction among the diverse component parts of the organization (Hoekje & Pennington, 2007). Other essential leadership functions are accruing and managing resources, obtaining relevant information for decision-making, ensuring ongoing diversity, and maintaining flexibility and adaptability to change. The language program leader needs not only good relationships but also good negotiating skills and prestige to be able to command good working conditions for faculty and staff. Hence, the program leader needs to learn how to be, if not already, a political animal. Given the two quantities in

210

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

terms of which educational institutions operate, prestige and money, it is also important to publish and conduct research, and/or learn how to be self-supporting.

EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP Because the mission of language programs can vary quite widely, there is not only one skill set for language program leaders. Nevertheless, the program leadership should ideally have background (experience and/or education) in language learning and teaching, in international education, and in management or educational administration. Grant writing skills will be expected in many settings. Particular positions in language program leadership such as academic director of a program will require experience in curriculum and program development, staffing and faculty development, and budgeting and overall program administration. A Doctoral degree is often required for a language program director in higher education. Many of today’s language program leaders have come from traditional academic fields of language study such as linguistics or applied linguistics; have had overseas experience through Peace Corps, study abroad, and/or teaching overseas; and have learned program development and management on the job and through professional conferences. As the work of language programs becomes increasingly demanding, as it has in the past twenty years, the education and skills needed to handle the leadership of language programs professionally will also increase. Language program leaders will benefit from specific training in management in order to handle the demands of day-to-day administration, human resources matters, and strategic planning. Three areas of administration must be managed well for the program to be successful: (a) Human resource management: The hiring and management of the program’s most important resource, its faculty and staff; (b) Financial management: The bottom line for a program’s fiscal viability; and (c) Marketing and recruitment: Finding and enrolling students for the program’s continued success.

The Leadership

211

The initial education and long-range professional development of language program leaders need to be in part information-based, with a focus on technical aspects of English language teaching such as identified in Pennington (1985, 1990b) and the technical and business aspects of running a program such as budgeting models, computer databases, and software for information management. There is a need in both the initial and the long-range professional development of language program leaders for specific mechanisms which can encourage the linkage of diverse areas of knowledge and practice. Skills-centered training programs can enhance leadership capabilities and develop appropriate behaviors by increasing the number of tasks that can be performed, the repertoire of skills, the level of performance, or the automaticity of performance. As a result of both (a) ‘‘high-road’’ transfer and learning based on extraction of principles from one learning experience to another, and (b) ‘‘low-road’’ transfer and learning based on repeated practice and extension to new contexts (Perkins & Salomon, 1987), current or aspiring language program leaders can expand both general and specific skills by means of training programs or courses with a skills focus. In addition, the initial education and long-range development of the program leader can promote development of skills and task performance in ‘‘sheltered’’ contexts, such as through simulations, observations, a partial administrative practicum, or a full-fledged practicum or internship in a language program. The leader works within a larger community of practice that includes the language program and its various frames and contextual elements. Coming into a community of practice involves learning ‘‘how things are done’’ there. The complexity and interrelatedness of practices in such a community underscores the complexity of leadership competence. Such competence incorporates not only administrative skills and practices (administrative competence), but also many types of communicative competence and, for an educational program, academic competence as well. From this perspective, learning to be an effective leader in a language program means acquiring various types of competence within a particular community of practice. One traditional way in which learning has taken place in communities of practice has been through apprenticeships. The apprenticeship model can be expanded from its traditional beginnings in trades to include the general model of learning the practices of a community, in what Lave and Wenger (1991) have termed ‘‘legitimate peripheral participation.’’

212

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

As part of a skills-oriented, competency-based course or training program, or as part of an internship or an apprenticeship, a number of informative mechanisms for reflection and feedback can be suggested: Observation Experienced program leaders and administrative staff; Program meetings; Video protocols of leadership situations (e.g., annual review meeting). Experiencing administration in different settings Supervised budgeting and planning tasks; Practice administration for a limited period of time (e.g., as acting director) or under supervision; Team administration—simulation or real; Internships in administrative offices. Focusing on critical events in program leadership Structured questions to leader, administrative staff, teachers; Problem-solving alternatives; Role plays and simulations. Case studies Modeling complex situations involving decision-making; Identifying issues and planning courses of action; Comparing/contrasting difference perspectives with colleagues. Carrying out project work Curriculum and materials projects; Job analysis; Action research. Many of the activities listed above can be carried out by individual leaders or students of leadership. Other systematic ways to gather information on language program leadership can be suggested as self-directed learning and research for the aspiring or practicing leader:  Read literature on administration, management, and leadership in business and education and extract guiding principles;  Consult individual experts—management experts in academia, long-time educational administrators, other leaders—about what kinds of competencies and experiences are needed for leadership and what they think is the ideal;

213

The Leadership

 Ask current language program leaders about their job requirements, carrying out needs analysis from the ‘‘front-lines’’ perspective of practitioners and the daily requirements of their work;  Explore leadership competence by relating skills to the kinds of tasks that leaders perform: carry out task analysis and ‘‘reverse engineering,’’ working back, in reverse, to determine the skills needed to perform those tasks;  Work backwards from problem incidents and failures to identify needed competencies and to create alternative scenarios and protocols for the future that avoid making the same mistakes;  Extract information from teacher research that clarifies leadership competencies from the faculty perspective, looking at teachers’ satisfactions and dissatisfactions with leaders’ performance. The Leader’s Work as Theory In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the practitioner’s process of learning from practice. Wenger (1998, p. 48) sees no opposition in theory and practice. Scho¨n (1983) writes of the ‘‘reflective practitioner’’ who is able to learn from practice through reflection. The need for the ‘‘reflective administrator’’ is recognized by Cameron and Green (2004) and others. Given the relationship between organizational models and leadership roles, the language program is a valuable context for research in the globalizing world. One especially relevant feature is the effect of cultural flows on the language program. What impact do these cultural flows have on program leadership? What kinds of education and professional development best prepare language program leaders for working within the complex global, local, educational, and business context of a language program? The groundwork has been established with the first studies on language program administration and management, but there are further opportunities for current leaders to observe, reflect on, and theorize their own practice and that of the others who work in language programs. Some possibilities are to:  Consult the literature on administration, management, and leadership in business and education to build a framework for theorizing leadership in English language programs by developing definitions, models, and theoretical orientations;  Theorize language program leadership in relation to the seven frames presented here and study the community of practice that is the language program and the leaders’ multiple roles and functions in those terms;

214

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

 Investigate leadership competence from an ecological perspective on language programs in terms of intersecting components and relationships in continual interaction and evolution. The topic of research is taken up again in Chapter Nine.

COURSES AND OTHER RESOURCES ON LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP There are a number of courses available for learning language program management. For example, the Monterey Institute of International Studies offers a graduate certificate in language program administration (owww.language.miis.edu/tdc/lpa.htmlW), and the International House in Barcelona offers a 325-hour International diploma in Language Teaching Management (owww.ihes.com/bcn/tt/idltm.htmlW) and a 30-hour Director of Studies course (owww.ihes.com/bcn/tt/dos.htmlW). NAFSA: Association of International Educators has also offered foundation programs in ESL program administration as part of its annual conference pre-conference workshops, and similar professional development is offered by the TESOL organization. Other than the books and articles we have cited in our discussion, both TESOL and IATEFL have interest sections (IS) or special interest groups (SIG) devoted to the concerns of program directors. The Program Administration Interest Section (PAIS) of TESOL is devoted to issues of language program administration (see owww.tesol.orgW for more information). The IATEFL ELT Management SIG (ohttp://dudeney.com/ iatefl/management/W) publishes a newsletter twice a year on management topics. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal (owww.academicleadership. orgW) may also be of value. Other journals that publish occasional articles on language program management are ELT Journal, published by Oxford Journals (oeltj.oxfordjournals.orgW); System, published by Elsevier Press (owww. elsevier.com/locate/systemW); EA Journal, published by English Australia/ ELICOS Association (owww.englishaustralia.com.auW); and Prospect: An Australian Journal of Teaching/Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages(TESOL), published by AMEP Research Centre, Macquarie University, Australia (owww.ameprc.mq.edu.au/resources/ prospectW).

The Leadership

215

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER SIX The literature on management and leadership is extensive and provides a number of different perspectives for viewing the language program leader’s roles and functions. While the literature on language program leadership is comparatively meager, it does offer some consistent findings about the nature of work in language programs and the types of skills that are needed for effective management. A review of the general literature, in the context of the available literature specific to language programs, has made it possible to evolve a concept of the ecological leader for the complex context that is the language program in the current, ever-changing world. This leader is one who possesses the multiple skills needed to perform practical, interpersonal, and conceptual aspects of the job and who is tuned to relationships, to local and global contexts, and to change. The language program leader leads with an eye to the present and future state of all parts of the language program ecology, ever mindful of how the features and events of one part affect and are affected by those in every other part. The ecological program leader is thus perceptive, alert, and nimble, always ready to act when action is needed. The leader is also reflective, both willing and able to learn from experience, and, like the program she/he leads, continually evolving.

PART III THE POTENTIAL

CHAPTER SEVEN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT This chapter considers curriculum as a process that is tied together by continual monitoring and feedback to maintain the connections among all aspects of the process in relation to the other program components. Such a curriculum process, which requires regular communication, leads naturally to program quality as it ensures ecological unity and hence consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of outcomes. A further element feeding and interacting with curriculum process is innovation to continue developing the program’s potential and to maintain a good articulation with program people and context.

CURRICULUM PROCESS The term curriculum is widely used in teaching as a general term to refer to any aspect of the content and methodology used to teach a course including the course texts and other materials. It also refers to the organization and sequencing of courses, learning goals and objectives, and methodology used across courses in a program. ‘‘However, curriculum can be defined not in the narrow sense of a structure, document or product, but more globally as a systematic process’’ (Pennington & Brown, 1991, p. 57)—leading from considerations of learners (needs analysis) and learning targets (goals and objectives), to the implementation of the learning targets in the classroom (materials and instruction), and then to measures of achievement of the learning targets (tests). As conceived here, the curriculum development process (and as we will see, the larger program development process) can be viewed as involving five functions: The Curriculum Development Process Planning Needs analysis Contextual analysis Projections and timelines Goals and objectives 219

220

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Implementation Resources Instruction Evaluation Tests Course grades Other measures of success Innovation-Contextualization Change Adjustment Monitoring-Feedback Observation Communication The first three functions in the curriculum process, Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation include the familiar categories of needs analysis, goals and objectives, materials and instruction, testing, and grading. In the Planning function, the additional process of contextual analysis expands the needs analysis to include a consideration of the mission and the larger program ecology as a basis for designing learning targets. The Planning function is a projection of the entire curriculum process with projections and timelines for completion of activities. The Implementation function encompasses the resources needed for instruction in the way of textbooks and equipment, physical facilities and spaces, as well as faculty, and the process of instruction which makes use of these resources to put the curricular goals and objectives into practice. In the Evaluation function, curricular success is measured by students’ test results and grades, and by other criteria defining the quality of the curriculum process and outcomes, in particular, program unity. A further aspect of our curriculum model is the Innovation-Contextualization function, involving change and adjustment of innovations to fit the context of a specific program ecology. The Monitoring-Feedback function is a crucial part of the curriculum process which involves the language program leadership in ongoing observation and communication to program members on all aspects of the curriculum. Curriculum in this sense is essentially a human activity in which people jointly develop a language program (Brown & Pennington, 1991; Pennington, 1989a; Pennington & Brown, 1991) to reflect its mission, the nature of its students, and the constraints and possibilities offered by its context—all of which are evolving continually and collaboratively.

221

Curriculum Development

The curriculum is the place where mission meets instruction and many other intersecting program processes, as institutional goals, teachers’ goals and beliefs about teaching and learning, students’ goals and beliefs about teaching and learning, course texts and tests, and classroom processes are negotiated and enacted. When members of a language program work together on curriculum, they evolve ‘‘a unified vision of the goals and priorities of the language program’’ (Pennington & Brown, 1991, p. 67). As such a vision evolves, it ‘‘helps to focus the daily activities of people and to develop in them a sense of loyalty to the group within which they work’’ (ibid.). It thus helps to nurture mutual support and interaction, which creates a sense of community and inter-responsibility that work to maintain the program ecology.

Planning Needs Analysis and Contextual Analysis In developing the curriculum, the first step is to decide on the overall design of instruction and to set the desired targets for learning, based on an analysis of needs and context in relation to program mission. For a new program, the mission may be developed in concert with the two types of analysis. In these analyses, information can be gathered about the needs not only of students but also of other program members and outsiders who interact with the program. These other individuals and bodies can be seen as part of the culture or context of the program, and thus part of its ecology, that helps to nurture it and keeps it evolving to meet changing needs both within and outside the program. The curriculum process involves a cycle of analyzing needs and context, and from this analysis setting learning goals and objectives, developing ways of testing these objectives, designing or selecting materials for achieving objectives, and organizing teaching to effectively use materials, achieve objectives, and prepare students for tests. While needs analysis can be an explicit stage of exploring learners’ needs in using the language in the target context, in other cases it is a more iterative, ongoing process of exploration and adaptation (Graves, 2000). In the best case, needs analysis takes into consideration not only the needs of the learners, but also the needs of the teachers, the leadership, and the other constituencies that interact with the program such as sponsors or higher level administrators, policy makers, overseas recruiting agencies, and students’ parents, host families, sponsors, and present or future employers. It also incorporates more than an analysis

222

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

of needs per se, covering relevant personal and cultural characteristics and values as well. Besides needs, curriculum development should be based on analysis of context in terms of features both constraining and offering particular opportunities for curriculum development. Curriculum development in this sense involves strategic planning. The features included in the contextual analysis are the program mission and institutional location, the expectations of sponsors and higher level administrators, the type and amount of physical space available for classes, the availability of equipment and potentials for online components, and the characteristics of current and potential teachers. In addition to these local program features, the contextual analysis should look outside the program at factors and opportunities that could impact curricular planning, such as desirable linkages to businesses, agencies, or other schools and the possibilities for attracting certain student groups to a certain type of academic program. The entire analysis is ecological in that it takes into consideration the fit of the curriculum within a wide range of factors. As noted by Pennington and Brown (1991), the starting point for successful curriculum development is research by a curriculum team—which should have representation from the faculty and the student body—into the interests, abilities, values, expectations, and needs of the student population served by the program and the others who interact with the students in their work or who articulate with the program in other ways. The contextual analysis might be contributed largely by the program leadership but should also have input from the curriculum team. Information gathered from all of these sources should be shared in a series of meetings in which participants review the information they have acquired individually and as a group. The program leadership (director or curriculum coordinator) needs to ensure an effective process for sharing and reviewing information in all phases of curriculum planning and implementation so that a wide range of viewpoints will be represented in discussion, and consensus or compromise can be reached when necessary. Projections and Timelines The program leadership and curriculum team work from the analyses to create projections and timelines for curriculum activities. The projections are a view of where the curriculum process is heading with action steps and timelines for accomplishing curriculum activities. The following case study illustrates an innovation developed in relation to action steps, a timeline, and a projection of measurable outcomes for each step.

223

Curriculum Development

CASE STUDY 7.1 THE NEW COURSE A university-governed intensive English program decided it had to increase its offerings of test preparation courses in response to new tests on the market, a large number of student requests, and transfers of students to test preparation programs. The program director, in consultation with the faculty, decided to first focus on developing a 30-hour course to prepare students for the speaking component of the internet-based TOEFL. The director wanted the course to be ready to be taught the next semester, which was 12 weeks away. It was agreed that a commercially available text would be used in the course, as book orders had to be submitted to the university bookstore in the sixth week. A timeline was created for the development of the course syllabus, and the responsible party was appointed—in this case, the course instructor—who was given release time to develop the course with the understanding that he would then teach the course in the following term. The instructor was also assigned to work with the curriculum committee approving all new syllabuses and texts for courses. The timeline was set for the new course to be developed with specific activities and measures of accomplishment as follows: Weeks 1–2 Information-gathering and course planning Specific tasks: Develop information base about the test (e.g., examine available information about the test from the test publisher); interview students who have taken the test; survey professional resources, such as other programs, professional listservs, and teacher resources); survey commercially available texts and materials. Measures of accomplishment: Notes from interviews and other resources; examination texts identified and ordered. Weeks 3–4 Develop major course goals Specific tasks: Develop course goals and objectives based on preliminary information; discuss with curriculum committee or coordinator for intended level; place in overall sequence. Measures of accomplishment: Specification in writing of major course goals, intended level, and articulation in overall program curriculum. Weeks 5–6 Choose and order texts and other materials Specific tasks: Determine criteria for textbooks (e.g., content, coverage, cost, length, clarity of explanations, size, supplemental resources) and create rubric for comparison; meet with curriculum committee for group discussion and rating of examination textbooks; make decision of main text; determine if other materials or resources are needed; order texts and materials. Measures of accomplishment: Textbook chosen; book order placed; other materials acquired or designed. Weeks 7–8 Develop syllabus Specific tasks: Continue with course planning; develop syllabus with course information, sequencing of activities and assignments; revise according to curriculum committee suggestions.

224

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD Measures of accomplishment: First draft of syllabus complete; revisions sought and made. Week 9–10 Advertise course Specific tasks: Create course description; give to program marketing coordinator for flyers and advertisements. Measures of accomplishment: Course description prepared; course flyer prepared by marketing coordinator; course flyer posted on program website and disseminated program-wide and in mailing (marketing coordinator).

The above case study illustrates the relationship among timelines, action steps, and measures of accomplishment in planning for a new course. It also shows how activities of course planning go beyond curriculum and into the larger program context and development process that includes marketing and recruitment of students. Goals and Objectives Learning targets are derived first from the program mission. Universitybased language programs have a mission which in many cases supports the academic language development of students seeking admission to the university or already enrolled in classes. For example, part of the mission statement of the Center for English as Second Language (CESL) of the University of Arizona referred to in Chapter Two is the following: To provide superior English language instruction to native speakers of other languages through a curriculum that provides a rich and productive learning environment to prepare students for academic and professional success at the University of Arizona as well as for other academic, professional, and social settings.

This part of the CESL mission statement commits the program to preparing students for the use of language in academic and professional settings. The types of language needs students will have in these settings will depend in part on the types of students served by the program, such as their areas of study and career paths, and also in part by the context of that university and the types of courses offered. From this knowledge, which is derived from the needs analysis and contextual analysis, a general sense of the form of instruction that should be provided, coupled with an awareness of what can be provided, given program constraints and potentials, can be gained. On this basis, more specific learning targets can be created from the needs analysis and contextual analysis as relatively general and long-term learning goals and as smaller and more specific, shorter-term objectives leading to these goals.

Curriculum Development

225

For example, if a needs analysis conducted for a graduate program in business administration indicates that international students often lack the skills required to give effective oral presentations, the course development team might create the following learning goals for preparing international students for this context: Learning Goal 1

Students will develop and use effective skills for formal presentations.

Learning objectives stemming from this goal might be the following three: Objective 1 Objective 2

Objective 3

Students will increase their comprehensibility by use of monitoring skills in their formal presentations. Students will learn to organize information and to indicate this organization with discourse markers in their formal presentations. Students will learn to use media support effectively in giving a formal presentation.

Whether or not they are written as goals and objectives, learning targets should be phrased so that they can be measured. For example, phrasing Learning Goal 1 as ‘‘Students will learn how to be good speakers’’ does not give any obvious direction for measurement since the goal is phrased in a general and subjective way. Neither the term ‘‘good speaker’’ nor the students’ learning is directly measurable. While one person (e.g., a particular teacher) may judge a student as a ‘‘good speaker’’ if she or he is highly fluent, another might hold the student to a certain standard for accuracy of pronunciation and grammar and so judge the very same student as not being a ‘‘good speaker.’’ Moreover, even if two people judge the same student as a ‘‘good speaker,’’ they might not use the same criteria and so might judge another student in different ways. In each of the three objectives above, the learning objective can be measured. The measurement for Objective 1, for instance, would focus on whether speakers are able to organize their thoughts coherently and maintain a train of thought while speaking, and whether, when needed, they use restatement, rephrasing, rewording, and other forms of self-correction to avoid communication breakdown and ensure a clear message. Such measurement is important. It is not fair to the students not to know the basis on which their performance is judged; moreover, explicit and measurable criteria give students specific targets towards which they can aim, thus

226

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

motivating their effort. Today more than ever students are motivated by definite achievement goals and desired outcomes, so that a program with clear goals and objectives can attract students and, once enrolled, can motivate students to fully apply themselves to language study. In addition, specific criteria give a basis for developing tests and materials that are related to the curricular objectives and goals. Goals and objectives should be set to provide evidence for ongoing review and development of the program. The learning targets, in addition to providing a basis for measurement and testing, also provide direction for instruction. The three objectives above, for instance, are a directive to the instructor to focus class time on the form and use of self-monitoring tactics, discourse markers, and media in their application to formal presentations. While individual instructors may develop different approaches to teaching the relevant skills and areas of knowledge, the goals and objectives provide a direction for content and organization of instruction in syllabus planning and teaching that keeps the curriculum focused on instructional needs. Learning targets also provide direction for learning on the part of the students and so help motivate their language study. Successful curriculum development creates a set of goals and objectives, as generated from the combined needs analysis and contextual analysis, which are focused on well-defined tasks, the specific skills needed to accomplish them, and measures of achievement closely tied to the tasks and skills. In some cases, the set of goals and objectives will be the basis of a new course, while in other cases, they will be the basis for a redesign or extension of an existing course. If the analysis of needs and context indicates instructional goals which are quantitatively or qualitatively substantial, this will generate a comparatively large number of objectives which are required to fulfill them. In such cases, the goals and objectives will generally be grouped into separate units, levels, or courses of study. For example, if the overall learning target is developing language skills for effective academic study, this broad target must be divided into a long series of separate goals and objectives that might be organized into a multilevel and multiskill curriculum. In a language program in which a sequence of courses exists, the articulation of courses in terms of learning goals, objectives, and activities implementing these is important. The specification of the articulation makes it possible for both teachers and students to note differences and to measure progress from one level to the next. In this respect, an organized curriculum helps to focus the efforts of teachers and learners and provides a view of achievement and program success that can enhance commitment to and satisfaction with the program.

227

Curriculum Development

A potential risk in a multilevel and multiskill curriculum is that students who begin language study at an introductory level and then progress through the levels of the curriculum in sequence will suffer a kind of ‘‘instructional burnout’’ over time, as the students encounter similar tasks and activities from one level of the course to the next. For example, in communicative language programs, the focus on interpersonal communication exercises in small groups may result in classroom activities that appear overtly similar—even though the goals and degree of challenge in the objectives may differ. For example, an activity such as describing one’s weekend can be used at any level throughout a language program to achieve various communicative goals. However, at lower levels of instruction, the focus may be on simple narration of personal activities whereas at higher levels, more elaborated narration with detailed description will be expected. Students who are not clearly informed of the expectations of the activity may complain of the repetitiveness throughout a program and even leave a language program prematurely because of the perceived repetitiveness of the curriculum. Thus, while some continuity from level to level is desirable, it is also desirable for instructional levels to be distinguished not only by degree of difficulty, but also by qualitative differences in the instructional program, such as differences in theme, content, or focal skills.

Implementation Resources Implementation of a curriculum plan and its learning goals and objectives depends first on human resources, in particular, having faculty able to teach the course and students able to take it. This is in part an issue of numbers, as a certain number of teachers and students are needed for a curriculum designed with a certain number of instructional levels, different skill areas, and/or a range of specialized options. In implementing the curriculum, the numbers also matter when balancing curricular goals of (a) involved language learning and individualized teacher-learner interaction, which require a relatively small class size, and (b) fiscal soundness, which generates pressure for larger numbers of students. Healthy student enrollments allow for both a more diverse curriculum and smaller class sizes. The curriculum is also a matter of the profile of the faculty and students, as certain curricula are more suited to some faculty and students than others. It is always a balancing act to design a curriculum to fit the numbers and profile of specific

228

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

students and faculty but also maintain sufficient flexibility to allow for changes in faculty and students over time. At the Implementation stage, teachers must be hired and oriented to the curriculum and its functioning within the larger program context. In the best case, they will have been involved in its development, but for new teachers a thorough orientation to student needs, contextual features, curricular goals, materials, tests, and suggested teaching and learning approaches should be provided. Students brought into the program must also receive an orientation to the course, its learning goals and methods, and the expectations of faculty as part of curriculum implementation. An orientation to the curriculum should be given during the general first-week orientation program (see Chapter Four) and then continued as part of the orientation that teachers provide to individual classes. Besides the human resources needed for implementing the curriculum, there are physical resource considerations of rooms and furniture, equipment, and materials. The implementation of a curriculum requires certain types of physical spaces and set-ups of furniture and equipment, such as a certain number and size of classrooms, tables for group work, smart classrooms, and computer labs. It is the job of the program leadership to match curriculum needs with physical resources to the greatest extent possible, both by judicious use of existing resources and by acquisition of new ones as required to fully implement a new or evolving curriculum. In conjunction with articulating goals and objectives, teaching materials must be designed or selected to fit those learning targets and the characteristics and needs of the students. In selecting any prepared textbook or other teaching materials such as audiotapes, video, or computer-based materials, a typical pitfall is that the program or course curricular goals will contrast with the organization and selection of the goals of the textbook or other materials. No matter how closely the two are aligned, they are never completely the same. Once a teacher and students have purchased a textbook or other materials to use, there is a strong tendency to teach and learn to the text or other prepared materials rather than teaching and learning to the goals of the curriculum. If it is decided to develop in-house materials, this provides an excellent opportunity for faculty collaboration and ongoing professional development. However, for this to be done well, a considerable commitment of time is needed. There are several approaches to selection of instructional materials. One option is a standardized curriculum in which a textbook, course package, or other set of instructional materials is selected for the course in advance to fulfill curricular goals or level requirements. The advantage of this approach

Curriculum Development

229

is that it provides a prima facie standardization of the program curriculum. This may be important to accrediting agencies or other reviewers who are looking for consistency in meeting learning goals across sections of one level of instruction or an entire course. There is a logistical drawback to this approach, however, in that students who must repeat a course level will feel that they have ‘‘done’’ the text or other course materials and may be resentful about repeating material. There is also the issue of faculty ‘‘buyin’’ to the text or course materials, something which cannot be guaranteed beyond those teachers who were involved in selecting them. Therefore, if set texts or other instructional materials are used, the faculty who will be teaching them need to be involved in their selection, and the texts and materials need to be changed from time to time reflecting changes in staffing as well as in students and curricular goals. The larger issue in our view has to do with the professional nature of teaching. Texts and other instructional materials provide the basis of the day-to-day content in the classroom; the selection and organization of this content also provides the structuring that students experience every time they study with the text and other instructional materials outside of the teacher’s guidance. Faculty must be comfortable with and committed to the content, structure, and approach of course texts and materials. If not, they may find themselves in a kind of tension with the texts and materials throughout the course, not following them as designed, covering the content sketchily, only in part, or out of order, and disparaging the set texts or materials so that students cannot trust them. A different approach is to allow faculty to choose their own texts and other materials based on curricular goals and their own style of and experience in teaching. The advantage of this approach is that there is more variety introduced to the curriculum in materials, thus more innovation, and faculty will have more investment in the choice. To choose appropriate texts and other materials such as computer-based courses and supplementary materials, individual faculty will need to examine numerous texts and materials in relation to curricular goals, an activity which is in itself of value as professional development. This approach to choosing materials is consonant with the autonomy given to most university faculty. The disadvantages of this approach include problems related to timeliness and experience: last-minute faculty hires will not have time to choose texts and other kinds of materials, and new hires may not have the experience or knowledge base to do so. Further, over time, selected texts and other instructional materials may drift from meeting all of the learning goals of the curriculum to meeting only some goals. If instructional materials are not

230

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

standardized or selected by teachers as a group, sections of a course that are nominally at the same level may drift into very different coverage of content or standards of rigor. It will therefore be difficult to maintain consistent course levels and effective progression from one level to the next. A compromise approach addresses the issues of faculty investment and authority as well as the needs for standardization and timeliness. Faculty committees can review texts and other instructional materials that meet the learning goals of a course or level and approve a number of texts and materials that meet these goals. Areas of the texts and materials that are lacking can be identified in advance so that faculty can choose supplemental materials. For example, a text for a reading/writing course that lacks sufficient reading material to meet the learning goals for extensive reading practice can be supplemented with additional novels or other readings. The approved textbook and materials lists can be kept current through an annual review led by the faculty. Long-term faculty can then submit their favorite texts and materials for peer review and selection as approved texts and materials. New faculty will have a smaller universe of texts and materials to review as they develop expertise in the curriculum, and a standing set of core texts and materials can provide backup in the case of last-minute course assignments. A further option can be for experienced faculty, individually or in groups, to develop customized materials for a particular course or level of instruction. This can be a desirable option in well-established programs staffed by experienced faculty, functioning as both program development and faculty development. For such an effort to be done well, administrative commitment and support must be provided through course release and/or supplemental income for a period of time in which faculty focus on materials development with specific targets. Several trends are changing the way texts and other materials are used in courses compared to in the pre-digital age. Publishers are providing extensive websites with integrated content for teaching and testing and with supplemental practice. As the abundance of multimedia resources continues to grow, the creative teacher will have access to more authentic language of all styles, registers, and varieties to use in the classroom. Faculty and the programs that employ them also have many new options for creation and delivery of instruction by use of computers, hand-held electronic devices, and online environments. The number of options for creation of original teaching materials and learning environments is greatly expanded by computers, the internet, iPods, and other electronic devices, including the possibilities of online and hybrid (partially online) courses.

Curriculum Development

231

A significant factor affecting texts and other instructional materials continues to be the power of standardized testing in education. Standardized tests will most likely continue to have enormous power in driving classroom instruction—the so-called ‘‘washback effects’’ of testing. The two poles of individualization and standardization that define a tensive relationship for curriculum overall also play out in the new electronic universe, as these two poles define the potential of the digital age to individualize curriculum with increasingly authentic materials for specialized audiences and to promote a homogeneous curriculum driven by standardized testing, as both can be facilitated by online access to and delivery of instruction. Instruction Effective instruction maintains a strong teaching-learning process (the interaction with subject matter as well as between teacher and students and among the students themselves) and also teaching-learning product (the content of the curriculum, both its quantity and quality). These are to some extent competing goals which involve a continuing ‘‘balancing act’’ to make sure process and product remain interrelated and that neither is emphasized at a cost to the other. An underemphasis on process (e.g., a course based mainly on lecture and homework, with little discussion, interaction, or hands-on learning) reduces instruction to direct transmission of information from source to receiver, ignoring the complex and necessarily interpretive process that must interrelate these, as the teacher’s output is processed to become uptake and output in the students. An overemphasis on product (e.g., too great an emphasis on tests or too many separate assignments) results in stress and is counterproductive to the goals of depth, detail, and learner involvement. An underemphasis on product and an overemphasis on process (e.g., infrequent testing or activities which do not result in definite and purposeful outcomes) loses a focus on achievement and outcomes that produces commitment and drives effort. Motivation for students is provided not only by inherently interesting process (e.g., group work) and content (e.g., current events) in teaching. Teaching can also build on students’ instrumental motivation and outcomesorientation by articulating clear goals and standards and implementing learning tasks that help students accumulate the skills and other resources needed for achieving these, such as working through real language learner data and presenting their solutions to the class in an organized way which builds oral communication and presentation skills. Motivation stems as well from students’ individual characteristics and goals for learning. Since language classes are generally small enough for teachers to know their

232

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

students well, opportunities for customization and individualization can be provided through topics and activities geared to students’ interests, variety and choice in learning activities, and one-on-one teacher-student interaction and feedback. Individual teachers’ implementation of the language program curriculum is a crucial aspect of instruction in which learning targets are operationalized through a course plan or syllabus incorporating specific materials and teaching approaches and techniques. Instructional approaches and techniques are highly variable based on individual factors of background, experience, values, and interests, and this variation is a positive feature of the diversity in the language program ecology. Balanced against this diversity is the uniformity of the learning targets, tests, and sometimes materials of a particular program, which help to provide direction for all of the faculty in their teaching. It is thus reasonable to expect that the faculty in a particular language program would all, in their different ways, be aiming to meet the students’ needs by implementing the program’s learning targets in relation to its materials and tests. The next case study examines the issue of teachers’ involvement in making instructional decisions.

CASE STUDY 7.2 CURRICULAR FREEDOM Language programs can be characterized by how much curricular freedom they allow their faculty. In one urban setting with several intensive English programs in close proximity in the northeastern United States, the variation in approaches taken by the programs was notable and often mentioned by teachers who taught part-time at both institutions. One program was highly controlling with its curriculum, giving teachers both the required texts and the specific curricular objectives in a weekly plan. The other program allowed teachers to choose their own textbooks from a suggested list in relation to a set of general curricular goals to be accomplished by the end of the course. Teachers varied in their individual preferences, although in general the newer teachers appreciated the structure of the more controlled style of oversight while the more experienced teachers appreciated the freedom of the more open style. The value of teachers’ creative freedom in meeting curricular goals is balanced against the potential lack of uniformity in students’ achievement in meeting program-wide curricular goals.

Whatever type of curriculum faculty work under and to whatever extent they are constrained or guided by imposed requirements or norms, there is

233

Curriculum Development

always a need to reflect on the match of teaching approach to curricular goals and learner needs and on the effectiveness of instruction in promoting student learning. Reflective, action-research orientations to teaching maintain a productive linkage between teaching-learning process and product. Beyond regular reflection, it is of value for teachers to undertake systematic change efforts through action research in their own classrooms.

Evaluation Tests and Grades Tests must be either selected or developed to reflect the program’s learning targets and also to have high reliability as well as validity for use. There tends to be a trade-off between these two criteria, as a test that highly constrains correct or acceptable answers, as in multiple choice or cloze testing, can easily be found or designed to have high reliability in the scoring, whereas more open-ended answers such as actual speaking or writing on a test, while seen as more valid measures of language skill, cannot as a general rule achieve as high reliability in ratings. Whatever tests are developed or selected for internal program use, it is important for these to be seen as reliable and valid as indicators of achievement in relation to learning targets. To measure the three speaking objectives above, for instance, requires a speaking test centered on specific formal presentation skills with business content. Given this specific focus, it may be necessary to develop an in-house procedure for testing those skills, such as live or videotaped short business-oriented presentations that raters—preferably including language and business faculty—mark for the specific features referenced in the objectives. In order to focus instruction and motivate effort, it is important for faculty and students to have a view in advance of what will be tested and to know both their results on tests and how they can continue to improve these in the future. Thus, test results can be a useful basis for updating the needs analysis and for planning future teaching and learning goals. Although it is desirable for testing to be connected to instruction, ‘‘teaching to the test’’ should not override or contradict other instructional goals. To the extent that it is feasible, tests in individual classes and for the program as a whole, such as achievement or proficiency tests in different skill areas, should be consistent with the program’s instructional goals and teaching approaches, so that they do not require special teaching or a focus on content outside that of the program curriculum. In the best case, the tests used are integral to instruction, based on the same content and skills, and so supportive of it.

234

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

For admission or placement purposes, one option in evaluation is to use whatever achievement test is administered at the end of the semester, in the same or an equivalent version, as an entering test. The main advantage of such testing is the comparability of results. A further advantage to giving a major test on entry to the program is that it gives an impression of professionalism and serious academic purpose from the outset. On the other hand, the results of a test given on the first day when students arrive at the program may not be entirely reliable, assuming that they have just arrived and may not yet be rested or comfortable in their new surroundings. Under such circumstances, the test could also have a negative effect of traumatizing students and making the program seem unwelcoming. To avoid this negative impact, some language programs focus on orientation and settling in for a day or two, before doing placement testing. Others do an initial placement procedure on the first day, such as a brief oral interview and writing sample, which is not very time-consuming and which allows program teachers to get to know the students, and then make adjustments to placements at the end of the first week and then again at the end of the second week. We support a ‘‘participatory placement’’ approach such as that described by Spaventa and Williamson (1991), which combined a short type of cloze test, the C-test,1 and writing sample with a ‘‘talk-andmingle’’ conversational activity that helped students to get to know the teachers and one another while making it possible for teachers to place the students in the correct levels of the program. Through their three-part assessment process, the placement procedure has become a gradual series of exercises in getting acquainted with students, and the initial oral procedure has set the tone for personal communication among program participants: students, teachers, and administrators. Teachers meet students first as walking, talking wholes, not as a series of number two pencil markings on Scantron scoring paper (Spaventa & Williamson, 1991, p. 90)

Beyond program-internal tests, achievement on standardized tests is an important goal for students which can cause disjunction between the immediate communicative goals of language use in a specific, targeted context of use (such as in classes at an English-medium university), and the need for the student to pass non-communicative entrance requirements to be admitted. Rather than bend the curriculum to cater for these tests, most language programs have opted to offer separate courses to help students prepare for high-stakes standardized tests. Fortunately, the large standardized tests such as the TOEFL have been redesigned to include tasks which are more communicatively valid. The redesign of TOEFL was an immense

Curriculum Development

235

and lengthy project which involved gathering an extensive database of spoken and written language samples on a variety of North American college campuses as a base for the revised test of academic language use (Biber, Conrad, Reppen, Byrd, & Helt, 2002). This new TOEFL, delivered via the internet, hence ‘‘internet-based TOEFL’’ or ‘‘iBT’’) is predicted to have substantial washback effects on curriculum. In many cases, however, language programs have been in advance of test development in teaching language skills needed for specific contexts of use. Measuring success is first the assessment of students’ achievement of curricular goals, using tests as well as evaluations of their work and skills verbally, in writing, and through grades. All of these types of assessments are important as motivators of student performance and progress and as records of project success. The following case study considers assessment in relation to student grades.

CASE STUDY 7.3 GRADES FOR ESL STUDENTS In a university-governed intensive English language program, the six-level program had final student evaluations for each of the courses, which were divided into speaking/listening and reading/writing courses. Students were evaluated according to the learning goals for each of the courses. For example, for Level 4 (advanced-intermediate level) reading/writing, students were evaluated on such areas as their reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammatical structure and mechanics in writing, communicative effectiveness in writing, development of ideas, and their use of the writing process. Finally, students were evaluated on their fulfillment of class responsibilities such as completion of homework, completion of in-class work, attendance, etc. Teachers filled out the evaluations with comments and a mark on a scale. Students were promoted to the next level depending on whether they had met the promotion criteria as listed in a curricular document. They received a certificate at the end of the term for successful completion of the course, whether or not they had been promoted. The English courses carried no credit and the students were rated only Satisfactory (S) or Unsatisfactory (U) in the university database of record. Still, some teachers felt that using grades in the program itself would be a good idea. Other faculty members were deeply opposed to the idea of grading students in a non-credit language program. One reason given was that some students were much better language learners than others, so that a very hard-working student who put a lot into the course might not do as well on a proficiency-based assignment as another student who was a better language learner. The teachers resisted giving hard-working students low grades.

236

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD The program director referred the issue to the faculty committee on academic affairs. The committee discussed the matter at length and reported to the director that they were deeply divided on the subject and could not come to an agreement; they reported the pros and cons of grading as they had determined to the director. These were as follows: In support of grading: Grading provides direct feedback to students. Grades are required by many sponsors and advisors. Grades stimulate students to do better work. Against grading: In a non-credit program, grading focuses unduly on outcomes, not processes of learning. Grades provide summative rather than formative information. Grades can discourage the hard-working but low-achieving student. The director brought the issue back to the full faculty meeting and asked the faculty to consider the issue not from the perspective of whether the program should move to letter grades or not, but from the perspective of what was best for the students. The outcome of this discussion was a focus on the need for students to receive feedback that was formative, early, and diagnostic for referral if necessary for more extreme cases. Pronunciation problems resistant to change were one area that continued to hamper a student’s progression in the upper levels, for example. The discussion also highlighted the difficulties with proper advisement of the occasional student who repeatedly failed to progress to the next level despite significant effort. As a result of this larger discussion, a ‘‘descriptive review’’ process was established in which the student’s teachers would gather and describe together the student’s strengths and weaknesses, learning styles, psychosocial and culturally specific behaviors, and any other relevant information that would lead to better advising.

Other Measures of Success Other measures of curricular success explored by Pennington and Brown (1991, pp. 66–70) are the following: Reliability and uniformity in outcomes: student achievement or progress in meeting learning goals and objectives; Efficiency Achievement of curricular goals and objectives in the minimum time and at the minimum cost; Effectiveness Achievement of the maximum level of results: the highest number of students achieving the highest level of the goals and objectives, the highest test scores, the highest number of university or job placements, the most prestigious placements, etc. Consistency

237

Curriculum Development

As noted in Pennington and Brown (1991), a global or general measure of the success of the curriculum process is the degree of unity engendered, not only in the curriculum but more generally in the people who work together in the program. The degree of unity in a language program—as is in fact implied by calling it an ecology—is a key indicator of program health and success. A further measure of curricular success is the opportunities for innovation to feed into course structure, content, materials, and tests, and for specific innovations to be effectively adjusted to the program context.

Innovation-Contextualization Feeding Change into the Curriculum The relationships of the components of the curriculum are interactive and causal, and what happens in one component affects the other components. Thus, for example, a change in the content and/or procedures of program tests should be closely linked to changes in materials and instruction as well as to changes in student needs, program context or mission, and learning targets. In the best case, a change in testing mechanisms would be a response to changes at the level of student needs, or in response to a problem in the testing area picked up through the continual monitoring of the curriculum. However, in other circumstances a change in tests or in any aspect of the curriculum may be a response to outside pressures (e.g., for a certain type of testing or a certain type of learning outcome) or opportunities (e.g., to attract new types of students). If the program responds to these pressures or opportunities, e.g., by instituting a change in its test content or procedures, the program ecology will need to adjust to this change, under the risk of the curriculum process and outcomes otherwise becoming degraded and disconnected from testing. Curricular innovation always requires a process of contextualization. Through this process, change is negotiated, adapted, and assimilated into an existing context in ways which modify some features while maintaining others. Curriculum development therefore involves managing curricular change while ensuring sufficient continuity with past practices to maintain the equilibrium and health of the program ecology. Faculty experience innovations as a sequence in which they consider the features of the innovation, try it out, and acclimate to new practices, gradually integrating those new practices into their routine and integrating the practices into their own long-range planning and philosophy of teaching (see Chapter Five). In an ecological model, curricular innovation and contextualization of change are fundamental aspects of the constant negotiation between the

238

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

changing external environment and the program-internal environment as well as the continual adjustments and fine-tuning of resources and activities within the program itself. External circumstances which cause a change in the type or number of students will have far-reaching effects on program resources and activities, including curriculum and instruction. New students in a course will cause changes in the teaching-learning process that will point up areas of goals and objectives, materials, tests, and instruction that may need adjustment. Internal instructional change can be as simple as the experience that a teacher gains in a new type of activity that causes her/him to change the activity slightly the next time the course is run. There are several ways that curricular change or instructional innovation typically occurs in a language program. One way is in response to the immediate factors and constraints of teaching. In such ‘‘grassroots’’ or ‘‘bottom-up’’ change, individual language teachers make changes in their classroom practices that other teachers see or hear about and might adopt or adapt for their own use. Examples are a novel which a teacher reads and then decides to use in a reading class, or a technique such as ‘‘oral journals’’ which a teacher learns about at a conference and decides to use for students to record their responses to a reading in a spoken form. Such curricular change is organic and authentic, in that it corresponds to teachers’ interests in new materials and stems directly from their interactions with faculty and students within a situated language program ecology. The experience of the local conditions of teaching provides many types of information that are known by teachers when developing teaching approaches and curricular materials in their classes and that might be shared with and adopted by others as ways to innovate in their own classes. Such knowledge of specific program features informing curricular decisionmaking might include the amount of time for classes, the typical ‘‘settling in’’ period of the course, the pace of learning, the expectations as to type and amount of homework, and the sequencing of materials from one level to the next. When innovation is internally generated, it is important for a good connection of the new practice to be made to the local ecological context. Yet when teachers innovate on an individual level, their instructional focus can become misaligned with the general goals of the program or with the learning targets or objectives of a specific course, area of instruction (e.g., reading or speaking), or level of instruction. A teacher who loves literature, for example, might adopt a new novel for class use that takes the majority of course time and focus and so compromises the time for working on other stated curricular goals.

Curriculum Development

239

For teachers there are normally trade-offs between teaching what they like to teach and teaching what they need to teach. It is important for the language program faculty as a group and as individual creative practitioners to innovate in ways that spring from their own interests, needs for satisfaction, and internally generated motivation, even as they satisfy the needs and interests of their students and the programs and institutions where they work. Thus, faculty need to continually monitor and reflect on their own practices to ensure that their innovations are appropriately contextualized to be consistent with program mission and effective in meeting curricular goals. Curricular innovation often takes place in response to a change in the student population or program context. The following case study illustrates curricular change in response to student demand and changing contextual conditions.

CASE STUDY 7.4 CURRICULAR CHANGE: DEVELOPING A BUSINESS ENGLISH COURSE In 1990, a university-governed intensive English program was focused on the development of academic language skills. The curriculum was divided into speaking/listening and reading/writing courses at each level, and learning goals were established for each course. The program was a pre-academic program designed to prepare students for entry into a U.S. university at the graduate or undergraduate level. The first three levels (1–3) were considered pre-academic, in that they focused on beginning and intermediate-level conversational listening and speaking skills, with writing building up to the levels of the paragraph and short essay. The higher levels (4–6) were considered academic levels and focused on academic skills such as essay writing, formal presentations, management of larger quantities of text in reading, and listening and responding to formal lectures. In the mid-1990s, there was substantial interest in short-term language programs for business professionals. In response to this interest, the program leadership and faculty developed a stand-alone 5-week intensive course organized around the tasks of the business professional based upon a needs analysis reported from students, analysis of business tasks, current curricular materials, and experienced language teachers’ input. A 15-hour weekly course was organized around the language of business, oral presentation skills, genre-specific writing such as memos and reports, and an additional afternoon class focused around site visits to area businesses. The site visit class included preparation for the visits through internet research and preparation for questions as well as follow-up letters.

240

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD After the events of 9/11, the availability of visas for short-term study was compromised through visa delays and additional fees for study. For several semesters, the Business English course was cancelled for lack of enrollment, leading to an increasingly restricted cycle of registration. Many in the program felt that the course was doomed, and the director and course leader had serious discussions about dismantling the Business area of study because of the increasing drain on resources in planning for and implementing the course, and the negative effect on reputation when it had to be cancelled. Around that time, a new set of pre-MBA students from Asia began to inquire about the availability of pre-MBA coursework in the program. The time seemed to be right to re-position the Business English course from one geared to professional needs to one geared to pre-MBA candidates. In particular, the professional writing needs of the original course were reconfigured to meet academic literacy needs, including research papers as well as case study reports. The new focus on academic writing needs meant that the Business English course could take advantage of the upper levels of the 6-level intensive program which was academic in focus. The two courses were effectively merged into a pre-MBA program of study requiring proficiency at Level 4 (advanced-intermediate) and a Bachelor’s degree for admission. The afternoon site visit element was kept, and the speaking/ listening component of the original Business English course was slightly re-geared to include more academic presentations and classroom discussions. The new combined course continued to pick up applicants and ran successfully in subsequent semesters.

The above case study illustrates curricular adaptation, innovation, and redesign initiated in response to an assessment of changing conditions and opportunities in the context of existing structures and resources. Curricular innovation can be either planned or unplanned, and in many cases includes both planned and unplanned, serendipitous, elements, as in the above case. In this context, new activities may be added to the syllabus the next time the course is run as planned curricular change. In addition, the different students in the course will cause unplanned, organic curricular change because they move at a different pace and have different interests and learning styles to which the teacher will most likely need to adapt. One of the advantages of a language program that forms a somewhat independent academic unit is that it can change and adapt as needed to circumstances, without having to go through the larger bureaucratic structures required of more fully integrated academic departments or other units. Thus, as Dantas-Whitney and Dimmitt (2002) point out: ‘‘It is usually possible for IEPs to experiment with new courses without having to go through university curriculum committees’’ (p. 4). The following case study is an example of innovative curriculum in a relatively independent IEP.

Curriculum Development

241

CASE STUDY 7.5 CURRICULUM ARTICULATION WITH UNIVERSITY STUDY A curriculum project initiated at the English language center at a large public northwestern university (Dantas-Whitney, Larson, & Dowling, 2002) is an example of a language program responding to both students’ and the institution’s needs for linkage to regular academic courses. At beginning levels, students visit different study areas on campus and write descriptions of them, in connection with lessons on vocabulary and follow-up speaking activities. They also interview students about their study habits and about campus life, in connection with visiting other campus facilities. ‘‘The emphasis is on getting the students out of the classroom, orienting them to campus facilities and activities, and helping them acquire the basic language skills needed to participate in the activities’’ (DantasWhitney et al., 2002, p. 26). The intermediate level continues students’ orientation to the campus and interviews of students, while also bringing in guest speakers from campus units and setting up class observations and analysis and discussion following these. In the advanced-intermediate listening-speaking class, students do a research project in which they interview people on campus and summarize their results in a poster session. They also participate in a ‘‘mini-sheltered’’ simulated university lecture course that is supported by pre-lecture and post-lecture activities to ensure comprehension and the acquisition of academic listening, reading, writing, and discussion skills. At the advanced level, students do more extensive observation of university classes and, ideally, also attend a regular university course which has been partnered with an English program course offering support for the students in that course. However, as this ‘‘adjunct’’ course tends to have low enrollment, a more practical option is an ‘‘advanced sheltered course’’ offering the same content as a regular academic course but in an ESL-only section. The latter option is less desirable in its isolation of the ESL students from the other students. On the other hand, it allows for program control and so for offering a university course within the regular language program and thus without students having to enroll in the university to take the course or to pay extra for it.

In institutions where the English language program sends many or all of its students into regular academic courses, there is considerable value to gearing classes, at least at the advanced level, to students’ future academic work, and this curricular innovation addresses that need. Curricular change or innovation initiatives can be imposed ‘‘top-down’’ for various reasons, sometimes without much thought about their effect on local contexts nor their feasibility given previously imposed changes. McNess, Broadfoot, and Osborn (2001, p. 3) speak of the ‘‘chronic work overload’’

242

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

teachers face as a result of nationally imposed changes in curriculum. Excessive change is as much a negative as excessive stability. Moreover, if curriculum is given to faculty without their input, their autonomy and creativity decrease. As a result, they contribute less of themselves to the curriculum and the language program ecology, as their input becomes less desired and so less offered. It is therefore an important role for the program leader to encourage teachers’ openness to change and their interest and involvement in innovation while also limiting and managing major curricular change so that it is manageable and there is sufficient time to learn and adapt new practices. Effective leadership of curricular innovation is teacher-oriented and facilitative, as it:  Takes into consideration teachers’ preferences and competing priorities;  Puts a focus on the value of the innovation for their teaching and the program;  Provides needed resources, training, and other assistance; and  Gives direction and rewards for teachers to adopt and contextualize innovations to have positive effects on their instruction and professional development. Whether imposed or self-generated, in curricular innovation teachers and programs can learn, grow, and improve as they develop potentials in ways that cannot generally be anticipated—either fully or at all. Leading Curricular Innovation White, Martin, Stimson, and Hodge (1991, pp. 178–184) discuss curriculum development in the context of the management of innovation. From a ‘‘macro’’ perspective, curricular innovation can result from policy review, change of leadership, or market positioning, while the ‘‘micro’’ level refers to adoption of new technologies or other changes on the part of individual teachers (p. 178). The implementation of innovation is fraught with difficulties, including the inherent aspect of change. Change requires learning and usually has associated costs in terms of time, money, and work. Innovators (change agents) will have a different perspective on the innovation than receivers, especially faculty, have, and resistance on the part of the receivers can result in blocking the implementation or ‘‘reinventing’’ it in ways not intended by change agents. White et al. (1991) give the example of how communicative language teaching has been adapted in different circumstances. They point out that the receivers of an innovation will need retraining and time for reflecting upon their experience in using it (White et al., 1991, pp. 178–180).

243

Curriculum Development

White et al. (1991, pp. 183–184) describe a model of the innovation process based on Henrichsen (1988), which is itself based to a large extent on the model of Rogers (1995). Some of the factors which influence the adoption of innovation include the ‘‘antecedent conditions’’ such as pedagogic traditions and pre-existing social conditions, as noted by Hu (2005) for the Chinese context (see Chapter Two). A variety of factors affect the adoption of an innovation, including the status of the innovator and the characteristics of the innovation itself, such as its degree of novelty, relative advantage, and complexity. Hindering adoption are a number of qualities of the innovation, such as its perceived complexity: perception is key, meaning that the degree of complexity is relative to the perceiver’s background and familiarity with the innovation. The perceived advantage of the innovation also encourages adoption, and this again is relative to the perceiver’s background. The more developed, explicit, and tangible the innovation, the more likely the adoption. Within the implementation plan and activities for adoption of an innovation, the more specific the goals for adoption the more likely they are to be followed. In managing innovation, as in managing the curriculum process as a whole, leaders must realize that change is a social process, involving adjustments at both the individual and organizational level. Good leadership looks ahead to the future, envisioning the rewards and positive results which can accrue to the program and its people from an implemented change, and identifying the necessary steps to move towards the envisioned future (White et al., 1991, p. 188). As White et al. (1991) conclude: ‘‘What will be needed in transition management for the implementation of innovation is a management structure which has the authority to mobilize and direct people and resources, the communication skills needed to persuade changers to adopt the innovation, and time to plan and act’’ (p. 198). Like the curriculum process as a whole, what is needed for curricular innovation is the interpersonal skills to link people together in common goals and joint development activities carried out over time.

Monitoring-Feedback Beyond the assessment of student performance and progress through tests, grades, and other means, the types of monitoring which go on in this curriculum model extend to the process of determining the success of the individual components of the language program as a basis for ongoing change and development. The process is one of continual data-gathering,

244

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

observation, reflection, and communication by which the language program ecology can be harmonized and fine-tuned and can evolve in response to input from all stakeholders. The various types and sources of input serve as different kinds of feedback into the curriculum and overall language program ecology. The monitoring-feedback function thus sets up the conditions for effective change: ‘‘Effective change requires a process of mutual adaptation in which [participants] at all levels can shape policies to meet their needs—one in which both the participants and the policy are transformed by the convergence of internal and external reference points’’ (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Pease, 1983, p. 17). Such continual monitoring, feedback, and linking of aspects of curriculum with each other through communication of leaders and other program members helps to achieve program unity as a major desirable outcome while also identifying areas for needed change and new input. A main activity in this curriculum model is then the continuous monitoring of each aspect of the curriculum process in relation to the overall program ecology and the adjustments that are made in response to this monitoring. This response occurs as two types of feedback: as new input into the curriculum itself, such as changes in materials and instructional approaches and their adaptation in the innovation-contextualization process previously described, and as communication with other program members. Faculty are centrally involved in this monitoring and feedback process through reflection and action research on their own teaching and classroom contexts and through communication with their students, other faculty, and the program leadership. The program leaders, including directors and curriculum coordinators, have a primary role in monitoring all aspects of curriculum process in relation to the other parts of the language program ecology and in providing feedback in the sense of new input to the curriculum and in the sense of communication with program members. One aspect of feedback and communication in the curriculum process is to keep teachers and students well-informed. Teaching which is based on program mission and on learner characteristics and needs, in the context of the characteristics and needs of other program members and other contextual factors, and which is designed and implemented on this basis creates a target for instruction and thus identifies a gap between students’ needs and what is aimed at in teaching. Knowledge of this gap and of the plan for closing it and achieving the outcomes of instruction can be highly motivating to both faculty and students. It is therefore recommended that all faculty, including those new to the program and any others who have not

Curriculum Development

245

been involved in curriculum development, be made aware of the results of the analysis of needs and context and the learning targets derived from that analysis, as well as of related tests and teaching-learning materials and approaches developed, adapted, or recommended to be used to achieve them. Faculty can then present this same information to students, at the beginning of the course and periodically as a reminder, in order to gain their understanding of and commitment to instructional process and goals, and to motivate their performance towards meeting those. Faculty can meet regularly themselves or with the leadership in groups focused on specific classes, skills, or levels of instruction, or as the whole faculty together, to review progress in meeting curricular goals in relation to program mission and to the identified needs, objectives, materials, tests, and teaching and learning approaches being used. In these meetings, the faculty and program leaders can also consider required or desirable adjustments in any of these areas to maintain the best match between observed outcomes and program mission and instructional goals. As goals are met or curricular adjustments made when they are not met, the faculty and the leadership will need to communicate this information back to the students and to staff members who have direct contact with students, so they can also remain in the loop of the curriculum process. It is also a key feature of the jobs of both faculty and program leaders to continually assess the performance of faculty and students in individual classes and to give feedback to support progress and maintain motivation. In this way, curriculum outcomes will be supported by continuous observation and communication in relation to those outcomes. Consistent with the program leader’s role as a sort of guiding hand operating from a vantage point that is conceptually outside or above the program, with a view of the entire context, the ongoing monitoring and feedback provided by the program leadership is a meta-level, overarching function comparable to the harmonizing and fine-tuning carried out by a conductor in an orchestra (see Chapter Six), in which the leader helps to link and optimize the functioning of the curriculum process and its components in relation to the larger program ecology. The program leader observes each aspect of the curriculum process, and the ecological links between components are continually checked and adjusted as necessary in relation to changing needs and circumstances. Changing needs are themselves the reflection of changing characteristics of: students, faculty, and leadership; fiscal, physical, and intangible resources; and culture. Such continual monitoring, feedback, and linking of aspects of curriculum with each other, in the light of changes in circumstances and external context, and in conjunction with efforts at innovation and contextualization of those

246

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

innovations both to fit into and further develop the language program ecology, help to achieve unity, consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of program processes and outcomes. Working together as a program to determine needs, to formulate goals and objectives, to implement teaching and learning to achieve needs, to evaluate outcomes, and to continually monitor, adjust, and communicate about the curriculum has an important benefit in unifying the people in the organization in terms of their purposes, their aims, and their standards of performance and achievement (Pennington & Brown, 1991). When members of a program work together on curriculum, they evolve a unified vision of the language program. As such a vision evolves, it has the effect of focusing people’s work and developing a sense of loyalty to the working group (Pennington & Brown, 1991, p. 67). It is also a way for faculty to share ideas and to develop new areas of expertise as they develop a sense ‘‘of pride in the work that they contribute to help achieve the overall purposes of the organization’’ (ibid.). The effort of program members working together in the curriculum process is at least as important as the physical curriculum or organization of courses in ensuring the language program’s success. According to this line of reasoning, to the extent that a language program achieves unity it will achieve its mission and desired educational targets, ‘‘as its members collaborate to define needs; to delineate goals and objectives; to develop testing, materials, and teaching on the basis of these; and then to continually evaluate the goodness of fit of each of these components in relation to the others’’ (Pennington & Brown, 1991, p. 71). The unity that grows out of the curriculum process is a kind of metaphorical ‘‘glue’’ that holds the ecology together, binding all of its members into a common purpose and mutual evolution. On the other hand, it is a more malleable and organic binding agent than glue, representing a symbiosis which is more than the sum of its parts, adding extra energy and innovative potential to the whole. Since it is a highly dynamic unity, rather than being like a ‘‘glue’’ that holds the ecology together, it can be seen instead as like a gyroscope (Anderson, 2008) stabilizing and steering the course ahead.

A DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR THE LANGUAGE PROGRAM ECOLOGY The curriculum development process can be modeled in the following way. The primary development activities are shown in the middle of the diagram,

247

Curriculum Development

INNOVATION

PLANNING

FEEDBACK

Figure 7.1.

CONTEXTUALIZATION

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

MONITORING

Development Model for the Language Program Ecology

as Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation. These are fed by two interacting, meta-functions, one of Innovation-Contextualization and the other of Monitoring-Feedback, which also links to the InnovationContextualization process (Fig. 7.1). The order of the primary development activities shown in the figure suggests a sequence for curriculum development from planning, to implementation, to evaluation. While this orderly sequence of curriculum development activities does occur, it is also likely and desirable that instruction, materials, tests, and learning goals and objectives are mutually responsive and may also be modified in response to the influence of classroom factors. Individual teachers and their approaches to instruction will over time not simply conform to tests and materials but will affect them as well, in the same way that teachers and instructional approaches interact with curricular goals and objectives, in order to maintain desired outcomes and measures of success. This is as it should be in a language program functioning as a highly interactive ecology in which the nature of the program evolves on the basis of and in interaction with its specific people and other resources. As illustrated in the figure, the processes of planning, implementation, and evaluation of the curriculum are the focus of monitoring and feedback processes aiming to ensure smooth functioning and quality. The feedback on curriculum is of two main types: communication with program members and input to the curriculum process in the way of minor adjustments as well as major change involving innovation and adjustment to context. Consequently, the monitoring-feedback function is linked to the innovation-contextualization function which feeds new input into curricular planning, implementation, and evaluation. Innovation, which always involves a concomitant process of contextualization, is then a response to

248

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

ongoing monitoring and feedback on program functioning and also a spur to curriculum development. The innovation-contextualization and monitoring-feedback functions are two sides of the curriculum process which balance the value and need for novelty and change against the value and need for familiarity and continuity. For the program leader, innovation and the related process of contextualization can be a response to curriculum monitoring and feedback that identifies problems and the need for novel solutions. It can also be a response to the program leader’s ecological monitoring beyond the curriculum per se, in the attempt to be proactive in anticipating future needs and conditions, conceptualizing opportunities, and positioning the program most advantageously. Innovation may also be an outcome of curriculum development such as new materials, tests, and teaching approaches that strengthen program functioning, marketability, and intangible resources such as image, reputation, and future potential. Innovations originating in a particular language program may be fed into the larger context and increase program income and prestige. Ongoing monitoring and feedback is a type of activity in which program teachers and their students should be involved as they continually check their performance against their goals, adjusting and innovating as needed to maintain progress and quality. It is also a main function of the language program leadership that helps to feed innovation into the program ecology and to nurture innovation originating there, while also maintaining the unifying features of the ecology by ensuring that innovations are compatible with the program or adapted and adjusted to the program ecology as it exists in a given place and time. Nurturing innovation tendencies and bringing curricular and other types of innovations into the program, and then managing the adoption and adaptation of these to the program context, are in this sense, like program monitoring and feedback, a metafunction of program leadership. These functions and relationships are taken up again and further elaborated in relation to program development in Chapter Eight.

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER SEVEN In the ecological model presented in this book, the curriculum plays a central, stabilizing role as it mediates between the characteristics and needs of the students; the characteristics and needs of other people connected to the students, the curriculum, and the program; the formal curricular goals

249

Curriculum Development

or learning targets and the materials and tests linked to them; teachers’ methodologies and preferences in instruction; the program mission; and the evolution of these different components of the language program ecology in relation to the larger program context. This chapter has outlined the various ways curricular change occurs and the ways innovation feeds program adaptation and development over time. It has also provided a general model of the curriculum development process that can be applied as well to program development. The next chapter examines program development in more detail.

NOTE 1. A C-test is a cloze test in which every other word (other than in the opening and closing sentences) has one or more letters after the first letter removed and in which the removal of letters is accomplished to give (as much as possible) only one correct way to fill in the blanks.

CHAPTER EIGHT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT The leader strategically directs the evolution and development of the language program through planning and visioning for the future, setting and implementing targets, regularly measuring and monitoring processes and outcomes, and communicating with program members. In performing the functions of program development, those in leadership maintain quality and continuity while also responding to meet changing needs and conditions through innovation and strategic planning, and by evaluating the program and their own performance from a range of perspectives including program frames, global scapes, consistency with program mission, resource management, and potentials for the future.

LEADING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT It can be said that language programs are constantly evolving. Another way of putting this is to say that language programs are always in an emergent, rather than a finished, state. Program development is in this sense a process of envisioning the program and bringing it into being. Program development, in aiming to realize the potentials of the language program and its people, is a central aspect of program leadership that goes beyond program management in steering the course of the organization to its best advantage. As such, it encompasses the leadership functions of spurring and facilitating the program’s evolution by:  Visioning and revisioning the program and its future;  Analyzing the program and its context and planning in light of the data gathered;  Implementing systems and processes, evaluating their functioning, and tinkering with these to achieve the best performance;  Bringing in innovations that make the best use of program resources and potentials and aiding in their adoption and contextualization;  Gaining new knowledge and expertise in the leadership and also bringing these intangible assets into the program through new people;  Evaluating program and leadership performance and making improvements; 251

252

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

 Maintaining harmony and stability and solving problems which threaten unity; and  Balancing and managing continuity and change. These leadership functions centrally involve analysis, evaluation, and decision-making in the short term and the long term, including: Ongoing monitoring and feedback, to  Maintain continuity and consistency with mission and vision;  Identify needed areas for change and appropriate innovations to meet those needs;  Keep the operation of all facets of the language program ecology connected and running well;  Solve problems as they arise;  Manage change and innovations; and  Maintain an eye to the future to anticipate change and opportunities. Formal evaluation, for purposes of      

Accreditation; External review; Supporting changes; Initiating strategic planning or major innovations; Validating practices; or Increasing public awareness.

In performing the monitoring and assessing functions that are central to not only managing but also leading a language program, the program leader may fulfill the role of change agent or the roles of the supervisor of operations, of fiscal or physical resources, or of program people. In her/his role as change agent and monitor, the program leader may also serve as the champion of program values and mission. As advocate for the program and its faculty, administrative staff, and students, the program leader shares the results of program evaluation and monitoring and the achievements of the program and its people with higher-level leaders and others who articulate with the program (or who might do so in the future). In performing the functions of program development, those in leadership and the other people connected with language programs are performing important functions not only at the program level, but also for the academic discipline and profession of language teaching, in maintaining standards, innovating to meet changing needs, and evolving language programs in ways that continually improve their quality, the fit with context, and their

253

Program Development

responsiveness to circumstances. In so doing, they are helping to take English language teaching as instruction, academic discipline, profession, business, and service—along with the institutions and programs where they work—into a healthy future. Not only the program leader but also the faculty, the administrative staff, and the students will be involved in program development, as they regularly communicate with the leadership and with each other about what they are doing, what they would like to do, and what they feel able and unable to do, as they plan, monitor, review, and continually adjust their own performance. In this way, they will be participating in the continual refinement and evolution of the program as they also refine their own performance and evolve themselves as teachers and learners. In the best case, both teachers and learners will be reflective and self-directed, each a reflection of the other (Pennington, 1992c) and of the educational program in which they are situated.

BEYOND CURRICULUM The curriculum model introduced in Chapter Seven can be applied as a model of the entire language program ecology and its development over time (Fig. 8.1). Program development, which includes both the initial design and set-up of a new language program and the evolution and improvement of existing programs, starts from data-gathering activities to survey student needs and characteristics in relation to the program mission and a larger contextual analysis. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the program’s current position, constraints, and future potentials in relation to its local and global

INNOVATION

PLANNING

FEEDBACK

Figure 8.1.

CONTEXTUALIZATION

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

MONITORING

Development Model for the Language Program Ecology

254

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

contexts, as a basis for generating targets for program development. The analyses establish the basis for envisioning directions for the program aimed at making the best use of its current resources and capabilities, strengthening these in the face of existing constraints, and adding new resources and capabilities to optimize functioning and realize the potentials that exist within the local and global ecology. The vision is operationalized in strategic goals, achievable outcomes, and timelines for their completion. The implementation of the plan requires obtaining and putting in place needed resources of people, materials, equipment, and physical facilities to carry out development goals and managing these in relation to each other and to program intangibles and context. Evaluation may be targeted to specific program development efforts or to the program as a whole at a given stage of its evolution. In either case, it requires deciding on the perspectives of evaluation, the criteria for judging success, and the ways in which these will be measured. The program leader considers different criteria of program success and quality and seeks to balance them in terms of each other and to optimize the functioning of the program as a whole in the present as well as its overall value and strategic positioning going into the future. As part of the evaluation process, the program leader must also consider the best ways to measure success and performance. Many different types of assessment are possible, and it can be useful to consider program processes and outcomes from a range of perspectives. Innovation-contextualization processes are a central aspect of program development, as novelty and change help the leadership and other program people to respond to problems, to improve program intangibles such as image and reputation, to maintain flexibility and nimbleness, and to position the program for the future. Innovation can be the driver for program development and change efforts, an engineered response to program evaluation and ongoing monitoring, or an outcome of the program development process. In the program development process, the leadership seeks to foster innovation as input, response, and outcome of program development while also fostering unity and contextualization of innovations, both of which contribute to building a common program-internal culture and adaptation to the culture beyond the program. In this way, the program leader ensures program quality, progress, and fit within the larger institutional, disciplinary, and international context. In an overarching leadership function of monitoring and feedback, the leader manages program development through observation and communication, providing input to planning and goal-setting, adjusting and

Program Development

255

optimizing performance in implementing goals, noticing and solving problems, and ensuring that evaluation leads to revision and improvement of program processes and outcomes to maintain forward momentum. As in curriculum development, monitoring and feedback in program development is a continual process sustaining program unity, which is a key factor in achieving other program goals. The leader’s monitoring of the program and her/his communication to and with program members foster a positive image and climate for the program that sustains it in a harmonious condition in terms of its atmosphere and also in terms of the ‘‘resonances’’ among program components that maintain unity as a central feature of an ecology. To the extent that all program members work together in program development to achieve the program mission and vision, they will be evolving the program and its potentials while optimizing its functioning on a day-to-day basis.

THE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS As a continuous process of envisioning the program and bringing it into being, ecological program development is a future-oriented activity aiming at continual improvement and realization of potentials in the light of the current state of the program, its vision of itself, and its context. Like strategic planning as usually conceived, ecological program development is an ongoing process of determining and adjusting the goals and operations of an organization in light of the need to optimize resources in relation to mission and context. Strategic planning (e.g., Klinghammer, 1997) emphasizes the need to consider activities in the context of a competitive market and a changing environment, and includes evaluation criteria and benchmarks to measure progress towards goals. Strategic plans are usually developed for three to five years (or as the joke goes, until a new dean or provost arrives). Our concept of program development incorporates strategic planning but is a more continuous process and a broader conception which has as its context all of the components, operations, and relations of the internal program microecology in addition to the external context, all the way up to the macroecology of global scapes and flows. Ecological program development is a continuous and cyclical process of envisioning the program’s next step in relation to its mission, context, and current condition. As for curriculum development, ecological program development includes planning activities of analysis and setting targets, implementation activities making use of resources to put goals into practice,

256

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

and evaluation activities for determining success in relation to desired program attributes and outcomes. The program development activities are all managed through monitoring, feedback, and adjustment to ensure ongoing unity, continuity, and focus on mission as well as introduction and contextualization of innovations to meet program needs, solve problems, optimize resources and functioning, and evolve the program and its people in relation to global scapes and program frames.

Planning Planning activities include articulating beliefs and values into a mission statement, creating a vision and projecting targets in terms of goals and timelines, and developing strategies for reaching the goals. Analyses of the characteristics, needs, and performance of program stakeholders and of external and internal factors affecting success are an important part of developing program mission, vision, targets, and strategies. Stakeholders in a language program include those who work in the program, current students, alumni, educational advisors and recruiting agencies, representatives of professional associations of which the program is a member, the leadership and administrative staff of the larger organizational unit, and members of other units within the organization that make use of the program’s services—for example, the undergraduate admissions office or a department which employs international graduate students who improve their language skills in the program. Program development takes place in relation to the program’s mission, which is a relatively stable and long-term view of its rationale and purposes. However, even the program mission needs reflection and review in relation to program structure and resources, and may itself over the long term need rethinking and adjustment. Program development should be conducted to define program mission and vision along with existing goals and policies, all of which should evolve and change over time. At any given time, the mission and policies should exist in written form, and all faculty and staff should be required to be familiar with them and to give input when they believe that changes are required. A common cause of disorganization and discontent in language programs is the lack of concrete guidelines to which all program participants can refer in order to gain a common understanding of what the program is about and how it operates (Pennington, 1983, 1984a, 1984b). In examining the program mission, vision, goals, and policies, it can be asked whether these are consistent with program location, priorities in terms

Program Development

257

of the various functional frames, and global scapes. Practical questions can also be asked as to whether mission, vision, goals, and policies are sound, that is, whether they seem rational and workable, and whether they are manifested in actual decisions and practices as carried out on a day-to-day basis. As changes are made over time in the program mission, are these changes then reflected in decisions and practices? It can also be asked whether the program’s mission, vision, goals, policies, decisions, and practices accurately reflect the needs and interests of the program’s students. Once such questions have been posed, the next question to be asked in program planning is always: If not, what needs to be changed? (Pennington, 1984a, 1984b). Once these general and specific questions have been answered and decisions have been made about areas of needed change (what?), mechanisms of change (how?), timetables for implementation of changes (when?), and projections of positive effects (how soon?), priorities for program development can be determined. These will be based on a balancing of the program’s most pressing needs, the most easily implementable changes, the most convenient time periods, and the earliest possibility of positive effects, as judged by the program leader and her/his advisers from among the various programinternal constituencies and program-external stakeholders. The priorities for change should also be based on a consideration of how changes in one component will affect the other program components, with the ultimate goal of optimizing the functioning of all components; satisfying the needs of the students, the faculty, and the other individuals involved in the program; and realizing to an ever greater extent the potential of the program’s human, physical, and intangible resources. Strategic program development is the process that examines opportunities (known and as yet unknown) in relation to the program’s mission and vision, and its tangible and intangible resources. Classical strategic analysis includes a ‘‘SWOT’’ analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). Strengths and weaknesses refer to a program’s internal characteristics such as a highly qualified faculty (strength) and location in an area with a high cost of living (weakness). Opportunities and threats refer to characteristics of the environment such as a new scholarship program for overseas language study by a foreign ministry (opportunity) and new restrictions on student visas from a country that has previously sent many students to the program (threat). Strategic program development in our ecological model, however, goes beyond traditional SWOT analysis, which considers internal strengths and weaknesses in the context of external opportunities and threats. Our model introduces a more complex environment of decision-making which extends the factors relevant in strategic

258

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

planning and program development more generally to the micro- and macroecology of the program. In planning for program development, different perspectives on the program ecology are relevant to an analysis of its potentials and directions for the future. A frames perspective can help the language program leader to conceptualize, act, and plan for a specific language program in an ecological view. The business frame provides an orientation to revenues that sets the bottom line in program planning in terms of potentials for innovation or stability, growth or downsizing, and expansion or contraction in relation to other types of resources. The program leader needs to consider the instructional frame, as the center of the language program’s mission, in all aspects of program planning. The frame of academic discipline is important to attend to for strategizing about building up reputation, academic achievements, and relationships with academic departments. The frame of profession is important to attend to in strategizing in such areas as external review and accreditation and the employment status of the program leadership, faculty, and administrative staff. The frame of service offers a view of the program in terms of its value to the larger institution, field, and community, that is, its ecological linkages, and for this reason is a frame for consideration in strategic planning and program development. This frame relates as well to quality-of-life issues and the satisfaction of needs, both of which are linked to program culture, climate, and quality, and so must figure in planning. While the local frame, which encompasses the program’s immediate context, will always be important in program planning, it behooves the program leadership to plan for the future with an eye to global developments that are occurring at any particular time or that are on the horizon. The leader should always have a view of the development of the language program in relation to each of Appadurai’s (1996) scapes: Ethnoscapes

Mediascapes Financescape Technoscapes Ideoscapes

The immigration and movement of people in search of opportunities for education, employment, or other new life chances; What is being reported on television, radio, and the paper press; Where capital is flowing and drying up; The new developments in electronic and other technologies; Development of new ideas, images, and changes in ideologies.

Since the focus of the program is on language, hence the linguascape, it is important in program development to consider that scape in a global context

259

Program Development

and in relation to the language which the students bring into the program and leave the program with. The linguascape can also be examined in its connection to students’ identities as bilinguals and second-language speakers. The perspectives offered by the different scapes can be examined as part of overall program planning, in analyzing changes in individual scapes on a global or local level and in considering the program’s relative position, strengths, and weaknesses in the current context as well as in relation to possible opportunities. All of these scapes and flows are important for the language program leader to consider in planning and program development activities. A further perspective for analysis in program planning is provided by Walker (2003, pp. 45–47), who applied the concept of ‘‘service maps’’ to English language programs as a way to ‘‘provide a snapshot of a service system.’’ Adapting from this concept, ecological program planning can take into consideration an analysis of the language program ecology in terms of:  Components, including inputs and outputs of tangible and intangible resources/assets and the processes, constraints, and controls on these;  Internal relationships, i.e., the interrelationships between the people and other components within the program;  External relationships, i.e., interactions with all those outside the program who are connected to it, and including the functions of marketing, promotion, and advocacy. Such snapshots are a useful way of thinking about the program ecology and its context. Analyses from any or all of these perspectives can be valuable for program planning and the development of strategies to guide program evolution. However, strategic planning and program development cannot be reserved for a one-shot annual process or five-year event. In the real world of rapid local and global change, planning is an ongoing process of assessing opportunities in relation to such perspectives in light of program mission, goals, and resources. Thus, program planning is connected to the continuous monitoring and feedback that is a main function of program leadership. Implementation The implementation stage of program development requires mustering the resources and putting into practice the activities that are intended to realize the program mission, goals, and timelines. Klinghammer (1997, p. 72) gives an example for a program dependent on only two major sources for student groups. Recognizing the program’s vulnerability to market forces, the most

260

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

important strategic goal in this case is to increase the diversity of student groups, and the strategy for accomplishing that goal is to develop a marketing plan for the countries with a low but constant stream of applications to the program: Strategic goal: Increase diversity of student groups. Strategy for accomplishment: Develop a marketing plan. The program leader is the main person responsible for implementing this strategic goal. In other cases, the administrative staff and/or faculty might be involved, such as in the following cases: Strategic goal: Expand use of online databases for tracking and reporting all aspects of student information, from recruitment, to admissions, placement, and achievement. Strategy for accomplishment: Provide training for administrative staff to use online databases to perform different tracking and reporting functions in their areas of responsibility (student services, administrative support, curriculum support). Strategic goal: Develop a range of ESP competencies in the faculty. Strategy for accomplishment: Provide release time, training, and materials for all faculty to learn to teach in ESP areas of current program need and projected future opportunity. As the above strategic goals illustrate, some program goals represent major innovations requiring substantial investments of program time and resources, and substantial change in practices by program people. The program leadership is responsible for providing the resources needed for implementing program goals, including people, physical facilities, materials, equipment, money, and time. The leadership also has an essential function in ensuring that program people have the knowledge and skills needed to implement the goals. In many cases, this will mean supplying not only relevant information, materials, and equipment, but also models, mentoring, and training. Where goals involve major innovations, a considerable amount of support and sufficient time will be required to adjust to new practices, adapt them to the program context, and develop skill in their use. Evaluation In the perspective of Pennington and Brown (1991), evaluation is a central function driving and unifying curriculum process and outcomes. This way of

Program Development

261

looking at evaluation stresses the centrality of instruction, hence curriculum, in language teaching and the language program. If the instructional component of the program is functioning well, this has a positive impact on the program’s academic, professional, service, and business aspects, and its connections to the local and global contexts of its operation. If, on the other hand, the instructional component of the program is not functioning well, the program will not function well in its academic, professional, service, or business orientations, nor connect well to the local or global context in which it is situated. Thus, curriculum and instruction are a central feature of every language program that must be continually evaluated and modified to maintain strong unity and connection to program mission and people. The orientation to evaluation of Brown (1989) and Pennington and Brown (1991) is consistent with Stenhouse’s (1975, p. 122) notion of merging curriculum development and evaluation in order to shape practice in a specific context. Evaluation from the latter perspective is ‘‘the continuous gathering of linguistic and nonlinguistic information necessary to continue meeting the learning needs of a particular group of students’’ (Pennington & Brown, 1991, p. 65). While ‘‘needs analysis is an initial gathering of information . . . evaluation is an ongoing process of information collection’’ (ibid.). This broad sense of evaluation includes processes of program monitoring. A different sense of evaluation is ‘‘the process of deciding on the worth of something’’ (Pennington, 1998c, p. 189) or ‘‘the making of value judgements’’ (ibid.). Both of these aspects of evaluation are relevant to language program development. While at the program level, the same indicators of quality that we saw for curriculum are desired—unity and consistent, efficient, and effective actions and outcomes—there are other important measures of program quality and success that interact with and support the curriculum process and outcomes. ‘‘These include various ‘products’—such as income, enrolments, and prestige—and processes—such as recruitment and promotion—which may impact indirectly but importantly on the delivery of instruction to students’’ (Pennington, 1998c, p. 181). Additional features that might be evaluated as indicators of program quality from an ecological view are climate, contextual linkages, and the balance of stability and change over time. Such features and others are considered below (see especially, ‘‘Perspectives on Leadership Effectiveness and Program Development’’). These and other desirable qualities or features can be seen as different criteria for assessing program functioning, success, and/or quality. For the language program ecology, evaluation in a broad view can be defined as a process of determining the success of the individual components

262

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

of the language program in relation to each other and to contextual factors, goals, and criteria of value. Evaluation in this broad view is an important aspect of a language program as ecologically situated and evolving, and thus of its short-range and long-range development. Main purposes of evaluation from the point of view of an evolving social ecology are the professional development of its people and the continual improvement of its interacting processes and resources. In a broad view, evaluation is part of the daily leadership functions of program monitoring, feedback, and on-the-spot decision-making as well as the longer-term leadership functions of program design, future planning and strategizing, professional development of faculty and administrative staff, and research. Evaluation may address specific innovations or change efforts, the overall program in historical (longitudinal) or current (cross-sectional) perspective, or it may be targeted to specific components of a program. Consistent with the view of the language program as (a) a complex of interacting components (b) that are in a state of perpetual evolution and (c) that evolve in response to changing resources and needs, evaluation is a dynamic and developmental process which assesses the program not only in terms of its current state, but also in terms of where it has been—its history—and where it is going—its trajectory for the future. Those in leadership positions must be continually analyzing, planning, and monitoring all aspects of the language program ecology with a view to the future and to the present, tinkering to make changes to improve functioning and refine the match between program mission, vision, and goals. There are also occasions when programs must undergo more formal evaluation processes, such as for accreditation purposes. Periodic ongoing evaluation for internal purposes can set the stage for the formal, external review: In this way, administrators gather data that can help them manage resources and continually upgrade program components to meet the needs of the students, the faculty, and others who interact with the program. The data gathered through periodic evaluation also provide a basis for promoting the program to those within and outside of the program, including higher authorities who may be responsible for their own evaluations of the program. In this way, the administrator prepares the program for an externally imposed evaluation, for which the data gathered internally can furnish a helpful stating point or balance. (Brown & Pennington, 1991, p. 12)

In an ecological approach to running a language program, evaluation in many senses takes on a special importance and becomes central to the program leader’s job. Formal review of the program, e.g., through testing and other outcome measures, is only one aspect. In addition to outcomesoriented post-assessments, the leader will be making pre-assessments, e.g.,

Program Development

263

through planning considerations and feasibility studies, to decide on potential changes and courses of action to solve problems or to make the program better. In our development model, these are part of the planning function and link as well to the innovation function of the program leader’s job. A further aspect of evaluation is the many types of in-process assessments which an involved leader makes in staying on top of the daily operation of the program. These in-process assessments are incorporated in our monitoring function, which is further linked to the various types of feedback a leader provides in response to that monitoring. Much of a program leader’s day will be spent collecting and reviewing information through observation of different aspects of the operation; through communication with teachers, students, and administrative staff about what they are doing; and through reading and other forms of informationgathering and communication outside the program. In addition to the program leadership, evaluation involves the faculty, students, and other stakeholders in a process of communication and assessment of individual needs and viewpoints in the context of negotiating common goals, understandings, and practices (Pennington, 1998c, p. 182). Evaluation therefore sets up the conditions for change as it also brings change into being in a way which continually evolves people and their values and practices to become more convergent and unified: ‘‘As . . . more input [is gained] from a larger number of individuals, personal standards will begin to evolve towards organizational standards, and organizational standards will evolve towards the personal standards of those who make up the organization’’ (Brown & Pennington, 1991, p. 16). Organized evaluations can function as a unifying factor in a language program: Evaluation acts as an impetus for bringing people together physically and philosophically, and for uniting them in their goals, their purposes, and their [behaviors]. The process is a way for people to learn from each other and to reflect on themselves, in order to create a foundation for extending and diversifying their own capabilities and achievements, while at the same time advancing the capabilities and achievements of the [language program] as a whole. Language [program] evaluation is then less a set of figures or documents than it is a set of activities. These activities involve people and their interaction in gaining increased understandings which allow them to function more effectively in their work environment. At the same time as these activities make it possible for people to adapt to their environment, they also open up the way for changing the environment, so that it better suits their needs and purposes. (Pennington, 1998c, p. 182)

It is therefore essential that any formal evaluation provide opportunities for input on a wide scale and for change and evolution of the program as a

264

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

whole, as well as for the individuals who make up the program’s social ecology and their evolution in relation to its other resources. Ecologically oriented evaluation is thus dynamic, involving people’s changed knowledge and understandings, and their actions and interactions to optimize their work environment. While evaluation can be a positive force in the language program ecology, standards imposed from the outside are not always helpful in recognizing the specific contexts in which a program operates. Kiely (2006) notes five challenges for evaluation initiatives: (1) clarifying the purposes for the evaluation activity; (2) engaging people more widely in the evaluation process; (3) clarifying values in defining the meaning of achievement within the specific program context; (4) using a greater range of data in evaluation; and (5) evaluating processes more widely throughout the language program, not solely focusing on teaching and student outcomes (pp. 597–598). A strategic, developmental approach to evaluation stresses the uniqueness of designed evaluations within specific language programs and addresses the concerns raised by Kiely (2006). The idea is that a language program will approach evaluation in a way similar to the process of designing a language program for specific purposes, that is, by conducting a thorough needs analysis, coupled with an ecological analysis, and setting evaluation goals before beginning the evaluation (Pennington, 1998c). The analysis determines:  The purpose of the evaluation (e.g., for supporting changes, investigating problems, initiating planning);  The location of the evaluation (within the instructional and/or administrative units of a program);  The orientation of the evaluation (towards people, processes, and/or other resources);  The criteria of evaluation (e.g., effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, future potential, growth, unity);  The perspectives to be gained on the program (from students, faculty, administrators, and/or others). A process of goal-setting considers the evaluation purpose and criteria in order to determine the focus of evaluation, including the types of information that will be collected. Within that focus, guidelines for interpretation are drawn up in advance specifying what will count as indicators of the selected criteria and how the criteria will be weighted. In making this determination, those involved in the evaluation should be aware of the biasing constraints such as power relationships and different views of what is right and fair. A further consideration is how the results of the

Program Development

265

evaluation will be used to fulfill its purposes and how program people and components, the physical and intangible resources, will be affected. Pennington’s (1998c) view of evaluation is essentially ecological: To maintain a dynamic state of equilibrium within a language [program], all facets of the [program’s] operation must be developed in response not only to external circumstances, but also to each other. Hence, the dynamic, developmental perspective on evaluation . . . promotes a view of a language [program] as requiring attention to all its components, and not only to instruction. It also promotes a positive and forward-looking mentality in which evaluation focuses less on identification and description of resources, achievements, and problems, than on resource development, goal-setting, and problem-solving . . . . The orientation of evaluation efforts therefore moves from description to projection, from a view of the present condition of the [language program] in the light of the past, to a view of the future condition of the [program] in the light of the present. (p. 192)

As in Stenhouse’s (1975) concept for curriculum, evaluation and development in this orientation are closely aligned to shape practice in a specific context. Pennington’s (1998c) specific purposes model for evaluation and our ecological, situated view of language programs have in common a strong focus on contextual factors. They are therefore both compatible with a form of program review which Parlett and Hamilton (1972) term ‘‘illuminative evaluation.’’ This mode of evaluation uses an ethnographic, case study approach to examine a language program in all its particularity and uniqueness. The program is ‘‘illuminated’’ through detailed observation of its practices and in consideration of the wider context in which it functions. Rather than assessment per se, the focus of illuminative evaluation is on describing and interpreting program features, processes, and conditions to reach a deeper understanding of how it operates in relation to the effects and interactions of different contextual factors. Kiely and Rea-Dickens (2005) describe illuminative evaluation as follows: Illuminative evaluation takes two features as axiomatic: a focus on the implemented curriculum, or instructional system, rather than the planned curriculum; and a focus on the learning milieu which represents a network or nexus of cultural, social, institutional and psychological variables. The notion of illumination has proved a particularly generative one in language program evaluation. It provides for engagement with the complexities of learning, an important theoretical hinterland for language education programs. (p. 33)

Kiely and Rea-Dickens (2005) give examples of this mode of evaluation which . . . sought to inform on the language learning research agenda as well as determine the worth of specific programs. Illuminative evaluations also engaged directly with notions

266

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

of agency and mediation in social programs, thus incorporating affective, political, cultural and historical dimensions of program contexts in evaluations. (p. 33)

The ethnographic perspective of illuminative evaluation can be coupled with the CQI (continuous quality improvement) orientation introduced in Chapter Two (in the section, ‘‘Interactions within Human Resources’’), in which all program members—and sometimes external stakeholders as well—work together to identify features of the program in need of change and to collaboratively decide on and implement changes. Key aspects of program evaluation in this situated, change-oriented view are then that it is: (a) a set of activities (b) involving people and their interactions (c) within a specific context (d) to gain increased knowledge and understanding (e) in relation to themselves and their work environment (f) that enable mutual adaptation (g) to improve the functioning of both.

Evaluation from this perspective is part and parcel of overall program development. Summarizing the discussion of this section, we advocate an ecological approach to program evaluation and development, both of which should be:  Contextualized: Illuminates contextual factors which impact practices;  Particularized: Develops the unique features of a specific language program in its own context of resources and assets as well as the larger contexts of the framings of language teaching, the institution or organization in which it is housed, other language programs, and the flow of global scapes;  Process-oriented: Focuses activities and interactions of people and other program resources;  Formative: Involves a continuous process of observation, data-gathering, and responsive, localized ‘‘tinkering’’ in conjunction with strategizing and scanning the horizon to plan and prepare for the future;  Change-oriented: Leads continuing evolution in response to the programinternal and -external contexts;  Vision-oriented and mission-based: Is led by a projection of the program’s core values and purpose, and where it is headed;  Interpretive: Seeks to clarify and illuminate the meaning of practices for teachers, learners, and administrators within the different framings and contexts within language programs exist;  Unifying: Brings people together and unites them in strengthening the program ecology.

Program Development

267

CULTIVATING AND CONTEXTUALIZING INNOVATION The feature of innovation that has been described for curriculum development is central to all aspects of the program as a whole, ensuring a continual responsiveness that develops program potentials and quality. Innovation is a central feature of program development feeding into planning and the establishment of targets, and also growing out of program evaluation as a response to opportunities as well as problems. Program development efforts by their very nature involve both minor changes and major innovations. Innovation also functions as input to and output of the professional growth of program people—faculty as well as program leaders and administrative staff. Cultivating innovation or nourishing it and feeding it into the overall program ecology is the key to advancement at an individual level as well as an institutional level. Innovation includes academic discovery and the feeding of new ideas into the program and the larger institution, profession, and discipline of language teaching. Innovation is thus a main focus of a language program leader’s job. Innovation is not only having an idea; it is translating the idea into practical terms and disseminating it throughout a community. It is further the sparking of others’ ideas and the managing of their interaction with the innovation, which may result in changed ideas, attitudes, skills, and behaviors. Innovation is also a way to maintain currency in the face of change and in consideration of linkages within the organization and between it and the external context. Innovation may be a response to unexpected or serendipitous events, both positive and negative, and is often spurred by changes in program people and context. Innovation may also be undertaken systematically, spurred by formal requirements and processes of program monitoring, review, and evaluation. As in curriculum development, innovation can be the trigger or locus for many kinds of productive program development activities and outcomes, such as changes in circumstances, status, behavior, functioning, attitude, knowledge, and skills (Patton, 1997, p. 60). In a commentary focused on foreign language departments in colleges and universities, Kiely (2006) observes: Through the development and evaluation of innovations we can generate critical engagement with the [language] curriculum, invest time in clarifying constructs of teaching and learning, establish an internal driver of program development to counter any dominance from external mandates, and facilitate opportunities for teachers’ own professional and academic development. (p. 597)

268

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

The same comments apply to development and evaluation of innovations in English language programs. In developing a language program and leading change, leaders bring innovations into the program and adapt these to its people, processes, and constraints through critical engagement not only at the level of curriculum but also at the level of the wider program context. In fostering and facilitating innovation, a leader’s job in relation to the people in a language program involves provision of needed and desired resources in addition to problem-solving and removal of constraints on the work of faculty and administrative staff. More than this, a leader seeking to inspire and lead major innovation and change efforts for developing a language program needs a motivating vision and must communicate with clarity, eloquence, and persistence to inspire others to the vision of the innovation. A language program leader must make sure that all can understand the innovation and its value for the program, its development, and its competitive advantage. The leader must also guide faculty and other program members to adopt and contextualize innovations in ways that work for them, providing necessary support in terms of modeling, professional development, and resources, including the time needed for adoption and contextual adaptation. As Rogers (1995) observed, change takes time to work its way through an organization, and time for innovations to be accommodated and assimilated should be planned into any directed change effort. Too rapid change, or too much change—especially, imposed change rather than internally generated change—results in negative energy in the way of anxiety, stress, and attitudes of resistance. It can also result, as both cause and effect of this negative energy, in superficial and errorful performance. Constant innovations can moreover cause loss of program memory and consequent ‘‘reinventing of the wheel’’ or repetition of past mistakes. Excessive change or innovations imposed from outside are also likely to cause divergence from or loss of focus on mission. In the worst case, excessive change leads to disorganization and chaos. Nowadays change is occurring rapidly in education, with many types of innovations imposed top-down, outside of individual departments or from outside the institution. This is increasing stress on the faculty, leadership, and administrative staff and creating other kinds of negative energy within departments and institutions that are unable to assimilate all of the changes as fast as they are introduced. The high level of change, especially change imposed from outside, puts these programs in danger of

Program Development

269

becoming unfocused, chaotic work situations where people, climate, and performance suffer. Too much continuity and lack of innovation, on the other hand, reduces the energy level of the organization, making it sluggish and unresponsive to contextual conditions such as changes in enrollments and the nature of the students, and thus less effective and efficient. In the typical case, stability easily becomes stagnation and its associated characteristics of mediocrity and unprofitability. In the worst case, the stagnated organization experiences a downward spiral to lower and lower performance. In the optimum case, a degree of managed innovation within a framework of continuity keeps positive energy and performance high while keeping negative energy low. Stoller (1994, 1997) has discussed innovations in university English language programs as a main aspect of the language program leader’s job: Whereas innovations inevitably bring with them levels of uncertainty, they also energize those involved in their development and implementation. They empower language program personnel who forge new paths, pilot novel ideas, see improvements, and reap the benefits of their labors. The exhilaration that comes from such exploration can invigorate a program and lead to improved teaching and learning. (p. 33)

As reviewed by Stoller (1997, pp. 34–38), many different things may trigger an innovation, such as dissatisfaction with the status quo, the desire for improvement, externally generated requests or requirements, or the needs and interests of students and faculty. In addition, both minor and major innovations may be triggered as a response to program monitoring or evaluation carried out by the program leader. Innovation is also a fact of life in a program which seeks to remain nimble and to respond when ‘‘opportunity knocks’’ and avoid the downside of stability, which is stagnation and an inevitable slide into mediocrity. Innovation from this perspective is a desired type of input, process, and outcome to maintain a high-functioning and high-quality program. Stoller (1997) offers the following practical advice for the language program leadership on introducing innovations: 1. Present innovative proposals so that the advantages (relative advantage, observability, trialability, relevance, feasibility, viability, or acceptability) outweigh the disadvantages . . . . 2. Point out how the proposal is a response to dissatisfaction of students, faculty, staff, administrators, the upper administration, or sponsoring agencies. Identifying the beneficiaries of the innovation and the ways in which they will benefit can demonstrate how the innovation is an improvement over past practices.

270

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

3. Highlight issues related to the usefulness, feasibility, and practicality of the proposed innovation; by pointing out those features, we should be able to show how viable the innovation actually is. 4. Introduce innovations so that they are viewed as neither excessively divergent nor too similar to current practices . . . . (p. 597)

An important function of the leadership is to plan for and to facilitate program members’ period of familiarization and contextualization in adopting and putting into practice an innovation coming from outside the program. The adoption of innovations and their contextualization is facilitated by providing needed materials, workshops, and demonstrations to introduce and model the new practices, with a reflective, action-research orientation that allows for gradual and individualized adoption supported by ongoing discussion with colleagues and the leadership. The program leader can also foster an innovative outlook on the daily work context by soliciting feedback from all program members and encouraging suggestions for program changes and improvements, e.g., in a suggestion box or a competitive process of program proposals with rewards for the best of these. Rewards in the way of public recognition, compensation, and promotion can also be given to faculty and administrative staff who innovate in their work or who contribute innovations to the larger program context.

MONITORING AND FEEDBACK Monitoring for Continuity and Change In our view of a language program as a highly context-interactive and evolving ecology, a main aspect of the leader’s job will involve monitoring the program operation, resources, and context in order to plan and strategize for opportunities and for change. In monitoring the language program and its context, the program leader will consider its past, present, and future states in terms of the tensive relation existing between (a) the stability or continuity of the program over time and (b) the changes occurring in it. On this basis, the program leader can assess whether the program is moving in a positive or a negative direction or is standing still. The balance between continuity and change is important, with too much of one or the other being unhealthy for any organization. Complementing change-oriented outcomes such as those mentioned by Patton (1997) are outcomes focused on maintenance, that is, lack of change,

271

Program Development

and prevention, that is, lack of occurrence. Thus, each of Patton’s change outcomes can be matched to a non-change outcome as follows: Types of Change Change in circumstances Change in status Change in behavior Change in functioning Change in attitude Change in knowledge Change in skills (Patton, 1997, p. 160)

Types of Continuity Continuity in circumstances Continuity in status Continuity in behavior Continuity in functioning Continuity in attitude Continuity in knowledge Continuity in skills

It is the job of the language program leader to continually assess and balance all parts of the organization in terms of these two outcome types. Thus, the leader needs to pay attention to circumstances, status, behavior, functioning, attitude, knowledge, and skills in terms of whether or not they have changed or should change. In some cases, both changed and unchanged program features exist simultaneously and side by side, e.g., in certain behaviors, function, knowledge, and skills which need to be maintained even as new ones are developed alongside, possibly by different people. Different kinds of change as well as maintenance of existing conditions are all aspects of program development that the language program leader will want to keep in mind in continually observing and communicating on program functioning and progress.

Monitoring and Communication with Program People The language program leader must keep in close touch with all people and parts of the program and must be continually monitoring conditions both inside the program and in the external context which might have an impact on it. In this continual monitoring, the leader will look for negative conditions that signal needed change as well as favoring or enabling conditions that make it possible to try new things in order to continually improve and develop the program and its potentials. The leader needs to be especially alert to contextual conditions which could bring or are bringing changes from outside or which offer opportunities for innovation. Thus, the language program leader must pay attention to international media, stay abreast of world trends, and monitor trends in the external context involving

272

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

such matters as international affairs, educational affairs, language learning theory and practice, and technological innovations. She/he must also continually observe and communicate on program operations, resources, and personnel, to ensure that student needs, enrollment targets, revenue projections, and other program goals match or exceed expectations for student achievement, enrollment figures, revenue, and other program outcomes.

Monitoring ‘‘On-Stage’’ and ‘‘Off-Stage’’ Activities Walker (2003) describes ‘‘on-stage,’’ or visible, versus ‘‘off-stage’’ activities and resources of the service system supporting program quality as follows: The service system activities are separated by the line of visibility. Above this line— ‘‘onstage’’—are interactions between the service provider and the client. Below the line— ‘‘offstage’’—are activities outside the client’s view comprising management functions such as strategy or control and support functions such as administration or homestay coordination. For both client and [program] there are typical inputs and outputs. (p. 46)

Broadening Walker’s concept, we note that the activities of the language program that are ‘‘off-stage’’ are those that are not public knowledge, which includes much of what the program leader, and to some extent other administrative staff and faculty, might know and do to support the program and its ‘‘on-stage’’ presence in interactions with not only students but all of the other constituencies with which it communicates. The ‘‘on-stage’’ and visible aspects of the program are generally those which establish its credibility, reputation, image, ‘‘brand,’’ and climate. The program leader thus needs to monitor for continuity and change in both ‘‘off-stage’’ and ‘‘on-stage’’ activities impacting program processes and resources, tangible and intangible. The program’s image and reputation are program intangibles which derive from program identity, performance, and achievements and which are significant indicators of program quality. In program monitoring, feedback, and development overall, the program leadership needs to keep the image and reputation of the program positive in the eyes of those who work in it as well as all of those who interact with it and know of it. Its image and reputation are maintained by professional and ethical behavior, by excellence of instruction and overall performance, by attractive facilities,

Program Development

273

and, in general, by any kinds of activities that draw positive attention to the program. Thus, all of these qualities should be central areas of focus for monitoring and consequent program development activities. The program leader also needs to monitor the consistency of the program’s on-stage and off-stage existence and to give feedback and facilitate communication that will keep these linked and positive. The offstage presence of the language program, and what goes on behind the scenes, may or may not seem consistent with its externally visible aspects. For example, a program which has a positive reputation externally may have achieved that by a hard-driving, results-oriented program leader who has created a climate of fear and anxiety among the faculty and administrative staff. Or, outstanding performance may have been achieved by outstanding faculty and/or students, in spite of mediocre performance off-stage by the program leadership. However, since they are ecologically linked, over time, the two different aspects of the program will tend to converge, becoming more like either the off-stage or the on-stage presence, or else meeting somewhere in the middle between these two different program faces. When the nature of the program off-stage is negative, it is likely to affect and infect its on-stage presence. For example, negative attitudes by faculty or staff, even if kept hidden for a time, or a lack of ambition and effort on the part of the leadership behind the scenes, will sooner or later show in the performance of the program on-stage. Climate affects work process and is a factor in the degree and type of motivation people have in their work. It can be viewed as ‘‘an intervening variable’’ (Walker, 2003, p. 67) that in a language program interacts with program ‘‘inputs’’ in producing ‘‘outputs.’’ A negative climate is demotivating and so reduces program unity and output as well as the consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of outputs and of the input-output relationship. It is therefore critical for program leaders to monitor climate and to work to maintain a positive climate in all program contexts, from the classroom to the meeting rooms and office spaces.

Harmonizing and Optimizing the Components of the Ecology The leader’s actions of monitoring and feedback in ‘‘conducting’’ and harmonizing the components of the language program ecology have the effect of optimizing their performance. The relationships of the ecology are both delicate and complex trading relationships. This type of relationship is

274

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

key to understanding the concept of an ecology, that all components are codefined. In program development, in order to maintain an ecological balance, no one component can be maximized, as this will disadvantage and thus weaken other components. Thus, for instance, consistency of program processes and outcomes, such as those involving recruitment and orientation, are to be judged and adjusted relative to the criterion of efficiency and effectiveness of those processes in the context of others. Efficiency cannot be maximized at the expense of effectiveness, as when time-saving or moneysaving tends to erode quality. Rather than perfect efficiency in the use of time and money, the ecological balance requires that time and money be spent reasonably or relatively well in relation to all other aspects of the functioning of the ecology. At the level of the whole ecology, the goal for use of time and money is relative effectiveness, as the assessment of effectiveness is relative to other processes and outcomes. An ecology is based on optimizing its components and the system as a whole, that is, making the most successful union of parts. The goal of optimizing performance or sustainability within an ecology is achieved, paradoxically, by ensuring that no one component ever functions to its maximum level or maximum advantage. To take a prime example, for the instructional component to function to its maximum level or advantage, it would be necessary to draw resources away from other program functions such as advisement, recruitment, and administrative support that may be critical to sustaining the health of the program ecology overall. In an ecology, maximization (e.g., of efficiency or consistency) is a target that is aimed for and approached but must never be reached. A healthy ecology is a result not of maximization in any sense, but of continuous tinkering and ‘‘damage control’’ to maintain an equilibrium once achieved, or to approach it ever more closely. Harmonizing the components of the program is thus at least as much about minimizing disadvantage as it is about maximizing advantage. In the best possible case, all of the components of the language program ecology are strong and co-exist in a relationship of mutual advantage, support, and nurturing—a relationship which the leader helps to maintain by intelligent ‘‘corrective’’ actions, new initiatives, and frequent input to and from program members. Such a positive linkage and two-way feeding relationship among individually healthy parts supports their own continued health. At the same time, it guarantees that the whole program will flourish as a direct consequence of the harmonious balance or equilibrium among individual components.

Program Development

275

STARTING A LANGUAGE PROGRAM ‘‘FROM SCRATCH’’ A language program might be created in response to a perceived market or opportunity, beginning with a systematic planning process that starts with analysis and takes into consideration program location and the necessary tangible and intangible resources as reviewed in Chapter Two. Many times, however, establishing a language program does not happen in an orderly, sequential process that starts with analysis leading to a business plan and curriculum design. In some cases, a language program begins with a serendipitous event, such as an exchange project or short-term study abroad course established by a faculty member or department, or the arrival of a group of international students needing language support. One small course may extend to two, and three, and four. The moment will come when such an opportunity, often driven by the specific people or circumstances involved—such as a specific faculty member, student group, or course—will need to become more intentional and institutionalized. This can be seen as the impetus for innovative actions, the point at which planning should become more systematic, in order to create an organized program ecology. In the early stages, there may be a gap between available resources and demonstrated need. When large numbers of international students suddenly appear on campus needing language services, the energy and time of a faculty member or administrator may be strained without adequate compensation, and facilities and other resources may be stretched beyond capacity. It is rare that resources are allocated in advance of growth. The dynamic pull and adjustment between resources and needs will occur throughout the life of a language program as resources are committed conservatively and so tend to lag behind needs, until a point when numbers and needs stabilize or else diminish and downsizing is required. While the task in the entrepreneurial environment of opportunity will be to move the institution to do something new, there are also challenges when the institution is ready to commit to a program and asks a person with related job responsibilities to take on the task. In this case, the institution may be ready to follow the recommendations of the new program leader and even commit some resources in advance of a specific return on investment. In the following case study, an opportunity has arisen at a university in relation to a sudden need. The strategic planning that must be done in this case involves the readiness of the university to recognize its internationalizing agenda and commit sufficient resources to support it.

276

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

CASE STUDY 8.1 STARTING A NEW PROGRAM Dr. Mina Aris is a new assistant professor in the Department of English at Towalt University, a private university in the Midwestern United States with an enrollment of 12,000 undergraduates. With a historical religious affiliation, Towalt has maintained a fairly steady 3–4% international population, mostly drawing from Nigeria and other West African countries. That changed last year when an admissions group went to China for the first time and afterwards admitted 25 Chinese students into the regular undergraduate program of study at Towalt. Dr. Aris is a specialist in comparative literature, focusing on Asian literature. A child of missionaries, she grew up in China and speaks and writes fluent Chinese. She has a Masters degree in Applied Linguistics with a concentration in TEFL and taught English in China for several years before beginning her Doctoral program in Comparative Literature. Her Doctoral thesis was on gender in modern Chinese literature. When the Chinese students began their studies at Towalt, it was only a matter of weeks before faculty complaints about their performance started to emerge. There were language problems in the students’ written assignments and their oral presentations in class. They did not participate effectively in class discussions. There were also cultural issues: the Chinese students did their homework together and were submitting identical answers. They took advantage of every office hour and overwhelmed the faculty with requests for help. The faculty complained to the dean and provost about the underprepared Chinese students. Knowing of Dr. Aris’ expertise and background, the dean sought her as a resource and asked her if she could help with the issues. He noted that she had yet to do substantial service to the department or the college and clearly indicated that this would be recognized as valuable in her annual review. Dr. Aris felt not only the obligation to respond but also an interest in and sympathy for the students and a desire to be of help to them. She was eager to prove useful to the university and felt that with her background she was in a unique position to do so. She met with the students and heard from them about their fear of failure and their sense of desperation for resources to help them. She felt that the first need for the students was support for their writing in the first-year English course. Dr. Aris proposed to the dean that a support course in academic writing be developed for the students and agreed to teach the class for the remainder of the semester in exchange for a reduced load the following term. The dean was able to report to the faculty and to the provost that the problem was solved. Dr. Aris was now the ‘‘go-to’’ person for the Chinese students. She enjoyed the work. She met with the students in the new course and enjoyed discussing the forms of Western rhetoric and issues of intellectual property that were connected to plagiarism. In the spring, Dr. Aris taught the same course within her regular teaching load. The long hours she spent with the students outside of class began to feel like her own mission. By the end of their first year, almost all of the Chinese students had

Program Development learned how to be successful at Towalt, finishing with grade-point averages above 3.2. Only one student transferred out—to a better school. The dean called Dr. Aris to congratulate her: the school recognized her service. There were more international students coming in the fall, and the dean has asked Dr. Aris whether she would continue her work with the international students and their academic writing needs in the following year. Dr. Aris has asked the dean for more time think about the offer. She realizes that she has done little research on her own academic work this year. On the other hand, she has learned more about the attitudes and culture of young Chinese men and women that she believes will be useful for her work on gender in Chinese literature. She also feels motivated by the work she has done with the international students: her course design helped them. She feels gratified both intellectually and personally; yet she is deeply ambivalent about repeating the same experience in the coming year. Dr. Aris is at an important crossroads and needs to do some soul-searching. On the one hand, she has been given an opportunity and generated true good will in the university administration. Not only that, but she experienced both intellectual and personal satisfaction in the work of providing English language coursework and making a significant difference in the Chinese students’ academic achievement. On the other hand, she needs to do research and publish for tenure, and the release time given her does not in reality provide the time needed to do her job well nor adequately compensate her financially for her time. From an ecological perspective, the major issue to be clarified in this case is the institution’s support for and commitment to the resources needed to pursue recruitment of international students who have substantial language and culture needs. In earlier years, the small numbers of students from Nigeria had been educated in English prior to coming to the United States and had few academic issues. The new population from China is different in having a greater need for language and personal support at the institution. The university needs to commit more than ad hoc faculty release time to developing support services for international students. Given that the university is recruiting more international students and from populations with significant English language needs, more conscious attention has to be paid to the issue of accommodating international students’ linguistic and cultural needs. The question to be addressed is how strong a commitment the university is willing to make to international recruitment. The university administration must also address the issue of how international recruitment fits into the institution’s larger mission and commitment to internationalization. On a personal and professional level, Dr. Aris faces two big decisions. The first is whether to continue in this work with the Chinese students. If so, she would need to negotiate for more release time and better support, so that she could also continue with her research and writing towards tenure. This in itself would be a very major decision. Beyond this, Dr. Aris would need to consider the bigger picture, based on the opportunity that has presented itself to her. The second big decision is whether she wants to go farther and establish an academic English language support program at the university. Even beyond this goal, does she want to establish an intensive English program and become part of the university

277

278

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD mission to recruit international students? This opportunity has been given to her, and she might be able to leverage it into an exciting and rewarding career. If she decides not to pursue this opportunity, Dr. Aris might nevertheless assist in setting up such a program and maintain an affiliation with it that allows her to otherwise continue in her career as a ‘‘regular’’ faculty member and scholar. If she does decide to pursue the opportunity offered her, the road ahead will be fraught with difficulties, the most obvious being that proceeding to tenure and starting an English language program do not easily go hand in hand. But opportunity has knocked, and Dr. Aris has the potential to contribute substantially to the international mission of the university. Thus, she has decided to investigate further. Dr. Aris needs to gain the support and protection of her department head and dean to define the new role in relation to her faculty duties, especially her research. A formalized job change including title and salary raise should be considered. Without this institutional support, Dr. Aris should not go forward. If she does pursue leadership of the language program, she will need more education and professional development in leadership, administration, and program development, and the university will have to offer financial support and release time for this. Assuming she decides to take on the challenge of setting up an English language program, the steps Dr. Aris could take include the following:  Carry out a formal needs analysis and contextual analysis within the institution of the language-intensive assignments and expectations within different disciplines;  Develop an international student support network within the institution;  Visit peer institutions to get the benefit of best practices;  Attend AAIEP, UCIEP, and NAFSA professional activities;  Seek out other consortial resources;  Read available print resources on program and curriculum design;  Enlist the dean’s aid in creating a committee to assist in planning and oversight. After taking these steps, Dr. Aris would be in a position to create a language program design and a business plan—both including targets and strategies for achieving these in stages—based on an analysis of the internal and external context in relation to the university’s own plan for internationalization (if it exists), and considering the strengths and weaknesses of this institutional environment and the opportunities and threats from the external environment. Only on this basis, in the context of the institution’s strong support, should Dr. Aris—and the university, whether or not Dr. Aris is involved—proceed to develop a full-fledged English language program linked to an expanded international mission.

This case study shows a not atypical way in which a language program is started in a parent institution and the types of questions and decisionmaking that surround such a start-up. Will the administration help to articulate goals and values and develop a vision for a new language

279

Program Development

program? Will there be a commitment to specific goals, timelines, and measures of accomplishment? Will there be help in assembling the key stakeholders? Will there be sufficient time for implementation, and then support for evaluation and revision in the early years? Will there be sufficient resources for the program leader to travel to conferences or other settings to observe other programs and learn best practices? These questions define some of the relevant decision-areas and types of support that will need to be considered in advance of committing to start-up of a new language program. In most institutions, the start-up phase requires more energy and strategic planning than the maintenance of an existing unit. Those with an entrepreneurial bent who can manage the early stages of establishing a language program can take heart in the long-term prospects of a growth market in international exchange and in the fact that many a wellestablished language program began in a small office in an English or Linguistics department.

DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING PROGRAMS Responding to Opportunities The leaders of established language programs, in response to changing environmental conditions, may frequently be called upon to consider new directions to take advantage of opportunities, as in the following case study. As this case study illustrates, program development often means evaluating a range of possible directions based on different opportunities that present themselves at a certain point in time.

CASE STUDY 8.2 CONSIDER THE OPTIONS The mission of a university-administered English language center located in the northeastern United States was academic language preparation for students attending the university at the undergraduate and graduate levels. In its first ten years, the program grew from 30 students to 60 and then to 90 students per semester with the number of levels of instruction growing from three to five in the intensive program. The intensive program had added full-time faculty and staff positions and was meeting the revenue targets of the institution. In the past year, a

280

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD troubling sense of losing ground began to develop in the program as new competition for students emerged. The local community college began to recruit internationally and students were seeking conditional admission at other institutions. Conditional admission was not an option at this university due to the decision of the Director of Admissions. The program director began to feel pressure to consider new markets for the program. Several opportunities were presented to him over the course of only a few weeks. One was by an agent looking to establish a site for short-term summer camps for Chinese and Korean high school and middle school students. The students would attend the university program for three to four weeks of English language study combined with familiarization tours to nearby college campuses and then go on a sightseeing trip throughout the region with program staff accompanying them as tour guides. While the profit margins for this program were low, the promised numbers were high. The agent spoke about two to three groups of 60–80 students for the next summer. The students’ proficiency was in the range of low to intermediate levels. A second opportunity grew out of a connection with two students from Brazil sponsored by their company and sent to learn English for six months. The company had sent 10–12 students over the past five years and was interested in establishing an ongoing relationship with the English language program because of the students’ positive achievements and because of the good relationship between the program director and the company CEO, whom he had met in Brazil. The company wanted to set up an ESP course in his company’s headquarters in Sao Paolo. Program faculty would teach the course for six months in country every year. Selected students would continue to come to the United States at about the same rate (2–4 per year). As a third opportunity, the program director had received a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a US State Department Grant for an EFL teacher-training program for English teachers from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. The program proposal would be for a 10-week program for EFL teachers and would require collaboration with the university’s School of Education, which has a TESL graduate program whose TAs had observed and sometimes also interned in the intensive English program over the past five years. The director himself taught a graduate course in second-language teaching methods in the School of Education. In today’s environment of growth in international educational exchange, many opportunities cross a program director’s desk. How does the program director decide between the merits of the various opportunities? Should every opportunity be pursued? First is the assessment of the relationship of the opportunity to the overall program mission. The program mission in this case is academic language preparation of students for university study. Which of the opportunities would develop this mission? The short-term ‘‘university familiarization’’ (‘‘fam’’) tour for Chinese and Korean students has some potential in relation to the program’s mission. If the language program could become known as a portal for university connections in the region, this could possibly help to realize the program’s mission while also potentially extending it.

Program Development The second option, setting up an ESP program for a company in Brazil, is not clearly within the mission of the program, although the personal connections of the director and the company CEO is a strength. The investment of time to find faculty for the in-country course is substantial, although it might provide faculty an opportunity for growth. One question the director can ask is whether any other unit within the university has an interest, connection, or larger institutional reason to build connections with this company or country. Can the English language program serve the larger institutional mission in any way? The third opportunity, the RFP for a State Department sponsored grant, is of a different kind from the other two. What kind of reward structure is there for grant-sponsored activity within the university? In general, grant development is seen as a prestigious activity that raises the profile of the grant writer and sponsoring unit. Further, what about the relationships with the School of Education for developing and running the grant? The opportunity provided by this grant may allow the program director to pursue more robust relationships with the School of Education—not just as a service unit for the TAs in the TESL graduate course but as a site of professional activity. Given the activity already begun in this area, the program’s mission may also be defined too narrowly. The program director may wish to explore with his faculty and staff the benefits of becoming more active in EFL teacher training. Is this an area of growth on the horizon? After examining the fit with the mission of the program, an ecological analysis will be useful in deciding which opportunities to pursue. What is the competition? Is the Brazilian CEO negotiating only with this program director or with ten other directors in programs where his staff have studied? How many language programs are being pursued by the ‘‘fam’’ tour organizers, and what is the profit margin they are seeking? How many programs will be funded by the US Department of State and what are the technical requirements for eligibility? In going after any of these three alternatives, the question needs to be asked whether the program’s strengths are sufficient to outcompete competitors. Can effort put towards any of these opportunities serve as a platform for further program development and competitiveness if the deal isn’t clinched? Which of the areas is most under the control of the program director and staff to develop in the future? Which addresses the program’s most pressing needs and will have the earliest and highest likelihood of positive effects? Which will be easiest to implement? Short-term university familiarization programs can be developed to be marketed outside of specific agents. With expertise in academic language and culture and a good location, this initiative might be one to pursue. The implementation timeline could be developed over the next two years, so that intermediate goals in curriculum development, marketing, and enrollment with smaller populations could be developed. Similarly, development of EFL teachertraining programs can also be pursued outside of the grant-funded context in order to develop institutional strengths which position the university to obtain grants in this area in future years. As a next step, the director might map out the plusses and minuses of each course of action and then meet with the program faculty and administrative staff,

281

282

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD or key members of those groups, to obtain their input. This discussion could be followed by a meeting with key advisers or decision-makers outside the department, to explore feasibility and connections to higher-level interests and concerns of the institution. Through such detailed consideration, program development will be based on input from many sources.

This case study gives an idea of the rich environment of opportunity surrounding language programs and the possibilities for innovation, growth, and diversification that exist at a given time. It also suggests the complexity of decision-making and planning in relation to determining whether specific opportunities are consistent with the program’s mission and can strengthen it heading into the future. As in all decision-making, the program leader must keep a focus on the mission while also taking a wide, ecological view of the factors impacting any planned change.

Responding to Changing Conditions Change can sometimes expand an existing ecology, sometimes attack it, and sometimes break in into new parts which realign themselves into a new ecological unity, such as a new course (e.g., a TA-training course) originating in the language program which eventually separates from the language program and moves into a new or already existing unit. Change can increase the diversity of program components by bringing in new program members or types of resources such as new physical facilities; or change can increase the interactions of its components in number or intensity, such as in a major innovation effort. It can also alter the nature of those interactions, such as when new technologies change the type of communication among program members. An ecology needs resources, which are always finite and in the usual case both insufficient and competed for by other organizations or units within the same organization. In the words of Bolman and Deal (2003): The same factors that generate internal politics also create political dynamics within and between ecosystems. Organizations have parochial interests and compete for scarce resources. (p. 229)

In a healthy ecology, when there is new input to the system or surpluses occur in one part, they are rapidly cycled through the ecology to have a positive impact on the other components and maintain balance across parts. Likewise, when deficits occur, they are rapidly compensated for by

Program Development

283

trade-offs that keep the ecology sound though possibly reduced in size or functions. In a less positive case, some part of the ecology suffers an ecological imbalance when another part uses up a larger share of resources than the whole system can support. Such an imbalance can be the result of a change in the environment and so of input to the ecology—for example, a time of plenty in terms of enrollments followed by a shortfall in projected student numbers due to changes in the financescape and ethnoscape affecting the availability and mobility of money and students. An ecological imbalance is sometimes the result of more subtle changes in the nature of the environment, such as the growing strength of the internet in education or of ESP in language education, which require shifts in the way individual parts function or are structured, such as a redesign of the curriculum for ESP. Loss of resources generally means loss or consolidation of functions and structures supported by those resources. For example, a downturn in number of students may cause the program leader’s job to shift from one of monitoring the day-to-day running of the program to one of vigorously promoting the program (e.g., by developing and disseminating literature on the program) and recruiting students (e.g., by developing potential links with recruiting agencies and possibly also traveling in direct recruitment efforts). Conversely, a gain in resources allows an increase in diversity of functions and structures. A rise in enrollments, especially if sustained, may make it necessary to add administrative staff and also to create a new level or levels of administration such as administrative assistant positions. Gains in resources allow the ecology to innovate and expand. All of these positive potentials must be carefully managed, however, as there is always the danger of diversity, innovation, and expansion in good times leading to complexity, inefficiency, and sluggishness or complacency, making it hard to respond quickly and survive in lean times. Change in resources means change in the functions and structure or composition of the ecology. For example, a shift in the type of students means that the structure or composition of the faculty and curriculum needs to change in order to properly meet the needs of the new student groups. It might also mean that additional administrative staff have to be hired to meet the new students’ non-academic needs. Some types of students may require or expect additional services in the way of welcome and transport when they arrive, host family placements, social activities with other students, or academic counseling. A change at the level of individual components of a language program can maintain a positive ecology overall if all of the components—such as

284

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

instruction, immigration services, and program administration in response to a new student group—respond together within the same timeframe. In general, this is most possible if change is planned and gradual, as there is time for components to adjust to changes elsewhere in the ecology. If the overall ecology is maintained, adjustments will be made to re-establish effective interactions among components. When these adjustments represent productive innovations, they will help to re-establish the overall balance of parts and the ecology may again flourish. If change is dramatic, unexpected, and/or rapid, as when the student population suddenly and unexpectedly changes, it creates stress and can break up finely tuned ecological relationships. Rapid or major change is also resource-hungry and so can cause resources to become overstretched. If change is not managed well, the pressure of change in part of the ecology breaks the equilibrium and pulls the program apart. In a less dramatic scenario, an ecology can be maintained for a time, but with some or all parts functioning poorly. In the next case study, the program leadership weighs a number of alternatives in the attempt to increase student numbers in order to address decreased revenues and avoid program cuts.

CASE STUDY 8.3 UNDER PRESSURE Suppose that an English language program is in a sustained period of low enrollments and low staff, with no possibility of increasing staff in the short run. As enrollments have diminished, staff has been reduced to save money, and the program director will not be able to justify an increase in staff without a significant increase in enrollments. The program director is receiving heavy pressure from the dean to increase enrollments by at least 30% over the next 12 months, in order to raise income back to previous levels. The director must decide whether to: (a) increase efforts already being made to recruit students into an existing course of study, such as a six-level intensive English course; (b) develop new strategies for recruiting students into an existing course of study; (c) develop a new course of study such as a specialized ESP course and try to recruit students into that course; or (d) a combination of some or all of alternatives (a)–(c). Since (a) is the most conservative alternative, it will probably already have been tried when enrollments first dropped. Assuming that increased efforts at recruitment, using an approach which might have been successful in the past, have not brought in any new students, the director is likely to consider, next, recruiting students in some new way or in some new location. Since the director in this situation has less than a year to bring about a significant increase in

Program Development

285

enrollment, it might be advisable to send one or more representatives—preferably the highest administrator(s) in the program, or other key members of the administration or faculty—to various locations overseas to directly recruit for the program. Of course, this alternative has to be weighed against the travel costs and the further reduction in on-site staff that it will cause. Alternative (c) seems attractive, considering that one trend in ESL/EFL appears to be towards more specialized ESP courses. If the program has not yet developed any special purposes courses, it would probably be wise to begin to consider this option. Yet with staff reduced, there may be little opportunity to do curriculum development or much else beyond the day-to-day operation of the program without spreading resources too thin. During general recruitment visits, an allusion could perhaps be made to alternative (c) as being in the planning stages for the future. If the leadership finds that alluding to the possibility of new courses heightens interest in the program, then an effort might be made to begin to develop new course areas, possibly at first as new modules within existing courses. While in the meantime the director may find her/himself having to turn to shortterm solutions such as recruiting heavily from one growth market, the longer-term question is how to maintain sustainable growth in light of the strategic goals of the program. When a program is in a sustained period of low enrollments, it is time for the program leader to be more proactive with regard to planning and not wait to receive ultimatums from the dean. Long-range goals might involve exploring options for strategic alliances with other departments and outside partners, which, if they had already been started, might make the program more sustainable in both the short run and the long run. A strategic development plan should be more deliberately developed at an earlier stage with clearer measures of outcomes, so that resources can be allocated more effectively and sustainably and so that market development is an ongoing activity. Being more proactive is a better approach for the program and for the director, whose job has become at risk.

Lean years will come. In particularly hard years, such as in the years following 9/11 and the current period, the waves of political and social events combined to dramatically reduce student enrollment in English language programs in the United States and some other countries. The cardinal rule for dealing with reduced enrollments is that as revenue decreases, expenses should decrease. Conversely, extra revenues are needed to offset any increase in expenses. However, any sudden change—either a major downturn or a large increase in expenses—is likely to be unanticipated and thus cannot be planned and budgeted for in advance. It is therefore almost always difficult to decrease expenses by the same proportion as a significant loss of revenue within the same fiscal year. A necessary expenditure such as a one-time building construction, renovation, or other major repairs or updates to facilities involving infrastructure or technology, even if the result of unforeseen circumstances and even though it may incur a deficit, cannot be put off and will be crucial

286

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

to remaining competitive. Updates, repairs, or additions to physical resources, whether unanticipated or anticipated and planned for, may be important enough to ongoing operations and the future health of the language program that they justify incurring a deficit. In such cases, the program leader needs to plan carefully how to offset the expenses, as in a 5year or 10-year budget plan that may support physical renovation or new acquisitions (e.g., of furniture or equipment) based on offsetting decreases in other expenses and/or planned new sources of revenue. As to unanticipated decreases in revenues, there are fixed personnel and operating expenses that cannot be reduced quickly, and some expenses, such as program marketing, are critical and should potentially be increased when revenue falls. Even personnel lay-offs and closing of positions do not provide immediate financial relief to a program because in most cases there are months of salary that must be paid to an employee upon severance. A contingency plan with sheltered profits should be developed to carry a certain percentage of the program expenses through a fiscal year in which revenue drops precipitously. Ideally, the contingency plan should be developed in advance of an actual emergency situation. The faculty and administrative staff should be involved as much as possible with contingency planning. Although those with positions at risk may feel more anxiety, it is fair to them to give advance notice for their own planning if their jobs are at risk.

Downsizing Even with sheltered profits and belt-tightening in the short run, downsizing a program may be a necessary step to program survival when enrollments shrink and stay down for a year or more. In downsizing the language program, there are a few considerations for the language program leadership. Any contingency downsizing plan should begin by confirming the program’s strategic goals. Reductions in expenses must still protect the mission and values of the program in order to maintain its reputation and potential for growth. The sample downsizing process outlined below suggests ways to reduce personnel expenses by a sequence of actions. Sample Downsizing Process (1) Determine strategic direction of program; (2) Reduce operating expenses least related to program’s future;

Program Development

287

(3) Reduce personnel expenses through: (a) Fewer new hires (i) Combine classes, raise class size, and other temporary strategies; (ii) Assign additional responsibilities to current personnel and shift job responsibilities to focus on the most central roles and pressing needs for program survival and quality. (b) Reducing current staff (i) Start with natural processes of attrition; (ii) Use lay-offs if needed. Operating expenses in every category should be scrutinized for their contribution to the program mission, from copying costs to conference expenses. However, a reduction in expenditures should not jeopardize the very means that a program needs for recovery such as marketing and recruitment expenses or the money needed for investing in new initiatives. Nor should reductions come at a cost to the quality of the instruction and services provided. Personnel expenses can be reduced by hiring fewer adjunct faculty as a result of strategies such as combining classes, eliminating one or more levels of instruction, increasing class size, and canceling courses with low enrollment. It may be possible to avoid new administrative costs by having faculty members take on additional administrative functions, and administrative staff, if qualified, may be asked to do more teaching as part of their full-time load. For reducing personnel expenses, increasing or changing job responsibilities may be a viable option that faculty and administrative staff will agree to, especially if they are involved in decision-making about the options and given certain considerations. One program which was paying for substitute teachers began using the full-time administrative staff with appropriate degrees to substitute as needed, giving time off in exchange. For a program in trouble, faculty may agree to take on additional tasks temporarily for a few extra hours per week, such as student advising or supervising a learning laboratory. In lean times, the program leadership may also need to take on some teaching responsibilities, though the value of doing so must always be weighed against the costs in terms of the best use of the leader’s time. Adjunct faculty are by definition the class of employees whose employment is based on enrollment and so will be the group that the institution will look to first for reductions. In practice, however, adjunct faculty can be key long-term employees of a language program and some of its strongest instructional faculty. Finding a way to keep loyal and high-performing

288

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

long-term adjunct faculty employed can be a challenge for the language program leader facing lean times. In some cases, contacts with other departments can be useful for finding work for adjuncts within the same institution until the language program grows again. In addition to lay-offs or non-renewal of adjunct faculty, personnel expenses can be reduced by processes of natural attrition as people retire, move, or take new jobs. One disadvantage of the natural attrition process is that it takes time, and this may leave a program that is already in trouble with higher personnel expenses than it can manage without doing damage to other resources. Another disadvantage of using natural attrition to downsize is that it may leave certain key program functions uncovered. Finally, lay-offs of permanent staff may be required. For programs housed in a larger institution, the Human Resources (HR) department will have a process and resources for making lay-offs; it is essential that lay-offs of permanent staff occur in the context of HR guidance, to ensure compliance with the law and with institutional regulations. In general, staff lay-offs are carried out in order of seniority. However, the language program leadership must also be guided by what is best for the program. In some cases, it will be necessary to keep an essential staff function performed by a specialist even when that person is a newer hire. The following case study of downsizing highlights a number of the issues involved.

CASE STUDY 8.4 DOWNSIZING PROGRAM POSITIONS Enrollments in an intensive English program have rapidly fallen in the last year, due to an outbreak of a dreaded flu virus in the city where the IEP is located and a sudden drop in the world economy. In addition, a new ESP course in English for Engineering and Science to be managed in connection with the Engineering Department was suddenly closed when the former dean left the university and the interim dean did not support the initiative. The program had recently hired one new full-time assistant director and one new full-time faculty member based on new program initiatives and the prior staffing structure (the director had recently been promoted from assistant director) and new program initiatives. Most of the full-time faculty and staff have a substantial number of years of experience in the program. The program included the following positions, with full-time (FT) or part-time (PT) status, number of years in the position, and other relevant information indicated in parentheses:

289

Program Development Administrative lines FT Director (12 years—New hire in this position) FT Administrative Coordinator (3 years) FT Assistant Director for Academic Programs (6 years) FT Assistant Director for Special Programs (new hire) PT International Student Advisor (2 years; is leaving the area soon)

Faculty lines FT Faculty #1, ESP Specialist (new hire, ‘‘hot shot’’) FT Faculty #2, Generalist (7 years, excellent reviews) FT Faculty #3, Generalist (9 years, mediocre reviews) Adjunct Faculty #1, Generalist (4 years, excellent reviews) Adjunct Faculty #2, Generalist (2 years, excellent reviews)

In downsizing this program, the most vulnerable positions for lay-offs on the basis of seniority alone are the new hires (one in administration and one faculty), and the adjunct faculty member #2 with two years of experience with the program. The HR office will in most cases expect that adjunct faculty #1 will also be sacrificed in the service of saving the full-time positions. However, the lay-off of the two adjunct faculty members, who have an excellent record of performance and offer flexibility in terms of what and how many hours they teach, may not be in the best interests of a program that needs to both cut costs and maintain—or increase—quality. Considering the possible lay-off of the two adjunct faculty leads naturally to a consideration of the true cost of full-time faculty member #3 for the language program. A mediocre teacher who can be ‘‘carried’’ in easier times becomes a liability for the program in downsizing when the excellent adjuncts must be let go. A program must recognize the contribution of its longest serving teachers. At the same time, it is important to address the mediocre reviews of faculty member #3 in the light of its changed circumstances and the contrasting excellence of the other faculty. Thus, the program downsizing is an opportunity to work on career renewal for this faculty member, aiming for a higher level of performance and greater value to the program, such as by gaining new areas of expertise. The language program leader must consider the strategic direction of the program in relation to the new hires as well. Will the emphasis on ESP be a key strategic direction? If so, then the new assistant director in special programs and the new faculty hire in ESP should not necessarily be the first full-time lay-offs if they are essential to building the ESP emphasis of the program. It may be necessary to wait until the new dean of engineering is on board and the opportunities to progress there are reaffirmed or denied. Or if the new ESP faculty member is a true ‘‘hotshot,’’ perhaps that person could take on the curriculum development and other administrative tasks for developing special programs in lieu of the assistant director (or vice versa). Is there anything to be done to protect the long-term adjunct faculty, especially the one with four years of experience and excellent reviews? Much depends on the situation. If this is someone who prefers adjunct work for its flexibility, a discussion with the faculty about key assignments during the downturn will reaffirm their sense of value. Perhaps there might be an opportunity to work on curriculum development for one or two terms as investment in future growth,

290

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD if teaching opportunities are limited. If the teacher has been waiting for a full-time opportunity and needs the work, the time has come for a serious discussion. A fulltime ESP specialist has just been hired. Why wasn’t the adjunct hired? If she or he was not competitive in this area of the curriculum, opportunities for professional growth may be available through new assignments or university coursework that would make that adjunct more valuable in the future and so more employable in the long run. Further, since the international student advisor will be leaving soon, can that position be leveraged into staff restructuring? The assistant director, who has worked in that position for six years, may be interested in learning the work of international student advisor for a promotion or raise in pay. The same is true for the administrative coordinator, who has worked in that position for three years already. In the context of downsizing, the leadership attempts to balance all of these factors by considering what is best for the program overall and the individuals who work in it, and by taking actions to strengthen the connection between the two. If successful, a program will come out of a downsizing process as not just a leaner organization but also a more unified one.

Human resources decisions, while subject to general institutional constraints, must also reflect institutional and program mission and strategic priorities. The language program leader is called upon during this time more than ever to be open in communication within the program and to advocate externally as strongly as possible for the program within the context of its mission and strategic plan. Because the downsizing process can require the leadership, administrative staff, and faculty to take on more responsibilities and to change accustomed ways of doing things, and because downsizing threatens employment and may also increase and change job requirements, it can be a demoralizing process. The following case study illustrates the negative climate and effects that can be created in a context of downsizing and how these might be addressed.

CASE STUDY 8.5 ADDRESSING PROBLEMS OF COMMUNICATION AND MORALE Serious communication and morale issues arose among the staff of a university English language program, many of whom had worked together for more than ten years. In the context of the shrinking enrollments in US international exchange and English language programs in 2003–04, adjunct faculty had been cut to a minimum while full-time faculty had to take on extra administrative assignments, to combine classes offered at different proficiency levels, and to accept no wage

Program Development increases. Meanwhile, the administrative staff was working with reduced numbers and additional workload due to the new regulatory environment brought in by SEVIS. In this program, all job contracts had ‘‘other duties as assigned’’ within their job descriptions. With lowered revenues, the program was under threat of closure by the university, whose administration had little commitment at that time to the mission of internationalization. The director was a new appointment from within the program who had peer relationships with senior faculty and staff. The program was one in which faculty management processes had been in place for many years; the new director had been the faculty academic director for six years before his promotion. Strategic planning processes at the time showed several opportunities for diversified activity, including more grant-funded courses, all of which would take an initial investment of time and money. The alternative was to put these resources into traditional marketing activity. Although the approach towards diversified activity was developed in staff and faculty planning meetings, the staff and faculty were in fact divided about the correctness of this direction. Senior faculty and administrative staff, who had worked through most of their career in a growth industry where increasing enrollments and raises were expected, were not enthusiastic about taking on additional work in their jobs, even knowing that the alternative was job loss. Anger began to grow and circulate through the program centered around the director’s decision-making. Some faculty felt that they should not take on administrative responsibilities and actively advocated against doing so, while others felt there was no choice given the existing circumstances. Some of the administrative staff felt that the faculty were not carrying their fair share of the workload. Morale deteriorated within the program as communication patterns became more disruptive. Small groups of faculty meeting in closed offices spoke negatively of others within the program. Committee meetings about curriculum and testing became opportunities for making disparaging remarks about other issues and even other people. While students were protected from the internal fighting to some extent within individual teachers’ classrooms, the entire program was compromised by the tensions produced by the factionalized faculty and staff, as the ‘‘off-stage’’ negativity threatened ‘‘on-stage’’ matters of image and communication. The director determined that the communication issues, although they may have been the result of low morale, further fed the negative climate of the program. The director was concerned about the effects the negativity was having on program unity as well as the effects it could have on program image and reputation. The director turned to Human Resources unit of the university for help in addressing organizational morale. The director of HR training met with the language program director to discuss specific communication issues, and a multipart organizational training program was developed to be required of all staff. The focus was on communication skills, and the desired output was the creation of a communication standard to which all who worked in the program would agree. A focus on communication was appropriate, in that communication is an overt activity that relates directly to program processes affecting climate and unity, and that can be observed, discussed, and changed—unlike other intangibles such as attitude, which are harder to define and measure.

291

292

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD With the help of the HR trainer, a series of steps were enacted to address communication issues. The first was for the director to speak directly to the faculty and staff about the importance of the issue and his concern regarding the current state of the program in this regard. This first step of openly acknowledging the problem was important. The director acknowledged the problem and stated that he was committed to improving communication in the program. He announced that the first workshop would be training about communication and problemsolving styles, and he asked for input in the way of scenarios exemplifying communication problems. Several scenarios were submitted, which he vetted. The first workshop provided general training on the diversity of communication styles and included some scenarios used as examples. A follow-up workshop focused on the development of a communication standard which addressed the importance of communicating with respect to and about all members of the program, including the students. A wide range of scenarios were solicited for this workshop from people across the spectrum of the program about the very many communication pressures experienced at different moments. For example, a teacher who is followed on the way to class by a student who questions the teacher about a level change is more likely to speak loudly and disparagingly to the student in the hallway than if the student had addressed the teacher privately in her/his office. Learning to tell when and how communication pressures arise is the first step to finding the right way to communicate. Opening up the workshop to a wide-ranging discussion of communication pressures allowed the examples of particular weight (communicating negatively about each other) to be among the mix of scenarios and topics without particular attention drawn to them. Some exaggerated scenarios were made up to illustrate the issues in a humorous way, and this reduced stress and encouraged open discussion. A final workshop practiced positive communication with scenarios and addressed the issue of consequences. With the backing of HR, the director was able to define specific employment consequences of disregard of the communication standard. The communication standard was posted throughout the program and is reviewed on a regular basis with new examples added as needed. The types of issues that arise have moved far beyond the original issues. Ultimately, the workshops brought in a wider set of scenarios from people who were not as immediately involved in the original polarization. Problems that affect morale thrive in a covert environment. In this case, the director sought help from a third party who was experienced in this area, in order to bring the covert issues out in the open where they could be addressed. It is important to note that this kind of workshop does not need to address attitudes per se. People’s attitudes were not necessarily changed, and any of the program personnel could meet outside to continue to complain or disparage others. However, it does set a boundary within the program that as to the kind of behavior that is appropriate in a professional workplace in order to sustain a positive work climate and ‘‘on-stage’’ image, while also potentially improving ‘‘off-stage’’ behavior as well.

293

Program Development

As this case study shows, it is critical for program leaders to monitor communication and visible signs of attitudes and to take steps to keep these from deteriorating into negativity and low morale, especially in times of program change and decreased enrollments and revenues.

PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT A final topic to be addressed in this chapter is the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program leadership in program development. The perspectives provided can be used by the leader her/himself to regularly evaluate performance and may also be useful as viewpoints for a yearly performance review by a dean or other supervisor. The perspectives offered in this section for assessing leader effectiveness are also relevant to the program planning, monitoring, and evaluation.

Product and Process Criteria Effectiveness of the leadership of an organization can be evaluated, in the view of Nahavandi (2006), according to the following criteria of program success: GOAL ACHIEVEMENT (‘‘PRODUCT’’ CRITERIA)  Financial goals  Quality products or services  Needs of customers SMOOTH INTERNAL PROCESSES (‘‘PROCESS’’ CRITERIA)  Group cohesion  Follower satisfaction  Efficient operations EXTERNAL ADAPTABILITY (‘‘COMBINATION’’ CRITERIA)  Ability to change  Successful evolution (adapted from Nahavandi, 2006, p. 6) Nahavandi’s criteria are consistent with our view of the language program ecology and can be applied to language programs as to other types of organizations. However, they do not capture all of the criteria that can be

294

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

applied as measures of success in the evolution and development of a language program. Criteria not mentioned by Nahavandi include the following:  Facilitating improvement or growth of program members and other program resources  Maintaining focus on a mission  Realizing a vision In reviewing this list and that of Nahavandi above, we note that these criteria can serve to evaluate not only the program leadership but also the program as a whole or its individual units. All of the above areas are important and need to be balanced in terms of each other. If goals are achieved at major cost to either or both smooth internal processes or external adaptability, this cannot be viewed as positive. Likewise, smooth internal processes must be harnessed to real-world outcomes in strengthened resources and quality, as well as responsiveness to change and realization of potentials. Finally, a focus on change, while important, cannot be allowed to disturb quantitative and qualitative program goals. A different way of assessing the leader’s performance and program functioning is to look at the components in terms of unity, consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness. Effectiveness implies consistency of processes and results as well efficiency of processes for achieving these, and unity is a good proxy measure for the other criteria (Pennington & Brown, 1991). To these criteria can be added others included in Pennington’s (1998c, p. 188) list as adapted to the evaluation of the program leader: What is the leader’s quality of life in relation to the job? How has she/he affected the quality of life of others in the program? Improvement How has the leader improved her/himself or others in ways relevant to the program, and what improvements has she/he been responsible for implementing in the program itself? Future potential What are the leader’s prospects for future contributions to the program, and how has she/he contributed to developing the future potential of other program members and the program overall? Satisfaction of needs To what extent are the leader’s needs and those of others connected to the program being satisfied? Opportunity cost What is being given up or lost by the leader and others in the program in order to accomplish other goals? Quality of life

295

Program Development

As discussed above, a focus on these criteria individually, without attention to the others, will generally not optimize functioning. Thus, they must all be considered as a group of desirable outcomes and measures of program quality or success. Attention to Scapes Language program ecologies are intimately connected to global conditions, and so the leader should always consider global flows and scapes such as those identified by Appadurai (1996) and our additional one of linguascape, in relation to program evolution. In assessing leadership effectiveness in program development, it is therefore appropriate to ask such questions as:  To what extent are changes in individual scapes reflected in the leader’s decision-making and actions in program development?  Which scapes have been the focus of the most attention in setting, implementing, and evaluating program goals?  What has been the program leader’s rationale for this focus, and does that rationale still apply?  Which aspects of program growth and success are attributable to program development in relation to specific scapes? Asking and answering questions like these ensures that program development is planned, implemented, and evaluated in relation to shifting transnational flows and contexts.

A Frames Perspective In addition to providing a view of the nature of English language teaching as a whole and how it may differ from other educational entities, a frames perspective can provide viewpoints on the performance of the leader and the overall ecology in program development. The business frame is an essential one to pay regular attention to in order to keep tabs on revenues and expenses and to monitor value against expenditures at any given point in time and in the long-range evolution of the program. How well does the program function as a business in terms of bringing in revenues and operating on a balanced budget, and how has this functioning been enhanced in program development? Does the program leader have sufficient knowledge of how to develop the program in order to build up revenues in the form of tuition money, grants, and other types of funding that keep the program on a strong

296

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

financial footing? Does the program leader have good skills in financial planning and management, so that money is wisely spent in program development activities of planning, implementation, and evaluation? Although the program leader must keep an eye on the business frame, the other frames should not be neglected. The instructional frame provides an orientation to the performance and values of the students and the faculty and to the curriculum in both its structure and functioning as a central process holding the entire program together and as an important focus of program development. Is there sufficient innovation in instruction to keep pace with global trends in the linguascape and ethnoscape, and is the program leader encouraging and facilitating adaptation of innovations to program context and individual faculty and student characteristics and needs? What facilitator and innovator roles has the program leader taken in program development related to instruction? Has the program leader provided enough support and incentives for faculty to make necessary changes, contextualize innovations, and develop themselves professionally in the context of program change and development? Attending to the frame of academic discipline emphasizes the articulation of the program with scholarship, research, and publication, and, for university English language programs, potentially with academic departments on campus. Is the program leader fostering quality and high-level achievement in development of the program’s people and its tangible and intangible resources by pursuing scholarship, research, publication, and connections with academic departments and by encouraging and supporting these activities for other program members? Is the program and its leader maintaining or pursuing productive linkages with academic departments for academic advancement? The frame of profession brings in issues of the status of the program leadership, faculty, and administrative staff in relation to benefits, salary, and career structure. What is the program leader’s performance and the record of the program in securing or raising the status of faculty and administrative staff, and in ensuring good employment conditions in its initial and ongoing development? This frame is also one through which to examine the program’s accreditation and articulation with bodies such as NAFSA-AIE, UCIEP, and TESOL. Is the program leader succeeding in making these connections and using them to develop the program, and if so, how? Is the program leader actively pursuing and preparing for accreditation and for program development on that basis? The frame of service offers a view of the program in terms of human values, customer needs, and satisfaction. It also raises issues of giving back

297

Program Development

to the community and to the larger unit and institution in which the language program is housed. Is the leader doing enough in program development to achieve high customer service and satisfaction, even to exceed expectations, as Walker (2003) suggests is necessary for long-term viability? Is the leader seeking opportunities for meaningful and relevant service by program faculty, administrative staff, and students, and offering incentives for service activity? Is the program leader contributing to the various communities connected to the program, including those of its own people, in ways that enhance relationships and local and global connections? In connection with the other frames, it can be asked whether and to what extent the leader’s planning and decision-making responds to change and leads development in relation to local and global program contexts, and how well the program functions in these two contextual frames. Is the program leader’s attention to one or the other of the locational frames taking away needed attention to the other in program development? If so, what potentials are not being developed and what opportunities are being missed? Comparison of Scopes As a final perspective, adapting from Anderson (2008), those in leadership and the programs they lead can be analyzed from four different vantage points, or scopes: Telescopic: Take a historical perspective considering how you as leader became involved in the program, what your first view of it was, what was happening in the world at that time and how the program responded, what was going on then in the organization, what key people affected you and shaped the organization, and how all these have changed over time. (p. 19) Microscopic: Conduct a detailed personal SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis, with input from trusted colleagues. (pp. 20–21) Gyroscope: Articulate a personal mission statement to serve the functions of a gyroscope as compass, stabilizer, and autopilot for steering the program. (pp. 21–22) Kaleidoscope: Make your impact on the program dynamic and ever-changing by strategic planning to envision the influence you desire to have and developing goals and a plan of action for getting there, regularly evaluating and adjusting goals and actions as needed. (pp. 23–24)

The same sorts of perspectives can be adapted to evaluating other people and facets of the program or the program as a whole. In looking at the

298

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

overall program, a telescopic perspective could aid in projecting a longrange vision for the future and deciding areas for needed change.

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER EIGHT The language program leader ‘‘conducts’’ the program by developing its potentials through processes of planning, implementation, and evaluation tied together by higher-level processes of innovation-contextualization and monitoring-feedback. Planning, implementation, and evaluation processes set up the conditions for effective change in which program participants converge on a set of common values and reference points. The focus on innovation and contextualization highlights the large and complex context within which the program exists. The focus on monitoring and feedback highlights the important job of the program leader in maintaining unity, harmony, and the interconnections of program components. Innovation and contextualization together with monitoring and feedback are required to keep the language program ecosystem operating smoothly and evolving in relation to its context and potentials. The program development process is the dynamic linkage of the program’s past and future. We have examined scenarios in which opportunities have arisen to create a program or to expand or contract an already existing program. In responding to these opportunities strategically, the language program leader not only manages the situation at hand, but also develops the potential of the program and its resources with an eye to the future. We have also provided a number of novel orientations to the planning and evaluation of language programs and the assessment of leadership effectiveness based on views of the language program ecology and its context. In the final chapter, we focus especially on the context and the future of language programs, in addition to mapping a research agenda.

CHAPTER NINE LEADING INTO THE FUTURE The future of English as an international language is interconnected with the changing scapes and flows of the global landscape and will lead to new varieties, purposes, norms, and contexts for language use worldwide. Language teaching, learning, and use will change as a result of these trends and the new individualization available through technology. These trends are discussed and a research agenda on language programs and language program leadership within the ecological model is proposed, along with questions for program leaders about the future of language learning and language teaching.

LEADING IN A CHANGING ECOLOGY Language program leadership operates within a rapidly changing, global environment with multiple and diverse sets of expectations and clientele. Language program leadership, like other forms of leadership, is a type of highlevel expertise requiring a substantial set of skills and education. In addition, leadership in language programs demands resources, policies, and activities that can range from program-internal actions such as curriculum development and faculty development to international linkages between institutions. Further, language program leadership operates within a professional environment of standards for international educational exchange. Ideally, the well-managed language program not only is successful in terms of its own functioning as an organizational ecology, but also is able to raise standards and provide advocacy in the area of international educational exchange, thus enhancing the profession as a whole while it enhances its own professional status. Leading a language program is a complex undertaking requiring different types of competence and resources, and involving policies and activities that range from program-internal actions such as faculty development workshops to international linkages between institutions. An effectively managed language program is one that is able to: Manage the internal ecology by  Keeping the daily operation running smoothly;  Maintaining the health of all resources—human, physical, fiscal, and intangible; 299

300

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

 Meeting professional standards as an educational program;  Managing special issues related to international educational exchange. Manage the linkage with the external ecology by  Fulfilling its role within the mission of the larger organization, including revenue generation;  Advocating for its students, for language education, and for the profession of language educators;  Being aware of and continually monitoring the context in which the program functions and responding to change;  Guiding the evolution of the program and all of its members—students, faculty, administrative staff, as well as the leadership itself;  Maintaining continuity and judiciously innovating to solve problems and to take advantage of opportunities. For the language program leader, change is not something to be feared and resisted or avoided, but something to be managed with insight and understanding as the force that promotes adaptation through innovation and contextualization—crucial processes for survival in a changing world. In the years ahead, language program leaders will face relentless competition along with great opportunities. Global exchange will continue to grow, taking new forms and involving unprecedented numbers of people. Facing larger markets, language teaching programs will have the opportunity and the necessity for greater specialization. In order to take advantage of the opportunities available, language program leaders will need a clear understanding of the business aspects of their program, their niche markets, and their ties to larger ‘‘pull’’ markets such as connections to educational institutions or employment training that propel students into language study. Language program leaders must also be willing to innovate. Those who lead language programs will need to be:  Good communicators able to interact with people of diverse backgrounds and interests;  Familiar and comfortable with new technologies;  Alert to new directions and ready to pursue these to the best advantage of the programs and people they lead.

Leading into the Future

301

They will also need to maintain a strong focus on climate and service in all contacts with students and others connected to the program, and to build up their academic ‘‘currency’’ of strong enrollments, high-performing students and faculty, and high-profile activities such as grants work, conferences, research, and publication that build reputation in an academic disciplinary context. The effective language program leader will also keep in mind the unique combination of conceptual and functional frames making up language teaching, and particularly, the teaching of English as a second or foreign language, as both humanistic and pragmatic, maintaining the valuable currency of humanistic values and practices against the practical needs of remaining fiscally sound. The program leader will also need to maintain good relationships in the local context while utilizing the globalized nature of the program to its best advantage. The language program leader of the future must be able to nurture the program ecology to maintain strong internal and external links and to be responsive to trends, and must be able to ‘‘manage for change’’ (Cameron & Green, 2004; Kotter, 1996; Nahavandi, 2006)—and, even further, to lead into change. Managing and leading into change is consistent with an ecological model in which change in any aspect of the program ecology necessarily leads to change elsewhere in the system. And there can be no doubt that change is in the forecast. Thus, the language program leadership must pay attention to global trends, international affairs, and educational affairs, including new developments in media and technology, while also continually monitoring program operations and resources to determine whether they are functioning optimally to realize the program’s mission and desired outcomes.

ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE The next several decades will bring further growth for English as an international language, and all indications are that the trend towards English being the first truly global language is unstoppable. At the same time as English is globalizing, there is an opposite though related trend towards localization of English to meet the needs of specific communities of speakers. This ‘‘localization’’ of English is seen in the massive importation of English words into other languages as well as the

302

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

development of syntactically and semantically mixed language patterns (Pennington, 1998d, 2003). Some examples are the following: Japanese nowy (‘‘modern’’ or ‘‘stylish’’; fr. E. nowþE. -y adj. suffix) hai sensu (‘‘good taste in fashion’’; fr. E. highþsense) beisu appu (‘‘salary rise’’; fr. E. [wage] baseþup) pink calaa jobbu (‘‘pink collar job’’; fr. E. blue collar job) mai homu shugi (‘‘my homism’’: a centering of one’s life on home and family (rather than work); fr. E. my homeþJ. shugi ‘‘philosophy’’) Swahili fit (‘‘good’’; fr. E. fit) life (‘‘a very luxurious kind of life’’; source E. life) praudipraudi (‘‘showing off’’ fr. E. proud [reduplicated]) kuspend (‘‘enjoyment’’; fr. K. ku ‘‘to’’þE. spend [free time]) mambo fresh (‘‘I’m alright’’; fr. S. mambo ‘‘things’’þE. fresh) (adapted from Pennington, 1998d)

These examples suggest the highly creative use that individuals and communities can make of a second language. The availability of two or more languages or codes offers new possibilities for encoding meaning, in the sense of providing two different representational systems, each with its own lexicon and unique cultural content, for conceptualizing ideas and for creating higher syntheses of ideas that build on the two representational systems or that create new merged systems of representation (Pennington, 1996a, pp. 254–255). The resources of more than one language, and more than one variety of a language, also make possible creative social definition of identity and relationship. Thus in many countries around the world, speaking English or varieties of English, alone or in combination with indigenous languages, serves to define social situations and to mark speakers’ relationships and individual status, affiliation, knowledge, and other characteristics. English is becoming decoupled from its historical roots and from Western culture (Wesche, 2004, p. 283) as a consequence of both globalization and localization processes. The trend towards globalization has meant that English has spread throughout the world and become the language of international communication. This trend has also reinforced the use and institutionalization of English in the ‘‘outer circle’’ (Kachru, 1986) countries, where interaction with indigenous languages has also resulted in the development of regional norms and distinctive features (for some examples, see Pennington, 1996a, 1996c, 1998b, 1998d, 1998e, 1998f).

Leading into the Future

303

As the various world varieties of English become increasingly visible and legitimized as languages of use in national and international contexts, these varieties will take their place along with those of inner circle countries as legitimate varieties of English. In the view of Kamwangamalu (2003): The literature indicates that the center of gravity for English, which used to be in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, is now moving elsewhere, as speakers of English as a second/foreign language gradually become the majority . . . . With the emergence of new Englishes in former British and American colonies, English has become pluricentric, that is, Britain and America are but only two of the many centers that create norms and innovations in the language. (p. 65)

McArthur (1998) has described these as, like the Romance languages, an ‘‘English family of languages.’’ Crystal (2002, 2003) describes a range of new varieties of English (‘‘New Englishes’’), with norms of usage that speakers are aware of and with a creative dynamic. As part of this creativity, the New Englishes have developed new grammar, vocabulary, and conventions for communication. Noting all of the new varieties of English, Cheshire (1991) concluded that ‘‘the distinction that has been drawn conventionally between the ‘native speaker’ and the ‘non-native speaker’ is becoming blurred and increasingly difficult to [operationalize]’’ (p. 2). Although a worldwide standard variety of English may be in development (Crystal, 2002, 2003), Jenkins (2006) notes the multiple norms and varieties of English in different countries, which she classifies as both WEs (World Englishes), ‘‘indigenized varieties of English in their local context of use,’’ and ELFs (English as a Lingua Franca), ‘‘English . . . used as a contact language across lingua-cultures whose member are in the main so-called nonnative speakers’’ (p. 157, note 1). As an increasing number of students have extensive exposure to English in their home countries and may be considered speakers of a New English variety, the goals and methods for teaching must change. Jenkins (2006) advocates a pluricentric rather than monocentric approach to the teaching and use of English. This approach . . . would enable each learner’s and speaker’s English to reflect his or her own sociolinguistic reality, rather than that of a usually distant native speaker. (p. 173)

According to such an approach, the teacher needs to ask ‘‘with whom do L2 speakers of English (want to) interact’’ (Jenkins, 2006, p. 173, note 14), in what contexts, and for what purposes? The same questions guide curriculum planning in English language programs, with changing learning targets reflecting changing student needs for English language.

304

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Teaching ELF may represent an emerging opportunity for both native and second-language speakers of English. Moreover, if a simplified variety of English is emerging for some purposes of international communication, as Jenkins (2006) suggests, this raises questions about the type of English students will need. It consequently raises questions about the form of English in materials, the aspects of English to be stressed in the curriculum, and the types of communication skills that should be the focus of instruction. These are all important matters for language program leaders to consider. One can also imagine the day when native speakers of North American, British, or Australian English also need to learn an ELF variety in order to participate on an equal footing with other members of an international conference. The foregoing discussion raises issues of whether language goals for future users of second languages should be modeled on: Monolingual competence Bilingual competence Intercultural competence Multivarietal competence

No use of students’ first language in classes; Make use of students’ first language as a resource in learning and communication; Reference language use to international and lingua franca communication; or Reference local varieties in relation to standard monolingual varieties as well as international varieties.

The question of variety cannot be given one specific answer but depends on the learners’ goals and needs in specific contexts of use. There is also the question of the place of language for academic purposes (LAP) and language for specific purposes (LSP) in the language program curriculum. In our view, a focus on LAP and/or LSP related to students’ specific needs, in combination with language instruction aimed at developing learners’ multivarietal competence for spoken communication, will be increasingly required, and increasingly demanded, for functioning in both local and global contexts. In order to have high utility in this changing world of English language speakers and the changing world in which they are living and will live, English language teaching needs to be highly contextualized and purpose-driven, with the contexts and purposes focused on the learners. By applying Kumaravadivelu’s (1992) three operating principles of particularity, practicality, and possibility, language program curricula can make the learning of English relevant to specific contexts and learner needs

Leading into the Future

305

as they raise learners’ consciousness and control of their learning and use of language for their own ends. Education which brings students’ sociopolitical consciousness and identity into the teaching-learning process (Kumaravadivelu, 2006), and which problematizes and raises to critical awareness the discourses and agendas of the curriculum (Canagarajah, 1999), has the potential to be a transformative pedagogy—one that transforms both the teachers and the students, giving them the power to transform the world.

THE FIELD OF LANGUAGE TEACHING At the same time as English is internationalizing, language learning and teaching are continuing to undergo major paradigm revisions as English language learning and teaching become reconceptualized in every aspect of the field. Canagarajah (2006) discusses the major issues in English language teaching today as ‘‘new controversies, irreconcilable differences, and unresolved questions’’ (p. 11), including the field’s distancing from any traditional notion of ‘‘methods’’ and its reconceptualization of the basic organizing principle of ‘‘four language skills’’ as interrelated rather than distinct. The variety in English language seen in the institutionalization of world varieties and the legitimatization of ELF is also challenging such fundamental notions as ‘‘native’’ and ‘‘non-native’’ speaker. However, while English language teaching as a profession is grappling with questions about language varieties and ways of teaching, it is likely that the large institutions that control access to education and workplace opportunities through testing and other certification processes will for the most part continue to use models which privilege the prestige varieties of a language. It will fall to language program leaders, who work at the intersection of theory and practice, to balance New Englishes curricular offerings and critical pedagogy with students’ needs for standardized test preparation and language use (e.g., in a university context). It is worth pointing out that although these decisions may arise first in the English-teaching field, they are by no means limited to English. All of the major world languages face similar questions about the legitimacy of various varieties. The issues raised by the major varieties of French, for example, as it is spoken in France, Canada, and Africa, are similar to those raised by the varieties of English. Spanish, French, and Portuguese have

306

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

major world varieties, and the differences between the New World and Old World varieties are notable. Varieties of Arabic differ widely, as do the varieties of Chinese, which are classified linguistically as separate languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, Hokkien, etc.) yet are held together by a common written language. Depending on how language varieties are classified, the largest languages in the world—comprising approximately 40% of the world’s population and with more than one hundred million speakers each—are Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, English, Arabic, Portuguese, Bengali, Japanese, German, and Panjabi (ohttp://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-languages-by-numberof-native-speakersW). In addition to having major world varieties, these languages all have significant second-language speaking communities. They also hold significant interest for second-language study. All of these languages have the potential of becoming global transactional languages in the future. Language study is driven by many factors, but perceived market value of the language skill is certainly a major one. With the rise in the economic and political importance of China (Shenkar, 2005), interest in Chinese language programs has also risen rapidly in both the West and the East. China has established ‘‘Confucius Institutes’’ for the teaching of Chinese. These are overseen by Hanban, an agency which administers the Chinese proficiency test ‘‘Hanyu Shuipin Kaoshi.’’ As reported in The Economist, the demand for the institutes is growing explosively throughout Asia (Selling the sage of Qufu, 2006). Interest in Arabic has also grown as its importance as a ‘‘critical’’ and ‘‘strategic’’ language has been emphasized, and funding for Arabic language has increased within the United States (Allen, 2004). However, in general, within the United States, support for foreign language study has traditionally been ambivalent at best. As Edwards (2004) notes, although there may be rhetorical support for foreign language study, it is usually not accompanied by substantial funding in foreign language education initiatives. In other countries, language study is in general more institutionalized at earlier educational levels than in the United States. Increasingly, English language study has been started in the home country at younger and younger ages, now often in elementary school programs. Many of these programs are funded through Ministry of Education initiatives, such as the initiative by the Ministry of Education in Korea, which is currently aggressively seeking English language teachers from the United States and other English-speaking countries for major language initiatives in elementary schools.

Leading into the Future

307

ENDANGERED LANGUAGES As a few languages come to dominate the world in their function as transactional languages, the question arises as to what will happen to the world’s smaller languages. Predictions are that many of them will become extinct. Of the 6,912 living languages cataloged by Ethnologue (Gordon, 2005; ohttp://www.ethnologue.comW), only 342 languages have at least one million speakers each. The remaining 95% of the world’s living languages are spoken by only 6% of its population. Nearly half of the world’s languages are considered endangered because of patterns of language learning and use that make it highly unlikely that the language will persist over the next several generations. The National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Smithsonian Institute have embarked on a multiyear project to document these endangered languages (ohttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04605/nsf04605.htmW).

TECHNOLOGY, GLOBALIZATION, AND EDUCATION Rapid changes in technology, enabling and interacting with other globalizing trends, will continue to transform our world. Language teaching and program leadership that take place in the context of globalization and technological interconnectivity will have new dynamics and challenges, among them the issues and potentialities arising from internet-mediated communication and language learning. According to Crystal (2001): [T]he sheer scale of the present Internet, let alone its future telecosmic incarnations, has convinced me that we are on the brink of the biggest language revolution ever . . . . Whereas, at the moment, face-to-face communication ranks as primary, in any account of the linguistic potentialities of humankind, in the future it may not be so. In a statistical sense, we may one day communicate with each other far more via computer mediation than in direct interaction. The effects on what counts as ‘‘normal’’ language acquisition could be similarly profound. (p. 241)

Besides the internet, globalization has specific effects on language teaching and learning as world languages evolve into new patterns and contexts of use (Block & Cameron, 2002). The role of English as a world language is unprecedented in its spread and influence, leading to new issues and questions about prestige, norms, accuracy, and variety in English language teaching and learning (Crystal, 2002, 2003). These questions are highly

308

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

relevant to matters of curriculum and materials in a language program that seeks to maintain itself as an active ecology responsive to emerging trends and student needs. The role that the internet is playing in the world’s language use may be more benign than many fear. The vision of World Wide Web founders is towards a multilingualism on the internet that is already widely represented. Google’s goal is to provide easily accessible information to any user on earth—in any language. Google searches can be made in 109 languages at the time of this writing (see ohttp://www.google.com/enterprise/gsaW). There may be more than ten times as many languages with some Web presence. In his investigation of website languages, Crystal (2001, p. 219) stopped at 1,000 and estimated that one-fourth of the world’s languages were represented on the World Wide Web. Whether all of these languages will develop a significant and viable Web presence is not known. The greatest growth in the recent past has been in the non-English websites (Crystal, 2001, p. 218). The issue, as Crystal reports from other studies, is not the Web presence of different languages per se, but which languages will be seen as viable enough for commercial investment in advanced technology for translation (Crystal, 2001, p. 221). The evidence today is that cyberspace will be a flourishing, multilingual, highly individualized place in the future. The continuing innovation and lack of standardization of the Web seems to be part of a larger societal trend captured in Appadurai’s notion of shifting scapes and of merging and unstable, ever reblending flows. Pennington (2000) has observed: During our lifetimes, our culture has been shifting, shifting from an age of social and linguistic conformity and prescriptivism, of accepted standards and standardization, and of alignment of behavior according to these standards, by correction and critique of non-standard outputs and forms of behavior. We have been involved in a shift towards less exclusive values and a greater acceptance of diversity and difference, as well as mixtures of different standards or traditions, resulting in hybridized forms. We are now in an era of innovation and experimentation with classical forms and with the emergence of entirely new forms of culture and social standards.

By making possible the connection of people and ideas around the globe, the Web has encouraged cross-fertilization and blending of influences in the creation of human knowledge, works, and products on a scale never before imagined. It has also encouraged the spread of English and resources for learning and teaching English at an ever-quickening pace. In the view of McConaghy and Snyder (2000), ‘‘Perhaps, in the final analysis, the possibilities for engaging the local in the global through the Web represent the new medium’s greatest potential’’ (p. 89).

Leading into the Future

309

LANGUAGE TEACHING AND TECHNOLOGY The global market for English is strong, and this combines with the increasing internationalization of communication and learning via technology. As observed by Currie and Vidovich (2009): A global market for university education and knowledge exists, and has increasingly been filled by virtual universities, for-profit organizations that teach by e-technology, and off-campus teaching by many universities seeking additional revenue from trans-national and distance teaching. (p. 445)

These markets for global English, communication and learning via technology, and transnational and distance learning are combining in the growing export-import of English language teaching through online and distance education, a trend which is taking place in the context of a growing presence of English teachers in the countries of the globe, the reimportation of English-educated scholars back to their home countries, and the increasing sophistication in use of technology and level of knowledge of English by university-educated and middle-class people. This confluence of factors widens the opportunities for exporting and globalizing instruction. As with other forms of education, language teaching and learning is being transformed with new technology, from the purposes and tasks for language learning to its forms of input and contexts for practice (see Crystal, 2001; Kern, 2006; Warschauer & Healey, 1998). Streaming audio and video, cell phones and iPods, and other kinds of individual input devices all allow the delivery of content including language study to individual students throughout the world. Students will increasingly be able to take advantage of language programs without leaving home. In Japan, for example, one type of study abroad program is called ‘‘cell phone study abroad’’ and consists of downloaded foreign language and culture material into a student’s cell phone (Grabosky & Creamer, 2005). An emerging trend is the use of collaborative learning via long-distance groups, an activity termed ‘‘telecollaboration’’ (Kern, 2006). Student groups will be able to make use of technology to participate in collaborative work via chatrooms, wikis, email pen pal exchange programs, and other sorts of interactive online ventures that are increasingly ‘‘full media’’ in the sense of incorporating all kinds of communication technologies. Automatic translation and speech recognition programs will become increasingly sophisticated, and may soon be able to deliver individualized and on-demand translation. As this technology becomes more viable, applied linguists and speakers of languages throughout the world will seek to create

310

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

the necessary databases so that their home-country language can be translated into and out of other languages. There are both practical and theoretical limits on this, and only some language translations will be commercially viable—at least at first. The experience of the World Wide Web has been the increasing viability of niche markets so that the future is likely to bring the opportunity of translating between any two languages on earth. The technologies impacting language learning, both directly (as designed into or functioning as infrastructure supporting instruction) and indirectly (as a major part of the educational and global context within which students and teachers live and communicate) represent a considerable learning curve, especially for language teachers but also for program leaders and in some cases for students as well. Because the dynamics of interaction (and feedback-uptake relationship) in online environments differ from those in face-to-face interaction, teachers must be prepared for new ways of structuring tasks, establishing exchanges, guiding and monitoring interaction, and evaluating performance, not to mention mastering the relevant computer applications . . . . Educators using online environments to foster cross-cultural communication also need to consider how the different groups involved relate to the electronic medium as a cultural tool of communication . . . . (Kern, 2006, pp. 200–201)

INDIVIDUALIZATION OF LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION: LANGUAGE FOR INDIVIDUAL PURPOSES (LIP) Thomas Friedman (2006) writes in The World is Flat that the infrastructure of the World Wide Web and individual access to both downloading and uploading of information is leading to a ‘‘third wave’’ of globalization: the globalization of the individual. As wireless connectivity spreads throughout the world, individuals will be able to connect to internet resources in any place and at any time. Friedman (2006, p. 188) refers to this as the ‘‘mobile me’’ revolution. Increasingly, also, learning is not only delivered via the internet but is individualized. As Friedman (2006) writes, one of the greatest ‘‘flattening’’ trends is what he refers to as ‘‘in-forming’’—the individual’s ‘‘personal analog to uploading, outsourcing, insourcing, supply-chaining, and offshoring’’ (p. 179)—that is, the ability to personalize one’s own information chain through massively powerful tools such as Google. This individualization will allow, and soon demand, new, individualized language instruction for individualized language encounters. Imagine this

Leading into the Future

311

scenario: You are in a market in Indonesia wanting to buy fruits and vegetables. You connect to the internet via your iPod, and speak into it the words and phrases you want to know in Indonesian. You see them and hear them and are able to complete your transaction, noting any adjustments you had to make to be understood. You then save these words to your own personal inventory of words and phrases for practice later tonight. The capability for on-demand, individualized language instruction is being prepared in online dictionaries and only awaits good natural language processing software for the next stage of the language technology revolution. Natural language processing technology will support language learning for specific purposes through an individualized rather than a group format. The learner will have the opportunity to organize language learning for her or his own specific individual purpose rather than submitting to a standardized course. A program in language for individual purposes (LIP) will allow differentiation by dialect, register, genre, and context in ways that we have been unable to capture to date with pre-packaged course and curriculum materials. The good news is that, unlike in other eras, use of new technology will not require dedicated facilities or spaces. The new language learning technology is the technology associated with every other enterprise of education, commerce, and entertainment. That is not to say that the newest, cheapest, fastest, equipment will not always be attractive and provide a competitive advantage. It will. If the current trend continues, however, it will be the language program faculty and the leadership who will need training and new equipment rather than the students—at least for those students in the ‘‘connected’’ world—the ‘‘have’s’’ in Warschauer and Healey’s (1998) conceptualization. But language programs will not need to invest in separate laboratories and equipment. The new language lab will be anywhere the student can connect to existing Web resources.

LANGUAGE PROGRAMS There are more programs worldwide offering language study in more languages than ever before, as one can see by browsing the Institute of International Education (IIE) website showing a list of language programs worldwide (ohttp://www.iiepassport.org/W). As of this writing, more than one hundred languages are listed for study, most with multiple program sites where the language can be learned. It is a diverse and interesting list, from ‘‘Aboriginal languages’’ to ‘‘Zulu.’’

312

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

The future may lead to closer links between programs for the teaching of English and those for the teaching of other languages through professional associations as well as movements such as the European Language Portfolio for the documentation of language proficiency, a project of the Council of Europe (ohttp://www.coe.int/t/dg4/portfolio/Default.asp?L ¼ E&M ¼ / main_pages/welcome.htmlW). Although studies of English have dominated most of the language learning literature to date, there are increasing numbers of non-English based studies. The Modern Language Journal, which maintains a primary focus on publishing studies of language learning other than English, notes an increased number of submissions yearly, with authors from seventeen different countries in the three years 2003–2006 and an expanded international scope in various commentary sections (Magnan, 2006). With digital access, it is likely that this trend will continue; circulation of Modern Language Journal as a representative indicator of interest in foreign language teaching theory and methods is much wider than print circulation numbers indicate (Magnan, 2006, p. 5). The rapid growth of programs in the Study Abroad sector in all levels of education has resulted in a vast new industry of international exchange. Programs involving overseas exchange will become increasingly managed for risk reduction and quality assurance, especially in response to the increased numbers of younger learners in international exchange (Dessoff, 2006). The drive towards accreditation will lead more international English language programs to seek accreditation, through U.S.-based accrediting agencies such as the Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA). In May, 2006, the Foundation English Program at the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) became the first non-U.S. program to be accredited by CEA (ohttp://www.cea-accredit.org/ news/may2006.htmlW).

THE PROFESSION OF LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP Many of today’s language program leaders have come into their jobs from teaching, sometimes coupled with overseas experience, and have learned language program management and other leadership functions on the job. Increasingly, however, language program leadership will require specific training in management and administration, including human resource management, financial management, and marketing management. New degrees such as Higher Education Administration and Leadership in Higher

Leading into the Future

313

Education are starting to appear, as are courses such as the Monterey Institute’s Graduate School of Language and Educational Linguistics Certificate in Language Program Management (ohttp://language.miis.edu/ tdc/lpa.htmlW) or Macquarie University’s Master’s of Applied Linguistics in Language Program Management (ohttp://www.international.mq.edu.au/ study/areas_coursedetails.aspx?cse ¼ 83&mi ¼ 211W). These programs are aimed at the language teaching specialist who wants to gain administrative, business, and management education for language program leadership. As leaders and professionals, language program leaders are inevitably involved in the politics and development of the field of English language teaching. Like other professionals in ELT, they are ‘‘either part of the problem or part of the solution.’’ Pennington (1992d) offers suggestions for improving the status and gaining better recognition for language teaching work in terms of four principal lines of action: Qualifications

Career structure

Accountability

Power base

Insist on specific language teaching qualifications at Doctoral level to bolster the required Masters level qualification for teaching English, ‘‘or else settle for being second-class citizens in a society of PhDs’’ (p. 15). Continually develop skills and teaching techniques through initial and advanced stages of teaching, including teacher supervision, while also advancing the knowledge base of language learning and teaching through research and publication. ‘‘Improve the accountability and status of the profession at a local, program-specific level’’ as well as ‘‘of the profession as a whole for outcomes in the classroom (p. 17). Develop a ‘‘theoretical power base of knowledge, a practical power base of skills that we can apply to the needs of society and to the needs of the institutions in which we are housed, and a physical power base’’ (p. 17). The power base will incorporate resources that can be used ‘‘in the creation of information, through social and political action, through research, and through publishing, that is guiding the advance of knowledge and, at the same time, educational and social policy’’ (p. 18).

It remains to be seen whether language programs and their leaders will adapt well and whether they will gain power and prestige, especially

314

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

traditional academic prestige, in the years ahead, as globalization continues apace and as institutions reflect this in high-priority strategic initiatives involving international education and joint ventures with overseas partners.

LEADING FOR CHANGE As there have been in the past, there are likely to be in the future political events which will have a major impact on international educational exchange, in the way that the events of 9/11 subsequently affected international study in the United States and especially English language programs. The current worldwide economic instability and concurrent economic realignments and shifting financescape are one such factor likely to have major impacts on educational exchange. There may be other events of natural disaster or disease which affect major population centers and impact commercial and educational activity in certain parts of the world or, or given the increasing interconnections of people and events in distant places, worldwide. These events cannot be predicted at the present time, but it is almost a certainty that in a highly connected, globalized world, some such event will occur and have impacts far beyond one country or region. As we have stressed, there will continue to be a need for language program leaders to manage for change.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERS Based on the foregoing discussion, within the context of the earlier chapters, we make the following recommendations for language program leaders:  Evaluate relevant aspects of the internal and external environment frequently in order to make necessary changes.  Engage in quality assurance processes such as accreditation.  Join professional networks and consortial groups.  Advance language teaching and learning through increased research and access. Evaluate Frequently for Regular Adjustment In the future, it will be critical for language program leaders to plan regular opportunities to evaluate relevant aspects of the internal and external

Leading into the Future

315

environment frequently in order to make necessary changes, both minor adjustments and major innovations. The program leader needs to monitor the ecological balances and trading relations in the program’s tangible human, physical, and fiscal resources, pulling back or downsizing when circumstances require it but at the same time being careful to maintain the health of the tangibles in relation to the health of the intangibles of relationship, values, innovation, curriculum, future potential, and program identity—both the program’s sense of itself, its internal identity as represented in the vision and mission guiding its members, and its external identity as represented in its image and reputation with others. The program leader must be constantly attuned to the external culture, including the attention paid to local and global conditions and constraints, and to changing configurations of the ethnoscape, financescape, technoscape, mediascape, ideoscape, and linguascape, and how these are impacting the program’s resources. The leader also needs to regularly monitor the program’s instructional orientation in relation to its disciplinary, professional, service, and business orientations to ensure that instruction remains the heart of the enterprise and that the other functional frames of the program support quality instruction. The leader moreover needs to continually conceptualize and problematize all aspects of the program ecology, both its internal culture and the external culture with which it interacts. Most importantly, the language program leader must continually work to maintain both the diversity and the unity that ensures ongoing success in terms of a productive balance of stability and responsiveness to meet what lies around the corner. In a time of rapid external change due to market forces and technology, an imbalance or weak point in the ecology is likely to appear in the human resources sector. The skills and training of the human resources of an organization become quickly dated, particularly as regards technology. The language program leadership will need to build in regular and frequent opportunities for faculty to learn new skills. This will be essential for faculty to maintain viability as skilled employees. Faculty development should build on the areas of faculty expertise, that is, their knowledge of language teaching and learning processes, to devise exercises and activities that take advantage of new methods and technologies. Staying abreast of new developments in communication technology also means staying in touch with the technology and communication systems of the students. In addition, the curriculum may get dated quickly as purposes and means of language learning also rapidly change. A curriculum may also lose its relevancy when student groups or the needs of existing student groups

316

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

change in response to external (local or global) conditions. Language program leaders must find ways to assess client needs on a regular basis through proactive methods, and they must also plan time for curriculum renewal. Curriculum seen as a process in which faculty come together to share ideas and continually assess and improve the teaching-learning process in relation to student needs and changing conditions builds and sustains program unity and many of the program intangibles, as it also promotes efficiency and effectiveness of instruction and unity in the curriculum itself, in the sense of maintaining a close connection between student goals and needs, learning targets and materials, and teaching methods.

Engage in Quality Assurance Processes Language program leaders should plan to engage in quality assurance processes such as accreditation. The appendix details the wide variety of accreditation and other quality assurance organizations already in existence for language programs throughout the world. Going through the process of quality assurance is important for the language program’s reputation and ability to join high-quality peer networks; in addition, the process of selfstudy creates an opportunity to evaluate aspects of the program ecology and make adjustments.

Join Professional Networks and Consortial Groups In addition, language program leaders should plan to join professional networks and consortial groups. As the field of language program leadership professionalizes, there will be an increased role for the professional associations for networking, advocacy, knowledge, and standards for practice. Professional associations such as NAFSA, TESOL, and ACTFL are already in the process of globalizing, and this trend will only continue, with international conferences, publications, standards, and communication networks. These networks will help language programs and their leaders to survive and thrive, by sharing information about program-internal and global affairs, raising standards, and setting benchmarks for good practice. Associated networks of business professionals will arise through these associations to assist the language program leader with specific tasks such as marketing, recruiting fairs, agent workshops, and other networking settings. In this way, the leader who maintains contact with outside agencies and

Leading into the Future

317

other professionals gains valuable information and skills for managing the program ecology. Consortial relationships can result in win/win outcomes for all members, even in competitive business contexts. Member programs have learned to manage competition through collaboration and to create positive opportunities that a single program cannot create—in a sense creating a stronger ecology through greater diversity, linkage, and unity. For example, governmental or state resources often prefer to work with consortial groups rather than individual institutions to avoid the perception of favoritism. It is also a quality-of-life issue to have colleagues with whom to share the ups and downs of the language program leader’s world.

Advance Language Teaching and Learning Finally, language program leaders should aim to advance language teaching and learning through a focus on program-based research that connects to scholarship in language learning, teaching, and leadership. A further aspect of advancing the field involves issues of access. The gap between the ‘‘connected’’ and the ‘‘unconnected’’ world will increasingly differentiate access to the world’s information, education, entertainment, jobs, health care, social networks, and every other resource. For language study geared towards speakers in the unconnected world, much effort may be spent simply trying to gain access to the technology and resources of the connected world, including access to study abroad programs that require language skills, access to internet technology in translation, and access to meaningful connections to other people and cultures. Language program leaders may be able to help make these connections, to the benefit of all concerned.

RESEARCHING LANGUAGE PROGRAMS The comparative uniqueness of both the nature and the structural position of language programs within the educational establishment might be the reason that scant attention has been paid to investigating the language program either as an administrative unit or as the situated context of language teaching. However, for those of us in language teaching who are interested in the functioning of these units and in other applied concerns such as the education and development of students and teachers to be future program leaders, we ignore such investigation at our peril.

318

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Indeed, practitioners and researchers in every language teaching field should take an interest in the complex ecologies within which their practices are situated. Many aspects of the ecological model provide orientations for research on language programs, such as investigations of the degree of continuity and change across different programs or facets of one program over time, or of the impact of changes in one or more of the global scapes on different programs or facets of one program. Case studies of program change, and unity and disunity, could also draw profitably on the ecological model to gain insights and perspectives that would develop our knowledge of how language programs operate, and how they succeed and fail. It would also be of value for the field of English language teaching to investigate the development of specific programs in relation to the frames of instruction, academic discipline, profession, service, and business, to show how these have shifted in emphasis and been developed over time, or to compare different programs in these terms. Gebhard (2005) has written about the ‘‘hybrid discourses’’ that have occurred in education as a result of other influences (other ‘‘discourses’’). The language program ‘‘industry,’’ particularly within IEPs, has prided itself on its ‘‘customer-service orientation’’ (see e.g., Walker, 2003), which is a business discourse interjected into the educational setting. Some questions that can be researched are the following:  What is the relative priority of each of the frames within individual programs, and how is their relative priority connected to the structural locations of programs?  What connections exist between language programs and the larger academic discipline and profession, how are these maintained, and how do they affect the evolution of the programs?  How has a business orientation affected the practices of language programs?  How do the framings and practices of a self-funded or for-profit program differ from those of a for-credit modern languages department? Something which is almost entirely lacking in the literature on language programs is time-depth. Of great interest would be studies of how language programs evolve and change. Some research questions within this orientation are the following:  What local and global factors have spurred innovation in language programs?

Leading into the Future

319

 How have world events and the different global scapes affected the priority placed on business, service, and instruction over time in language programs?  Are there cycles in the history of language programs that can be described in relation to a changing emphasis placed on certain frames or facets of the language program ecology?  Are there general tendencies in how language programs evolve—for example, in relation to global and local factors, educational and business frames, or the components of our ecological model? Do programs tend to become more entrenched in the local context or more independent over time? Do they tend to downgrade or upgrade the priority of the frame of academic discipline over time? Do intangibles such as curriculum and reputation have the same priority in new and mature programs?  What methods of research can best reveal changes of emphasis in language programs and, in general, answer questions such as those posed here? A community-of-practice orientation (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) offers opportunities for studying the language program ecology and its culture. Viewing an organization as a community of practice makes visible the development of cultural norms, socialization, interactional competence, specific practices, and other aspects of the development and maintenance of an organizational culture. Behavior in organizations, the creation of work identities, the way access to resources is governed, the way practices promote or marginalize certain people, ideas, and behaviors—all are areas of research for organizational ecologies generally, and language programs in particular. Of particular interest with respect to language programs are (a) the nature of the language program within the larger academic culture and (b) the role of diverse populations within student bodies as well as in faculties. Investigating the ways in which language programs as communities of practice negotiate and create the different identities and roles of its people, in their academic and business aspects and in local and global contexts, would provide insights for the future of language program leadership and for the field of language teaching. Of further interest is the question of how the practices of a language program intersect with the practices of other parts of the institutions within which they are housed and the extent to which practices in those different parts influence each other. An important area of investigation is the ways in which language programs as communities of practice learn to communicate and work effectively with international populations and cultural diversity within an

320

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

organization. How is this specific capacity which language programs must demonstrate to survive accomplished? The answer to this question has a larger interest—in education, business, and international migration and exchange, for instance—in helping to demonstrate how the practices of effective diverse communities are achieved and how they support and enact intercultural communication and international collaboration. These are timely concerns that remain to be researched.

RESEARCHING LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP As in the case of language programs in general, there are many areas for research and many researchable questions which have not yet been asked about language program leadership. Some of these have been raised at the end of Chapter Six, as ways that current or aspiring leaders might seek to understand and theorize their own practice. The proposals for investigating leadership introduced there are further developed here in relation to our ecological model and the discussion of this book as issues and topics for a language program leadership research agenda.

Leadership within the Ecological Model An ecological perspective on the language program and its leadership provides research directions for investigating the management of intersecting components and relationships in continual interaction and evolution. Some relevant questions are the following:  What are the day-to-day activities of language program leaders that promote interaction, unity, and harmony?  How are disunity and disharmony handled?  How have leaders in specific language programs balanced program continuity and change?  What are the different aspects of leadership competence as defined by the multiple roles and functions of the leader in the various frames?  How does the language program leader relate the program and its values and practices to the wider frames of values and practices of the larger organization, the academic discipline, and the profession of language teaching?

321

Leading into the Future

Other relevant questions involve the implications of the model in terms of its application to the decision-making environment:  How do or can the various frames of practice influence decision-making within the organization?  How do leaders monitor their programs and the larger environment in order to obtain the information they need for making decisions?  How do leaders determine and manage resource allocation among competing units of a program?  To what extent is decision-making short-term and responsive to immediate concerns versus long-range and strategic? Such research would examine the leader’s short-range and long-range decision-making processes, including strategic planning, in terms of the principles of the ecological model.

Leadership and Change At the intersection of both internal and external flows and scapes, the language program is a unique setting to examine leadership in the context of global and organizational change. This kind of research can be situated within the new international mobility paradigms such as that of Appadurai (1996) as well as our ecological model. Language programs can serve as a model of especially complex and responsive educational and organizational ecologies, offering lessons for leadership in other educational and organizational contexts. Such research would help to raise awareness of the important work done and the expertise contained in language programs, and so could improve their status within academia.

Leadership in Intercultural Organizations A central feature of the 21st century organization is its diverse, intercultural makeup. Language programs are in the vanguard of organizations with intercultural awareness, experience, and expertise. The language program is therefore a suitable research context for examining the leadership of intercultural groups in order to derive recommendations and provide direction for fostering and managing educational and organizational diversity. Such investigation might enrich models of leadership and organizational theory as it also raises the profile of language programs.

322

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Leadership Socialization A community of practice model (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) can be used to investigate language program leaders’ socialization into organizational roles, looking at the different kinds of work performed and the knowledge and skills needed for performing them. Language program leaders can provide information—either directly, through interviews or written reflections and questionnaires, or indirectly, through on-the-job observation—on the kinds of job socialization they experienced as they became language program leaders. Such research is valuable for understanding the nature of language program leadership, the areas of practice involved, the types of competence required, and the ways in which these are learned, and can provide guidance in creating graduate coursework and professional development for language program leaders. Research on leadership socialization and growth over time may best be carried out through phenomenological approaches that take the individual program leader’s lived experience as the starting point for understanding meaning. Relevant questions are:  Which aspects of the language program ecology and community of practice have been most welcoming, and which aspects have been most difficult to manage?  What is the communicative profile of the job? Who are the people the leader communicates with most regularly, what are the main topics, and what kinds of communication have been required for different aspects of the job?  What kinds of challenges have been encountered in balancing different ecological needs, and how were they handled?  What experiences of comfort or discomfort have been felt in managing everyday leadership tasks as well as periodic ones such as accreditation review, downsizing, or major innovation efforts?  Which leader roles have been most compatible or comfortable, and which have been hardest to learn?  What failures of leadership were experienced, which aspects of the program were most affected, and how did the leader minimize or repair damage?  What specific people and experiences provided mentoring and perspective for leadership?  What are the different ways in which the leader has learned and continued to develop leadership effectiveness?

Leading into the Future

323

QUESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING In addition to specific research questions about language programs and language program leadership, many other questions and issues surround the context of language learning and teaching in relation to current and future trends. In this final section, we address a number of the questions and issues surrounding language learning and teaching and their implications for language programs and their leadership. The range and variety of these questions and issues is an indication of the potentials for program development and research in new contexts of language learning and teaching. A consideration of these topics helps to plot a course for the future and offers language program leaders ideas about to where to focus their attention and efforts to gain the best possible advantage for the programs they lead. The review of trends in language learning and teaching that concludes this final chapter can therefore be seen as highlighting opportunities for language teaching and language program leadership at the edge of change. Globalization and Localization of Language As English internationalizes and becomes decoupled from specific national cultures, questions about the new norms of international English speech communities and English as an international (lingua franca) language will emerge (Jenkins, 2000). Language program leaders will be at the forefront of actually choosing which language variety to teach for which purposes and who to hire to teach it. It is in such decisions that the values of language teaching are enacted (Johnston, 2003). As English and other world languages such as Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic globalize, new questions will arise about the ways that languages localize—not only into specific speech communities but also into highly individualized competencies, as individuals choose highly differentiated language communities to join or connect to. We have much still to learn. Crystal (2003, p. xi) notes that we as yet lack a sufficient typology of the range of both actual and virtual language contact situations in globalized communication. Academic and Professional Proficiency The nature of academic and professional language proficiency is changing in relation to changing norms and contexts of use worldwide. What are the

324

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

new standards of usage and how can students be aided to achieve these norms? How long does it take to develop these proficiencies beyond conversational competence, and what are the features of their use? The answers to these questions will have immediate application to instructional programs aimed at the development of academic English language proficiency for university study. They will also have immediate application to the burgeoning industry of language proficiency testing and certification. Language Learning and Language Diversity In the face of continuing migration and diaspora of poorer populations, in addition to the continuing mobility of professionals and students seeking the best educational opportunities, large questions remain about providing access to the standardized and specialized languages of schooling and job opportunity. At the same time, how are immigrant languages to be maintained as a national resource? How can language program leaders contribute to informed debate about the value of a second language? How can language programs use their resources to help promote second-language learning among monolingual populations? All of these and many other issues will be ripe for both innovation and investigation in language teaching and program development in the coming years. Motivation in Language Learning Traditionally, the research on motivation for language learning has promoted the integrative or intrinsic, affective factors as more powerful than instrumental factors in driving acquisition. Does this motivational dichotomy still apply in today’s interlingual, intercultural world? And what is the relevance of integrative motivation in a global context? Further questions involve types of motivation in online learning and communication. Language Learning and Technology The organization of the future is an online community connected across national boundaries. The language program can be a place to study such communities and the role of leadership in promoting effective virtual organizations. As opportunities for English language teaching and learning through online (virtual) communities expand, language program leaders will

Leading into the Future

325

need to consider how language teaching and learning can be most effective in online settings. What is the nature of the virtual classroom in terms of the social interactions and relationships developed in traditional classrooms? How can English be used effectively both as a language of administration and the object of learning in a virtual language learning setting? With natural language processing providing the possibility of automatic translation through voice recognition technology, research areas will be many and fertile as applied linguists examine the ways people use language, the ways they avail themselves of translation technology, and the ways they pursue language learning for their own purposes. As technology begins to allow more routine automatic translation, the reasons for undertaking language study will be more idiosyncratic and personal than transactional, at least among those who can afford the translation devices. What value will remain in the traditional activities and tasks of language learning? What will be left out in automatic translation, such as culture? Whatever it will be is something that the enterprising language program leader can be looking forward to, at the edge of the future.

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO CHAPTER NINE In the final analysis, the next few decades will be exciting and important ones for applied linguists and specialists in second-language acquisition, for language teachers and language teacher educators, and for language program leaders and other academic leaders involved in language teaching and international exchange. We have said that language programs are constantly evolving themselves. With an understanding of the processes of change and the interconnectedness of the ecology of the language program, the program leadership can shape that evolution into principled and professional language education that benefits all those who undertake to study, teach, or use a second language. In so doing, language program leaders can have an influence far beyond their own programs, impacting the scapes and flows affecting language, education, and the exchange of people, goods and services, and knowledge and ideas around the globe.

REFERENCES Allen, R. (2004). Perspectives on Arabic teaching and learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 275–278. Anderson, N. J. (2008). The four scopes of effective leadership development. In C. Coombe, M. L. McCloskey, L. Stephenson, & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Leadership in English language teaching and learning (pp. 17–26). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Bakhtin, M. (1935/1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bateson, G. (1955/1973). Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Paladin. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48. Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2002). Globalization and language teaching. New York: Routledge. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Cited in Sharkey (2004). Brooks, M. (2002). Credit course? It’s time. In N. Dimmitt & M. Dantas-Whitney (Eds.), Intensive English programs in postsecondary settings (pp. 109–122). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Brown, J. D. (1989). Language program evaluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 222–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. D., & Pennington, M. C. (1991). Developing effective evaluation systems for language programs. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Building better English language programs (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: NAFSA – Association of International Educators. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. Byrnes, H. (2006). Perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 90, 244–246. Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2004). Making sense of change management. Sterling, VA: Kogan Page Ltd. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 9–34. Cheshire, J. (1991). English around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

327

328

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Christison, M. A. (1997). The L2 student advocate. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 143–159). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Christison, M. A., & Stoller, F. (Eds.). (1997). Preface. In A handbook for language program administrators (pp. vii–ix). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center Publishers. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins. Connor, R. J. (1991). Rhetoric in the modern university: The creation of an underclass. In R. Bullock & J. Trimbur (Eds.), The politics of writing instruction: Postsecondary (pp. 55–84). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann. Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (1993). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2002). The English language: A guided tour of the language (2nd ed.). London: Penguin. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, l32–l49. Currie, J., & Vidovich, L. (2009). The changing nature of academic work. In M. Tight, K. H. Mok, J. Huisman, & C. C. Morphew (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of higher education (pp. 441–452). New York and London: Routledge. Dantas-Whitney, M., & Dimmitt, N. (2002). Intensive English instruction: Tales of trials, battles, and accomplishments. In N. Dimmitt & M. Dantas-Whitney (Eds.), Intensive English programs in postsecondary settings (pp. 1–6). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Dantas-Whitney, M., Larson, A., & Dowling, B. (2002). Initiating students into the academic community. In N. Dimmitt & M. Dantas-Whitney (Eds.), Intensive English programs in postsecondary settings (pp. 23–35). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53, 285–328. Davidson, J. O., & Tesh, J. S. (1997). Theory and practice in language program organization design. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 177–197). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. De Pree, M. (1995). Leadership jazz. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 453–455). New York: The Free Press. Excerpted from De Pree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Doubleday. Dessoff, A. (2006). Quality and cost in education abroad: Balancing act. International Educator, July/August, 24–30. Eaton, S. E. (2003). How to promote your language program in a tough market. Retrieved July 15, 2006 from owww.englishclub.com/esl-admin/marketing-tough.htmW. Edwards, J. D. (2004). The role of languages in a post 9/11 United States. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 268–271. Eskey, D. E. (1997). The IEP as a nontraditional entity. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 21–30). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalisation. Oxford: Routledge. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cited from Nahavandi (2006).

References

329

Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1984). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match concept (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Cited from Nahavandi (2006). Fill, A., & Mu¨hlha¨usler, P. (Eds.). (2001). The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment. London: Continuum. Fox, R. P. (1991). Evaluating the ESL program director. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL (pp. 228–240). Washington, DC: NAFSA Association of International Educators. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat (updated and expanded version). New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux. Gawienowski, M. (2002). The role and function of intensive English program directors. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Gebhard, M. (2005). School reform, hybrid discourse, and second language literacies. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 187–210. Geddes, J. M., & Marks, D. R. (1997). Personnel matters. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 199–218). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ghiselli, E. E. (1971). Explorations in managerial talents. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Goodwin, C. T., & Nacht, M. (1983). Absence of decision: Foreign students in American colleges and universities. New York: Institute for International Education. Gordon, R. G., Jr. (Ed.). (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (15th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version Retrieved July 6, 2006 from ohttp://www.ethnologue. comW. Grabosky, T., & Creamer, J. (2005). Japanese expectations vs. American realities: Understanding Japanese female students. Paper presented at the NAFSA VIII/X Joint regional conference. Atlantic City, NJ. November 2005. Graham, H. (1982). Understanding human relations: The individual, the organization, and management. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Hackman, J. R. Work redesign. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (4th ed., pp. 467–492). New York: McGraw-Hill. Reprinted from Hackman, J. R., & Suttle, J. L. (Eds.). (1977). Improving life at work. Glenview, IL: Scot, Foresman. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor Books. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books. Harrington, J., Jensen, M.-T., & Rosen, R. R. (2002). Strangers in a strange land: An intensive English program in an Australian-Korean TEFL Masters degree program. In N. Dimmitt & M. Dantas-Whitney (Eds.), Intensive English programs in postsecondary settings (pp. 91–106). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. In A. S. Dill (Ed.), The ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen (pp. 325–339). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

330

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Heaney, L., & Ott, P. T. N. (2009). Ethics in international student recruitment. In L. Heaney (Ed.), NAFSA’s guide to international student recruitment (2nd ed., pp. 11–15). Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Henrichsen, L. E. (1988). Diffusion of innovation s in English language teaching: The English Language Exploratory Committee’s promotion of C. C. Fries’ Oral Approach in Japan, 1956–1968. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Henry, A. R. (1997). The decision maker and negotiator. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 77–90). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Herzberg, B. (1991). Composition and the politics of the curriculum. In R. Bullock & J. Trimbur (Eds.), The politics of writing instruction: Postsecondary (pp. 97–117). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann. Hoekje, B. (1999). Teacher conversations as professional socialization. Journal of Intensive English Studies, 13(Spring/Fall), 1–18. Hoekje, B. (2002). Course evaluations and reflective practice. In N. Dimmit & M. DantasWhitney (Eds.), Intensive English programs in postsecondary settings (pp. 135–145). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Hoekje, B., Atkins, E., Brown, R., McNerney, M., Sesker, S., & Stevens, S. (2006). Saudi students in US schools: Report from ESL programs. Presentation at NAFSA Region VIII Conference, Washington, DC, November 10, 2006. Hoekje, B., & Pennington, M. C. (2007). The ecology of language program management. Paper presented at the TESOL 2007 International Conference, Seattle, Washington, DC, March 22. Hoffman, T. (2007). Impact of Saudi students on IEPs. Discussion group at TESOL Convention, Seattle, March 2007. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1992). Culture and organizations. London: McGraw-Hill. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 countries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hu, G. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 635–660. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspective on teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157–181. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenks, F. L. (1991). Designing and assessing the efficacy of ESL promotional materials. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Building better English language programs (pp. 172–190). Washington, DC: NAFSA-Association of International Educators. Jenks, F. L. (1997). The quest for academic legitimacy: Building for language program entry into institutional and community infrastructures. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 107–121). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Johnston, B. (2003). Values in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

References

331

Johnson, K. E. (1996). Cognitive apprenticeship in second language teacher education. In G. Tinker Sachs, M. Brock, & R. Lo (Eds.), Directions in second language teacher education (pp. 23–36). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Proceedings of the third international conference on teacher education in second language teaching. March 1995. Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257. Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2003). Globalization of English, and language maintenance and shift in South Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 164, 65–81. Kaplan, R. B. (1997). An IEP is a many-splendored thing. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 3–19). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Katz, R. L. (1955/1974/1983). Skills of an effective administrator. In Paths to personal progress: Leaders are made, not born (pp. 23–35). Harvard Business Review, 1983. Reprinted from Harvard Business Review, 52(5), September–October, 143–155, 1974. Original appeared in January–February issue, 1955. Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 183–210. Kiely, R. (2006). Evaluation, innovation, and ownership in language programs. Modern Language Journal, 90, 597–601. Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickens, P. (2005). Program evaluation in language education. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48–60. Cited from Nahavandi (2006). Klinghammer, S. J. (1997). The strategic planner. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 61–76). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1999). Encouraging the heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1992). Macrostrategies for the second/foreign language teacher. Modern Language Journal, 76, 41–49. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59–81. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Levitov, P. S. (1997). Immigration principles for the language program administrator. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 301–303). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cited from Davidson & Tesh (1997). Magnan, S. (2006). From the editor: The MLJ turns 90 in a digital age. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 1–5. Matthies, B. (1984). The intensive English program director’s job skills. The American Language Journal, 2(1), 5–16. McArthur, T. (1998). The English languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

332

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

McConaghy, C., & Snyder, I. (2000). In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Global literacies and the World-Wide Web (pp. 74–92). London: Routledge. McNess, E., Broadfoot, P., & Osborn, M. (2001). Is the effective compromising the affective? Paper presented at the British Educational Research Conference. University of Leeds. 13–15 September 2001. Middlebrook, G. C. (1991). Evaluation of student services in ESL programs. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Building better English language programs (pp. 135–154). Washington, DC: NAFSA-Association of International Educators. Miller, P., & Crandall, J. (2002). The convergence of experience and emerging pedagogy in the creation of an intensive English program. In N. Dimmitt & M. Dantas-Whitney (Eds.), Intensive English programs in postsecondary settings (pp. 77–90). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Moran, E. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organizational climate. Human Relations, 45, 19–47. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Murdock, R. S. (1997). Outreach on and off campus. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 161–174). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programmes. Occasional Paper No. 9. Edinburgh: Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences. Cited in Kiely and Rea-Dickens (2005). Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pennington, M. C. (1983). ESL administrators and teachers: Getting together on the curriculum. TESOL Newsletter, 17, 30–31. Pennington, M. C. (1984a). Trouble-shooting and problem-solving workshop for ESL administrators. Presentation at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs. Snowmass, CO. May 1984. Pennington, M. C. (1984b). Workshop for ESL administrators. CATESOL News, 16(3), 9. Pennington, M. C. (1985). Effective administration of an ESL program. In P. Larson, E. Judd, & D. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL ‘84: A Brave New World for TESOL (pp. 301–316). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Also available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service. Pennington, M. C. (1989a). Faculty development for language programs. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 91–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennington, M. C. (1989b). Directions for faculty evaluation in language education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2(3), 167–193. Pennington, M. C. (1990a). A professional development focus for the language teaching practicum. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 132–151). New York: Cambridge University Press. Pennington, M. C. (1990b). Qualifications for the ESL professional or volunteer. NAFSA Newsletter, October. Pennington, M. C. (1991). Work satisfaction and the ESL profession. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 4(1), 59–86.

References

333

Pennington, M. C. (1992a). Human resources development in the management of English language programs: An introduction for teachers. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language teacher education in a fast-changing world (pp. 34–48), Anthology Services 29 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 277). Pennington, M. C. (1992b). Motivating English language teachers through job enrichment. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 5, 199–218. Pennington, M. C. (1992c). Reflecting on teaching and learning: A developmental focus for the second language classroom. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 47–65). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Pennington, M. C. (1992d). Second class or economy? The status of the English language teaching profession in tertiary education. Prospect, 7(3), 7–19. Pennington, M. C. (1994a). Advice from the front lines: What every ESL program director needs to know that they didn’t teach you in graduate school. Prospect, 9(1), 52–64. Pennington, M. C. (1994b). Forces shaping a dual code society: An interpretive review of the literature on language use and language attitudes in Hong Kong. Research Report No. 35. Department of English, City University of Hong Kong. Pennington, M. C. (1995a). Modeling educational outcomes: Relating input to output in teacher change. Research Monograph No. 5. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Pennington, M. C. (1995b). The teacher change cycle. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 705–731. Pennington, M. C. (1996a). Cross-language effects in biliteracy. Language and Education, 10, 254–272. Pennington, M. C. (1996b). The ‘‘cognitive-affective filter’’ in language teacher development: Transmission and interpretation-based schemas for change. System, 24, 337–350. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 9, 125–142. Pennington, M. C. (1996c). The hegemony of English and the consolidation of human experience. In C. Barron & N. Bruce (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 1st international conference on knowledge and discourse. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University. March 1996. Website at ohttp://ec.hku.hk/kd96procW. Pennington, M. C. (1997a). Change in teaching frameworks. Keynote Address. Section 11 GEST Conference on Collaborative Teaching/Learning. Putteridge Bury, England. June 1997. Pennington, M. C. (1997b). Improving work satisfaction, motivation, and commitment in the teaching of English as a second language. ERIC Document ED 404850. Pennington, M. C. (1997c). Personal teaching frameworks: Teacher change in action. NALDIC Conference on Achievement of Bilingual Children. Putteridge Bury, Luton. May 1997. Pennington, M. C. (1997d). Student evaluation of teachers: Pros and cons. Panel presentation at the Annual TESOL Convention, Orlando. March 1997. Pennington, M. C. (1997e). Unintended outcomes: The strange history of the English language in Hong Kong. Modern English Teacher, 6(4), 66–69. Pennington, M. C. (1998a). Alternatives to student surveys in teacher evaluation Annual TESOL Convention and Exposition. Seattle. Pennington, M. C. (1998b). Colonialism’s aftermath in Asia: A snapshot view of bilingualism in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 1–16. Pennington, M. C. (1998c). Designing language programme evaluation for specific purposes. In E. S. L. Li & G. James (Eds.), Testing and evaluation in second language education (pp. 179–193). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

334

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Pennington, M. C. (1998d). Linguistic borrowing: The metaphorical incorporation of experience from one culture into another. In B. Caron (Ed.), Actes du 16e Congres International des Linguistes. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pennington, M. C. (1998e). Linguistic colonisation: Technology, information and the spread of English. Research Report, 1(1). Language Research Centre, University of Luton. Pennington, M. C. (1998f). Perspectives on language in Hong Kong at century’s end. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Language in Hong Kong at century’s end (pp. 3–40). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Pennington, M. C. (1998g). The need for reflection. GEST Collaborative Reflection Workshops Dissemination. Putteridge Bury, England. July 1998. Pennington, M. C. (1999a). Language program design: An ecological perspective. Higher Education Interest Section panel presentation, Annual TESOL conference. March 1999, New York City. Pennington, M. C. (1999b). Rules to break and rules to play by: Implications of different conceptions of teaching for language teacher development. In H. Trappes-Lomax & I. McGrath (Eds.), Theory in language teacher education (pp. 99–108). London: Longman. Pennington, M. C. (2000). Computers and the human experience. Town and Gown Lecture. University of Luton, June 6, 2000. Pennington, M. C. (2003). Linguistic colonization in the spread of English. Rask, 18, 69–91. Pennington, M. C., & Brown, J. D. (1991). Unifying curriculum process and curriculum outcomes: The key to excellence in language education. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL (pp. 57–74). Washington, DC: NAFSA-Association of International Educators. Pennington, M. C., Costa, V., So, S., Li, J. W. S., Hirose, K., & Niedzielski, K. (1996). A crosscountry comparison of beliefs and practices of English composition teachers in the Asia-Pacific region. In G. Tinker Sachs, M. Brock, & R. Lo (Eds.), Directions in language teacher education (pp. 147–162). Hong Kong: Department of English, City University of Hong Kong. Pennington, M. C., Costa, V., So, S., Li, J. W. S., Hirose, K., & Niedzielski, K. (1997). The teaching of English-as-a-second-language writing in the Asia-Pacific region: A crosscountry comparison. RELC Journal, 28(1), 120–143. Pennington, M. C., & Riley, P. V. (1991a). A survey of job satisfaction in ESL: TESOL members respond to the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 10(1), 37–56. Pennington, M. C., & Riley, P. V. (1991b). Measuring job satisfaction in ESL using the Job Descriptive Index. Perspectives: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong Working Papers in English. Pennington, M. C., & Xiao, Y. (1990). Defining the job of the ESL program director: Results of a national survey. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 9(2), 1–30. Pennington, M. C., & Young, A. L. (1989). Approaches to faculty evaluation for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 619–646. Pennington, M. C., & Young, A. L. (1991). Procedures and instruments for faculty evaluation in ESL. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL (pp. 191–227). Washington, DC: NAFSA-Association of International Educators. Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Oxford: Routledge.

References

335

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1987). Transfer and teaching thinking. In J. Bishop, J. L. Head, & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Thinking: Progress in research and teaching. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Warner Books Inc. Ponder, R., & Powell, B. (1991). Creating and operating a statistical database for evaluation in an English language program. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL (pp. 155–171). Washington, DC: NAFSA-Association of International Educators. Rawley, L. A. (1997). The language program administrator and policy formation at institutions of higher education. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 91–103). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Reasor, A. (1981). Administrative styles of English-as-a-second-language administrators. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The American University, Washington, DC. Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Reddin, W. J., & Reddin, M. K. (1975). User’s guide to the EASDT. Washington, DC. Cited in Reasor (1981). Reppen, R., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Intensive English program and MATESL program linkages: Creating a symbiotic relationship. In N. Dimmitt & M. Dantas-Whitney (Eds.), Intensive English programs in postsecondary settings (pp. 51–63). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rosener, J. B. (1991). Ways women lead. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 149–160). New York: The Free Press. Originally published in Harvard Business Review, Nov–Dec 1990. Saltzer, M. G. (1982). The evaluation of an intensive English program. In R. P. Barrett (Ed.), The administration of intensive English language programs (pp. 89–97). Washington, DC: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs. Sapir, E. (1912). Selected writings in language, culture, and personality (pp. 89–104). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sargent, S. (2006). Building the culture of education in the UK: A comparison of policy and attitudes in England and Scotland. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Bedfordshire. Sashkin, M. (1995). Visionary leadership. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 402–407). New York: The Free Press. Originally published in W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989. Scho¨n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot Hants, England: Avebury. Selling the sage of Qufu. (July 8, 2006). The Economist, p. 38. Sharkey, J. (2004). ESOL teachers’ knowledge of context as critical mediator in curriculum development. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 279–299. Shenkar, O. (2005). The Chinese century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Wharton School Publishing. Singh, P., & Doherty, C. (2004). Global cultural flows and pedagogic dilemmas: Teaching in the global university contact zone. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 9–42.

336

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

Smith, L. (2007). Foreign students still face hurdles. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, 45. Academic OneFile. Web. 3. Mar. 2010. Soppelsa, E. F. (1997). Empowerment of faculty. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 123–141). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Spaventa, L. J., & Williamson, J. S. (1991). Participatory placement: A case study. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL (pp. 75–91). Washington, DC: NAFSA-Association of International Educators. Spears, L. C. (1994). Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader, 34(Fall 2004), 7–11. Retrieved 5 June 2009 from ohttp://www.pfdf.org/knowledgecenter/journal.aspx? ArticleID ¼ 51W. Staczek, J. (1997). The language program budget: Financial planning and management of resources. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 219–234). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Cited from Nahavandi (2006). Stoller, F. (1994). The diffusion of innovations in intensive ESL programs. Applied Linguistics, 15, 300–327. Stoller, F. L. (1997). The catalyst for change and innovation. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 33–48). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. The Americans are coming. (2009, January). The Economist, 390(8612), p. 44. Retrieved 3 March 2010 from Business Source Premier, EBSCO host. The global market. (2007, November). Language Travel Magazine. Retrieved 15 September 2009 from owww.hothousemedia.com/ltm/ltmbackissues/nov07web/nov07specreport.htmW. The ultimate marketing machine. (2006, July). Special report: Internet advertising. The Economist, July 8, 61–64. Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Triandis, H. C. (1993). The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 167–188). New York: Academic Press. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding culture and diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey. Walker, J. (2003). English language centre service climate and client satisfaction: An investigation of New Zealand English Language Centres Offering TESOL courses. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Massey University. Ward, C., S. Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 511–535. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: an overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71.

References

337

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wesche, M. (2004). Teaching languages and cultures in a post-9/11 world. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 278–284. White, R. (2000). Past, present and future: The changing role of the DOS. Gretta Smith Memorial Lecture 2000. ARELS DOS Conference, York, UK. 11 February 2000. White, R., Martin, M., Stimson, M., & Hodge, R. (1991). Management in English language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

APPENDIX: LIST OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAIEP ohttp://www.aiep.orgW The American Association of Intensive English Programs (AAIEP) is a membership organization of approximately 300 member programs and institutional members whose mission is to support standards, engage in advocacy for the value of English language study in the United States, and provide services to member programs, such as maintaining a listserv. AAUSC ohttp://darkwing.uoregon.edu/Brldavis/aausc/member.htmW American Association of University Supervisors, Coordinators, and Directors of Foreign Language Programs is an organization serving as ‘‘a voice’’ for language program directors (LPDs) and supervisors and offering research publications, sessions, and newsletters. Its membership ‘‘is open to anyone who is interested in strengthening foreign and second language instruction—especially, but not exclusively, those involved with multisectioned programs. The membership includes teachers, supervisors, coordinators, program directors, faculty, and administrators in colleges and universities that employ teaching assistants, and many members are faculty and administrators at undergraduate institutions.’’ (AAUSC website; owww.darkwing.uoregon.edu/Brldavis/aausc/member.htmW). ACCET (Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training) owww.accet.orgW The Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training is the major accrediting agency for organizations offering continuing education and training, including non-collegiate continuing education institutions both in the United States and abroad. In the United States alone, more than two hundred intensive English programs (IEPs) are accredited by ACCET. ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) owww.actfl.orgW The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages is the major umbrella organization providing resources and advocacy for the teaching of 339

340

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

foreign languages in the United States. ACTFL was founded in 1967 by the Modern Language Association (MLA). ACTFL received funding for the ‘‘standards’’ project to define the content of foreign language education in the United States. The resulting document, ‘‘Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st Century’’ is available as a PDF document at owww.actfl.org/files/public/execsumm.pdfW. APJLE (Association for the Promotion of Japanese Language Education) owww.nisshinkyo.orgW In Japan, the Association for the Promotion of Japanese Language Education was established by the Ministry of Education to accredit Japanese language programs (only accredited programs can issue paperwork for the student visa). Asia TEFL owww.asiatefl.orgW Asia TEFL was founded in 2002 to promote the teaching and learning of English in Asia. The annual conference circulates to different countries within Asia. CAL (Center for Applied Linguistics) owww.cal.orgW The Center for Applied Linguistics is a private, non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. with a general mission of ‘‘Improving communication through better understanding of language and culture’’ (owww.cal.org/about/index.htmlW). CAL staff members research and disseminate information related to language teaching and learning, literacy, language policy, and other topics. CEA (The Commission on English Language Program Accreditation) owww.cea-accredit.orgW The Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA) is the only professional accrediting agency whose sole focus is the accrediting of organizations offering English-as-a-second-language study. CEA is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and gives accreditation for up to ten years. By 2006, more than fifty English language programs had been accredited by CEA. Most of its accredited members are U.S. programs offering F-1 visas for international students. However, in 2006, the first English language program based outside the United States was accredited— The Foundations English Program at the Petroleum Institute in the United Arab Emirates. CEA standards include the areas of administrative and fiscal activity; student recruitment; program planning and evaluation; faculty and administrative staff credentials, job assignments, development, and

Appendix

341

evaluation; curriculum objectives and progression; student achievement; and policies regarding student complaints. CIEE (Council on International Educational Exchange) owww.ciee.orgW The Council on International Educational Exchange is a non-governmental organization specializing in international educational exchange programs for high school and university students and teachers. The CIEE sponsors work, study, teaching, and volunteer programs throughout the world. CLC (The Canada Language Council/Conseil Des Langues du Canada) owww.c-l-c.caW In Canada, the Canada Language Council/Conseil Des Langues du Canada (CLC) is the major language organization representing both English and French and public and private sector language programs. The CLC promotes standards in member organizations in the areas of curriculum, teacher qualifications, student services, admissions, marketing, and facilities. CSIET (Council on Standards for International Educational Travel) owww.csiet.orgW The Council on Standards for International Educational Travel (CSIET) sets standards for quality international exchange programs at the high school level. EAIE (The European Association for International Education) owww.eaie.nlW The European Association for International Education, based in Amsterdam, promotes the internationalization of higher education in Europe including the ‘‘Bologna process’’ for higher education in Europe. EAQUALS (The European Association for Quality Language Services) owww.eaquals.orgW The European Association for Quality Language Services is a pan-European association for quality in modern language teaching in Europe. EAQUALS has a code of conduct, ‘‘charters’’ for students and staff, and inspection schemes, along with an annual professional meeting. ENGLISH UK owww.englishuk.com/about/W In 2004, the former agencies ARELS (the Association of Recognised English Language Services; owww.arels.org.ukW) and BASELT (the British Association of State English Language Teaching; owww.baselt.org.ukW) came together to form English UK. English UK represents approximately 340 accredited language centers in the UK and will likely soon admit overseas programs as well (owww.englishuk.com/members/membership_types.phpW).

342

LANGUAGE PROGRAM LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD

IALC (The International Association of Language Centres) owww.ialc.orgW The International Association of Language Centres was founded to support quality in independent language schools worldwide. Member schools must subscribe to a code of ethics (owww.ialc.org/code_of_ethics.aspW) among other responsibilities. The IALC hosts an annual event, the IALC workshop. Languages currently taught include English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. As of this writing, there are nearly ninety IALC schools in twenty-one countries. IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language) owww.iatefl.orgW The International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language is an international association founded in the United Kingdom in 1967 with more than 3,500 members in 100 countries. IATEFL’s mission is to support English language teaching throughout the world through publications, an annual international conference, and links to other professional conferences and organizations including a wide range of regional, national, and local teachers’ associations. JALT (The Japan Association for Language Teaching) ohttp://jalt.orgW The Japan Association for Language Teaching is a non-profit organization dedicated to the improvement of second and foreign language teaching in Japan. NAFSA: Association of International Educators owww.nafsa.orgW NAFSA: Association of International Educators (NAFSA-AIE) is a professional association of individual and institutional members that promotes standards and a code of ethics for dealing with international students. NAFSA-AIE offers ongoing advocacy, professional development, and training opportunities for language and other international education professionals. Membership is organized into ‘‘knowledge communities’’ as well as regional associations. NCELTR oThe National Centre for English Language Teaching and ResearchW owww.nceltr.mq.edu.auW The National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research of Macquarie University in Australia is a major resource center with extensive resources on English for migrant adults, the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP).

Appendix

343

NEAS (the National ELT Accreditation Scheme Limited) owww.neasaustralia.comW The National ELT Accreditation Scheme Limited is the Australian accrediting body for English language intensive courses for overseas students (the ‘‘ELICOS’’ programs). RELC (Regional English Language Centre) owww.relc.orgW Located in Singapore, RELC supports the language in the countries of Southeast Asia. RELC is a project of the Southeast Asian Ministries of Education Organization (SEAMEO), whose member countries are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) owww.tesol.orgW Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) is the major membership and advocacy organization within the United States for teachers of ESOL (English to Speakers of Other Languages)/ESL (English as a Second Language). The membership includes those working in elementary and secondary schools, adult education, higher education, and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) contexts. TESOL is organized regionally through local chapters and by interest section (IS). Interest sections such as Program Administration (PA), Intensive English Programs (IEP), and Higher Education (HE) might be of particular interest to the intensive language program director in the higher education context; there are many other sections of interest. The IS is the major structure through which the conference program is organized, as the IS leadership reads and selects the proposals submitted to their section and designs the conference program for the IS. TESOL also has worldwide affiliates such as JALT and Asia-TESOL. UCIEP (The Consortium of University and College Intensive English Programs) owww.uciep.orgW The Consortium of University and College Intensive English Programs (UCIEP) is a membership and advocacy organization of universitygoverned intensive English programs with approximately seventy members.