English Language Program Administration: Leadership and Management in the 21st Century 3031286006, 9783031286001

Citation preview

Educational Linguistics

MaryAnn Christison Fredricka L. Stoller   Editors

English Language Program Administration Leadership and Management in the 21st Century

Educational Linguistics Volume 59

Series Editor Francis M. Hult, Dept. of Education, Sherman Hall A Wing, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA Editorial Board Members Marilda C. Cavalcanti, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil Jasone Cenoz, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain Angela Creese, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Ingrid Gogolin, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Christine Hélot, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Hilary Janks, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley, USA Constant Leung, King’s College London, London, UK Angel Lin, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

Educational Linguistics is dedicated to innovative studies of language use and language learning. The series is based on the idea that there is a need for studies that break barriers. Accordingly, it provides a space for research that crosses traditional disciplinary, theoretical, and/or methodological boundaries in ways that advance knowledge about language (in) education. The series focuses on critical and contextualized work that offers alternatives to current approaches as well as practical, substantive ways forward. Contributions explore the dynamic and multi-­ layered nature of theory-practice relationships, creative applications of linguistic and symbolic resources, individual and societal considerations, and diverse social spaces related to language learning. The series publishes in-depth studies of educational innovation in contexts throughout the world: issues of linguistic equity and diversity; educational language policy; revalorization of indigenous languages; socially responsible (additional) language teaching; language assessment; first- and additional language literacy; language teacher education; language development and socialization in non-­ traditional settings; the integration of language across academic subjects; language and technology; and other relevant topics. The Educational Linguistics series invites authors to contact the general editor with suggestions and/or proposals for new monographs or edited volumes. For more information, please contact the Editor: Marianna Georgouli, Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. All proposals and manuscripts submitted to the Series will undergo at least two rounds of external peer review. This series is indexed in Scopus and the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers (NSD).

MaryAnn Christison  •  Fredricka L. Stoller Editors

English Language Program Administration Leadership and Management in the 21st Century

Editors MaryAnn Christison Department of Linguistics University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Fredricka L. Stoller Department of English Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ, USA

ISSN 1572-0292     ISSN 2215-1656 (electronic) Educational Linguistics ISBN 978-3-031-28600-1    ISBN 978-3-031-28601-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

We dedicate this volume to past, current, and future language-program administrators, who work so hard to fulfill their multiple and ever-changing responsibilities.

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 MaryAnn Christison and Fredricka L. Stoller

Part I Fundamentals of Language-Program Administration 2

Making the Transition: From Language Teacher to Program Administrator����������������������������������������������������������������������   15 Edmund Howard

3

Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities������������������������������������������������������������   29 Benjamin L. McMurry, Norman W. Evans, Pricila Klein Dutra, Corbin Montaño, Sydney Sohler, and Valmene Teriipaia Whippy

4

Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators ��������������������������������������   45 Polina Vinogradova and Heather Linville

Part II Leadership in Language Programs 5

Becoming Strategic����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   65 Gabriela Kleckova, Denise E. Murray, and MaryAnn Christison

6

 Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation������������������������������������������������   83 Kabelo Sebolai and Fredricka L. Stoller

7

 The Promoter of Quality ������������������������������������������������������������������������  103 Thom Kiddle and Beccy Wigglesworth

8

 Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence������������  119 Kristin E. Hiller

vii

viii

9

Contents

Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  137 J. Alexandra Rowe and Eric Scott

10 Engaging,  Energizing, and Empowering Faculty ��������������������������������  155 Mackenzie Bristow and Elizabeth F. Soppelsa 11 Advocating  for Students and Language Programs ������������������������������  171 MaryAnn Christison Part III Management in Language Programs 12 Communication  Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration ������������������������������������������������������  189 Cheryl A. Ernst and Jodi L. Nelms 13 Personnel Matters: Revisited������������������������������������������������������������������  207 Hannaliisa Savolainen, Joann M. Geddes, and Doris R. Marks 14 Managing  Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  229 Deborah Healey and Michael Witbeck 15 Managing  Resources and Financial Planning ��������������������������������������  247 Denise E. Murray 16 Managing Time����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  267 MaryAnn Christison and Fredricka L. Stoller Part IV Best Practices in Language-Program Administration 17 Best  Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience������������������������������������������������������������������  289 Fredricka L. Stoller and MaryAnn Christison

Editors and Contributors

Editors MaryAnn Christison  University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Fredricka L. Stoller  Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

Contributors Tony Acevedo  Floyd County Schools, Rome, Georgia Mark Algren  University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Neil J Anderson  Brigham Young University-Hawai’i, Laie, HI, USA Rosa Aronson  TESOL International Association, Washington, DC, USA Alejandro Beoutis  Impulso Pais, Lima, Peru Deena Boraie  The Knowledge Hub Universities, Cairo, Egypt Mackenzie Bristow  Home Depot, Atlanta, GA, USA Susan Carkin  Lane Community College, Eugene, OR, USA MaryAnn Christison  University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Christine Coombe  Dubai Men’s College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Ayşegül Daloğlu  Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Pricila Klein Dutra  Internexus, Provo, UT, USA Cheryl A. Ernst  University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA Norman W. Evans  Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA ix

x

Editors and Contributors

Maria Eugenia Flores  Centro Cultural Costarricense Norteamericano, San José, Costa Rica Joann M. Geddes  Lewis & Clark College, Portland, OR, USA Deborah Healey  University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA Kristin E. Hiller  Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China Edmund Howard  EF Education First, Oxford, UK Patrick C. Kennell  Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA Thom Kiddle  Norwich Institute for Language Education (NILE), Norwich, UK Gabriela Kleckova  University of West Bohemia, Plzeň, Czech Republic Kristen M. Lindahl  University of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA Heather Linville  University of Wisconsin La-Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA John Macalister  Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand Doris R. Marks  Beaverton School District, Beaverton, OR, USA Benjamin L. McMurry  Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA Corbin Montaño  Brigham Young University-Hawai’i, Laie, HI, USA Denise E. Murray  Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Jodi L. Nelms  University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA Elizabeth Palacios  Instituto Cultural Peruano Norteamericano, Lima, Peru Suzanne Panferov Reese  University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Dudley Reynolds  Carnegie Mellon University Qatar, Education City, Qatar Nelly Romero  Instituto Cultural Peruano Norteamericano, Lima, Peru J. Alexandra Rowe  University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA Hannaliisa Savolainen  Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, USA Eric Scott  Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Kabelo Sebolai  Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa Rob Sheppard  Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA Sydney Sohler  Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, USA Elizabeth  F.  Soppelsa  NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Washington, DC, USA

Editors and Contributors

Fredricka L. Stoller  Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Polina Vinogradova  American University, Washington, DC, USA Valmene Teriipaia Whippy  Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA Beccy Wigglesworth  International House World Organization, London, UK Michael Witbeck  Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction MaryAnn Christison

and Fredricka L. Stoller

Abstract  This chapter introduces readers to the field of language-program administration and provides an overview of the purpose, organization, and contents of the volume. The edited volume concentrates on the development of a knowledge base and sets of skills essential for leadership and management; this chapter introduces readers to the all-important concepts of leadership and management and highlights the conceptual features that make them distinct from each other. The chapter also outlines the contents of the other chapters in the volume and explains why the range of topics covered is important for language-program administrators in diverse contexts. Keywords  Language-program administrator · Language program · Leaders · Leadership · Management · Managers

Imagine how much better our work would be if we could create the right environment in which to focus, think, and lead. (Miller, 2021 p. 14)

Anyone who has ever been a language-program administrator (LPA) is likely to identify with the quote that introduces this chapter. LPAs juggle many different roles and responsibilities and often feel as if they cannot find the concentrated time to focus, think through issues to make principled decisions, and, ultimately, provide effective leadership. We believe that it is possible to create workplace environments in which LPAs can focus, think, and lead, but it takes a combination of experience in language-program administration and a commitment to continuing professional development on issues related to leadership and management. Both of us have a long history of involvement in language-program administration, having founded M.A. Christison (*) University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] F. L. Stoller Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_1

1

2

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

intensive English programs (IEPs) at our respective institutions and directed them for many years early on in our careers. Thus, we have had first-hand experience to support these assertions about experience and professional development. English Language-Program Administration: Leadership and Management in the 21st Century is the third book that we have co-edited together on language-program administration, in addition to the numerous publications that we have authored and co-authored on various aspects of leadership and management. The fact that our first co-edited volume was published more than 25 years ago speaks to the importance that topics on language-program leadership and management have had for practicing administrators; indeed, the quest for ongoing professional development in leadership and management has persisted for at least three decades. Our first co-edited volume (Christison & Stoller, 1997) came about as a result of our own experiences as IEP administrators at institutions of higher education in the United States. Thus, that volume was focused on U.S.-based IEP administration. Like most language teachers who transition from language teaching into language-­ program administration, we found the job to be multifaceted. It also required a set of skills and a knowledge base that we had not acquired as a result of our educational backgrounds or our experiences as language teachers. We learned how to be LPAs much like apprentices in a twelfth-century craft guild. We learned our craft on the job, by trial and error, and by seeking advice from LPAs who were much more experienced than we were. The apprenticeship process that we underwent as new LPAs emphasized the roles and responsibilities that LPAs must assume and the ways in which these roles are learned. Because there were few degree programs, courses, or professional-development opportunities in language-program administration at the time, the contents of the chapters in our first co-edited volume revolved around practical issues in IEP administration. The book also included a chapter outlining the history of language-program administration. The entire volume, along with some earlier publications, symbolized the emergence of language-program administration as a new field. In the years between our first and second co-edited volumes, we witnessed an unprecedented growth in the spread of English worldwide, resulting in an increase in English-language programs in diverse contexts. Accompanying this growth was the demand for a new cadre of LPAs who needed to develop a knowledge base and a set of skills particular to language-program administration so that they could maneuver through complicated issues that arise daily. Thus, the second co-edited volume (Christison & Stoller, 2012/2017) expanded the focus of language-program administration to include contexts other than IEPs, for example, in K–12 schools/ public education, international schools, adult education, and binational centers. In this third co-edited volume, we have expanded the scope of language-program administration even further by bringing together authors with a vast array of administrative experiences in language programs worldwide, specifically in Asia; Australia; Europe; the Middle East; New Zealand; North, Central, and South America; South Africa; Turkey; and the United Kingdom. While we wanted to maintain the practical focus of the previous two co-edited volumes, we also wished to advance the field of language-program administration in the third volume by

1 Introduction

3

bringing into focus theoretical considerations that underpin key concepts in leadership and management, such as assuring quality, promoting innovation, supporting health and wellness, managing human resources, and thinking strategically. To bring this volume to fruition, we have been dependent on many people working together cooperatively to produce a high-quality volume. The 46 authors and contributors, all practicing or past LPAs, have drawn upon their administrative expertise to identify critical issues, explore theoretical concepts in leadership and management, and offer practical and useful advice. The insights that they offer readers are valuable for LPAs in diverse contexts, and the principles that are derived from these insights are presented so that they can be adapted by LPAs for their specific situations.

Purpose and Audience for the Book Like its predecessors, this co-edited volume is designed for both practicing and aspiring language-program administrators who can benefit from developing skills in program leadership and management. It is a book that we wish someone would have given us when we first took on LPA responsibilities more than three decades ago, and it is also the book that we would want to have on our shelves if we were practicing LPAs today. At a time when there has been so much change in the landscape of language teaching—most recently, in the ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected language programs, students, faculty, and staff, LPAs are looking for guidance and direction in both planning for the future and solving more immediate problems. Even in the twenty-first century, comparatively few resources are readily available for professional development in language-program administration. Both novice and experienced administrators with leadership and/or management responsibilities, in addition to language teachers who aspire to modify their professional trajectories to become LPAs, will benefit from the chapters written by practicing and experienced LPAs. Chapter authors have interpreted important research, connected it to language-program administration, and offered practical, tried and true, guidance that is adaptable to different administrative contexts. As the need for more qualified administrators and leaders has increased, we have seen more degree and certificate programs, stand-alone courses, and professional-­ development opportunities (e.g., workshops, institutes, and webinars on leadership and language-program administration) become available. This volume will be of interest to second language teacher educators who (a) offer university courses and/ or professional-association webinars and workshops focused on leadership and language-program administration and (b) are looking for a core textbook to support and inform their instruction. Our intention has always been to create a volume that can be used by individuals for personal professional-development purposes, as well

4

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

as by instructors as a textbook for classes, workshops, or seminars on language-­ program administration and leadership development. To make the book maximally beneficial to readers worldwide, each chapter concludes with a section that focuses on reflection, for example, Reflecting on Strategic Planning (Chap. 5) or Reflecting on Innovation (Chap. 6), rather than traditional discussion questions that are included in books used for classroom instruction. The inclusion of sections on reflection reinforces the multi-use intention of the volume because reflection is perceived to be useful for a wide range of readers, including both experienced and aspiring administrators. In addition, because the emphasis of the volume is on expanding language-program administrators’ knowledge base and practical skills, authors have included a section with suggested readings, designed to take readers beyond chapter contents. Compiling a book that is meant to be accessible to LPAs in diverse contexts has had its challenges. One challenge that we faced centered on terminology that was used in different ways across chapters. For example, in initial drafts of chapters, authors used the terms language center, program, course, organization, school, department, and institute to reference the entity providing language instruction. Some authors used multiple terms interchangeably while others used these terms in specific ways. For example, some authors considered language centers to be large units that housed different types of programs and courses. To create a more cohesive volume, the term language program is used throughout to refer to administrative units responsible for teaching language. In many contexts, the terms faculty and staff are used in different ways with the term faculty used to refer to individuals within a language program who teach and staff to refer to individuals who assume non-teaching assignments. (Faculty can also refer to large academic units, such as a Faculty of Arts and Sciences, but not in this book.) In this volume, the terms teachers, instructors, faculty, and teaching faculty are used to refer to those who teach in the language program and the term staff refers to non-teaching personnel. The term language-program personnel is used often to refer to both teaching and non-teaching personnel (i.e., language-program employees) or solely non-teaching personnel. The terms syllabus, course, and curriculum were used in different ways as well. In this volume, the term syllabus refers to an outline or summary of the main subjects or topics to be covered in a course—what an instructor might make available to students; course refers to a unit of teaching that typically lasts for a specified number of weeks, for example, an academic term or semester; and curriculum refers to the central guide for instructors to follow that outlines what is essential for teaching and learning. The terms K–12 schools, primary and secondary schools, and public education are used in the volume, depending on the author. In addition, we have used U.S. spelling throughout. In this volume, we followed conceptualizations of leadership and management delineated by Christison and Murray (2009). In their view, the roles and responsibilities of managers and leaders differ in terms of (a) the focus of work, (b) the work priority, (c) orientation to others in the workplace, and (d) ethics. The focus of work for managers is transactional—meeting objectives and delegating tasks—while leaders are focused on developing a vision for the language program

1 Introduction

5

and the strategic positioning of the program in the future. The work priority for managers is to get things done and manage tasks while the work priority for leaders is to ensure the success of people and understand behaviors. A manager’s orientation to others or a team is to lead by overseeing and facilitating the completion of tasks and carrying out the day-to-day tasks that make a language program run smoothly, whereas a leader’s orientation is to inspire, motivate, and create circles of influence. The ethics of management is to do things right, follow rules, and maintain the status quo. The ethics of leadership is to do the right things, shape the culture of the workplace, and act with integrity. In language programs, an LPA may assume either management or leadership responsibilities or one person may assume responsibilities in both areas. We use the term language-program administrator (LPA) to refer to individuals who assume roles as leaders, managers, or both.

Organization of the Book Apart from Chap. 1 (this introduction), the volume is organized into four parts with a total of 16 chapters. Part I, entitled Fundamentals of Language-Program Administration, contains three chapters. Part II, Leadership in Language Programs, includes seven chapters that focus on leadership, while Part III, Management in Language Programs, comprises five chapters that help LPAs develop skills related to management, including managing personnel, technology, financial resources, and time. Part IV comprises one chapter that brings together 18 experienced administrators who offer sage advice to LPAs; the advice from these contributors has been conceptualized as sets of best practices in language-program administration.

Part I: Fundamentals of Language-Program Administration Part I is designed for new and aspiring LPAs. The three chapters in this section focus on issues and concerns of particular interest to language teachers who want to transition from language teaching to language-program administration. In Chap. 2, Edmund Howard focuses on important issues related to the transition from language teacher to language-program administrator. Few language-teaching professionals deliberately choose a career in language-program administration. Rather, the majority take up their positions by transitioning to language-program administration from language teaching; they do so without the benefit of formal training in leadership or management, in large part because formal courses and professional-development opportunities in language-program administration are infrequently offered. Many LPAs find that they must learn pertinent knowledge and develop specific skill sets as they carry out their varied administrative roles and responsibilities. The primary focus in Chap. 2 is on helping new and aspiring administrators make the transition from teacher to administrator by building on the

6

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

skills they have already developed, understanding the general scope of administrative responsibilities, recognizing LPA responsibilities that may be different from those of language teachers, and developing the capacity to diagnose strengths and weaknesses. Chapter 3, by Ben McMurry and Norman Evans (with Pricila Klein Dutra, Corbin Montaño, Sydney Sohler, and Valmene Teriipaia Whippy), focuses on 28 responsibilities that are central to overall effectiveness in language-program management and leadership. The chapter uses findings from an empirical study designed to investigate practicing LPAs’ perceptions of their most important responsibilities as a springboard for their discussion of LPAs’ responsibilities that were considered the most important. The authors offer advice to new and aspiring LPAs on how to develop their knowledge base and expand their skill set to become more effective in carrying out their responsibilities as LPAs. In Chap. 4, Polina Vinogradova and Heather Linville spotlight language programs in diverse contexts, thereby giving readers a sense of the global languageprogram landscape. They cover adult-education programs, binational centers, international schools, primary and secondary public schools, private language schools, refugee resettlement programs, and university-based language programs. Chapter 4 outlines the fundamental characteristics of each program type and the unique challenges faced by LPAs in each one. The authors also highlight eight administrative responsibilities assumed by LPAs in these contexts, though to differing degrees, including managing human resources, budgeting, marketing and recruiting, developing partnerships, updating curricula, planning for innovation, creating opportunities for continuing professional development, and supporting equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Part II: Leadership in Language Programs Part II spotlights leadership topics and concentrates on the development of the knowledge base and the skill sets that are at the heart of effective leadership, including thinking strategically; innovating and responding to change; promoting quality; navigating interculturally; making decisions, negotiating challenges, and handling crises; empowering faculty; and advocating for students, teaching faculty, and the program. The topics covered in this section form the core skill set that leaders need for solving problems and for strategically placing their programs where they envision them to be in the future. In Chap. 5, Gabriela Kleckova, Denise E.  Murray, and MaryAnn Christison introduce readers to the process of strategic planning, which emphasizes how to find a program’s niche, that is, how to situate one’s language program strategically at some point in the future and find its best fit. The process requires that stakeholders understand internal factors (i.e., program strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (i.e., opportunities available to the program and the threats that the program faces) that could interfere with the strategic vision for the program’s future. When

1 Introduction

7

LPAs become strategic, they are able to both manage and reallocate resources as well as be responsive to crises that arise. The basic premise of Chap. 6, by Kabelo Sebolai and Fredricka L. Stoller, is that innovation is an “imperative for all future-focused organizations” (Beswick et al., 2015). The authors highlight the leadership roles that LPAs play when inspiring innovation, mobilizing those looking to innovate, responding to resistance that may emerge, and overseeing the innovation-diffusion process. The chapter facilitates an understanding of the relationship between innovation and the types of organizational cultures that foster innovation by considering impetuses for innovation, characteristics of language programs that stimulate or hinder innovation, and pathways to successful innovation diffusion. The authors provide suggestions that can guide LPAs in their efforts to promote successful innovation while they simultaneously juggle the demands of their administrative positions. In Chap. 7, Thom Kiddle and Beccy Wigglesworth explore the meaning of quality and the steps that LPAs should take to assure quality in their language programs. With the proliferation of English-language programs worldwide, quality has become a primary concern and responsibility for LPAs. Language-program quality is an outcome of taking into consideration stakeholders’ (e.g., students, teachers, parents) perceptions and satisfaction, in addition to the degree to which programs are able to meet or exceed expectations. For example, student perceptions and satisfaction grow when students believe that they are learning. This chapter focuses on a fourstep, practitioner-led approach to promoting quality within language programs. Language programs are inherently intercultural because, at a minimum, students are learning the language of a culture different from their own. In addition, teachers may come from cultures that are distinct from the cultures of their students, and, more importantly, language programs exist in diverse cultural contexts worldwide. Each of these intercultural features presents one or more distinct challenges for LPAs. In Chap. 8, Kristin Hiller explores elements of intercultural leadership with the goal of guiding LPAs in developing intercultural competence. Intercultural competence enables LPAs to work effectively with linguistically and culturally diverse students, teachers, and other language-program personnel; the communities in which their programs are located; and international partners. The chapter offers suggestions that LPAs can use to navigate intercultural challenges and, at the same time, nurture a sense of community within the program and the locale in which the program exists. In Chap. 9, J. Alexandra Rowe and Eric Scott emphasize the central role of decision making in effective language-program administration. The authors explore the complexities of decision making and crisis management as they consider challenges commonly faced by LPAs, including (a) the constraints of being part of a larger institution, (b) the expertise needed for making principled language-­program decisions, (c) the determination of whom to involve in the process, (d) efforts to maintain objectivity and avoid bias, and (e) the roles of time and technology in informed decision making. The authors present readers with real-world examples while discussing independent and consensual decision making, the delegation of tasks, and strategies for crisis management. The goal, throughout the chapter, is to provide

8

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

LPAs with decision-making and crisis-management tools that can become a regular part of serving as leaders in language programs. An important leadership responsibility for LPAs is to be proactive in engaging, energizing, and empowering faculty as a means to improve language-program operations, enhance professional development among faculty, and support faculty health and wellness. A central component of such an administrative approach involves ceding power to faculty so that they can make decisions about the setting in which they work and their own professional development. In Chap. 10, Mackenzie Bristow and Elizabeth (Betty) F. Soppelsa explore the roles of participatory decision making, consultative management, consensus building, and the redistribution of responsibilities as a means to achieve these aims. They also introduce LPAs to strategies for helping new and continuing faculty maintain productivity, preventing faculty burnout, and improving working conditions. Advocating for students and for the language program is another important administrative responsibility for LPAs. In Chap. 11, MaryAnn Christison focuses on the main ways that LPAs can function as advocates for learners and their programs. Advocacy falls into five domains: (a) instructional, (b) cultural, (c) language, (d) academic, and (e) political. In these varied yet often overlapping advocacy domains, it is the responsibility of LPAs to assist students in adjusting to new contexts and help individuals who interact with students to understand the challenges that students face both academically and socially. Equally important is the role that LPAs play in advocating for their programs (mission, curriculum, etc.). It is through advocacy that LPAs are able to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion within their language programs, institutions, local communities, and beyond.

Part III: Management in Language Programs Part III targets the development of skills for managing language programs, centered on using select strategies for effective communication, dealing with personnel, handling ever-evolving technology-related responsibilities, creating budgets and overseeing finances, and being efficient and effective in the use of time. Language programs are complex managerial entities, though no two language programs are exactly the same. Communication in language-program contexts is similarly complex and multidimensional. In Chap. 12, Cheryl A.  Ernst and Jodi L.  Nelms explore the nuances of effective communication through the use of scenarios that emphasize the importance of developing communication strategies for specific types of interactions within a language program. For example, they highlight communication strategies needed when planning for and facilitating effective meetings in face-to-face, hybrid, or virtual contexts; making difficult decisions; maintaining connections with students; and communicating with language-program personnel during program and performance reviews. The scenarios provide contexts for LPAs to examine their communication styles and

1 Introduction

9

their relationships with the individuals to whom they report, as well as the individuals they supervise. The effective management of human resources is central to language-program administration. LPAs who dedicate time and effort to researching, creating, implementing, and managing sound human-resource policies and procedures greatly increase a program’s ability to attract and retain quality faculty and staff. In Chap. 13, Hannaliisa Savolainen, Joann M. Geddes, and Doris R. Marks provide an overview of some of the most important human-resource responsibilities that LPAs must handle, including staffing (e.g., job analyses, recruitment, screening, interviewing, and hiring); supervision, evaluation, and documentation (for the purposes of retention, promotion, remediation, or dismissal); and health and wellness initiatives, including professional-development opportunities for faculty and staff. The authors recommend procedures for each of these areas of responsibility. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, language programs had been experiencing higher and higher levels of digital technology use, for both the delivery of language instruction and management of resources. As potential uses for digital technologies have continued to expand, it seems that there are no apparent limits in sight. With many English language programs now delivering all or portions of their programs online, developing skills in planning for and managing technology has become more important for LPAs than ever before. In Chap. 14, Deborah Healey and Michael Witbeck cover planning for technology, managing technology-based language learning and assessment, managing and using technology for administrative purposes, preparing for the evolution of technology, and implementing technology. In Chap. 15, Denise E. Murray reminds us that the management of resources, both human and non-human, is a primary responsibility of LPAs. The chapter focuses on administrators’ fiduciary duties, adaptable to programs of many types, including those that are part of larger institutions (e.g., universities), publicly funded schools, private schools, binational centers, and international chains. Also included in Murray’s chapter are the essentials of budgetary planning, which is considered the roadmap to present and future management efforts. Of particular interest to LPAs are discussions related to the development of sound fiscal policies, the process of developing a budget, and the monitoring of fiscal performance. Throughout the chapter, the author clarifies key terminology, which may be unfamiliar to aspiring (and sometimes experienced) LPAs. The author also provides sample templates for budgetary planning that LPAs can adapt for the programs that they manage. Because the job of LPAs is complex, it is important for them to manage their time wisely. In Chap. 16, MaryAnn Christison and Fredricka L. Stoller discuss the challenges that new and experienced LPAs face relative to time management. Managing time effectively can be challenging because the decisions that LPAs must make about time management are contextual and dynamic. Because there is no one correct way to manage time, LPAs must be strategic in how they use time by planning effectively, delegating sufficiently, and avoiding procrastination. The chapter focuses on developing a time-management plan that is based on a key time-­ management principle: the importance of connecting daily activities to core values.

10

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

Part IV: Best Practices in Language-Program Administration Part IV comprises one culminating chapter. Chapter 17 is built around a series of administrative best practices, which were submitted by 18 experienced LPAs from around the world and compiled by the editors of the volume. Each contributor was invited to submit four to five best practices that centered on a topic they had chosen related to program legitimacy, priorities for LPAs, principles for effective language-­ program administration, advice for LPAs, or characteristics of effective LPAs. As editors, we compiled these best practices into a cohesive chapter that is intended to be useful for aspiring and practicing LPAs. While communicating with contributors, we asked them to tell us how many years of experience they had working as LPAs and in leadership and management. It was astounding to learn that the contributions in Chap. 17 represent 360+ years of administrative experience in total.

Conclusion The chapters in this volume provide state-of-the-art advice on many important aspects of language-program administration. We intend for the volume to serve the needs of practicing language-program administrators, as well as new and aspiring ones, in a wide range of programmatic contexts. In our attempt to address the many contemporary leadership and management roles that LPAs assume and to cover associated knowledge bases and skill sets, we hope to move the field forward with this volume. We also hope to bring important theories, theoretical concepts, and research to the attention of LPAs. An overarching goal of ours has always been to craft a volume that would join the ranks of other publications that support the development of the now recognized field of language-program administration. As co-editors of this volume, we would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of our book proposal and the one anonymous reviewer of the full book manuscript; their feedback proved to be insightful and useful. We would also like to express our most sincere gratitude to all chapter authors and contributors to the culminating chapter. We recognize the time that they took from their incredibly busy administrative schedules to write their contributions for the volume. We appreciate their continued support, patience, and commitment to the shared belief that LPAs benefit from a review of research pertinent to language-program administration, an introduction to theories and theoretical concepts that underpin leadership and management, and a book that provides practical guidance on language-program administration.

References Beswick, C., Bishop, D., & Geraghty, J. (2015). Building a culture of innovation: A practical framework for planning innovation at the core of your business. Kogan Page.

1 Introduction

11

Christison, M.  A., & Murray, D. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times. Routledge. Christison, M. A., & Stoller, F. L. (Eds.). (1997). A handbook for language program administrators. Alta Book Center. Christison, M. A., & Stoller, F. L. (Eds.). (2017). A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed.). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Miller, M. (2021). Smart leadership: Four simple choices to scale your impact. Matt Holt Publisher. MaryAnn Christison is a professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Utah and was founding Director of the International Program and English Training Center at Snow College for 20 years prior to her University appointment. She has authored, co-authored, and co-edited over 22 books and written 140 articles and chapters on applied linguistics and English language teaching. Two of her co-edited books were specifically on language program administration (with F.  L. Stoller), and one was on leadership (with D.  E. Murray). Christison has also served as President of TESOL International.  

Fredricka L.  Stoller is Professor Emerita at Northern Arizona University (NAU). During her 35 years at NAU, she founded NAU’s Program in Intensive English (PIE), served as its Director, and then was an Advisory Board member. Fredricka has decades-long interests in language-program administration as evidenced by presentations and publications on the topic (numerous with MaryAnn Christison) and the graduate-level courses that she taught on the subject. She was a Fulbright senior scholar in Turkey (2002–03) as the MA-TEFL program director at Bilkent University, in Timor Leste (2014), and in Vietnam (2018).  

Part I

Fundamentals of Language-Program Administration

Chapter 2

Making the Transition: From Language Teacher to Program Administrator Edmund Howard

Abstract  This chapter examines how teachers can adapt their existing skillset to make the transition from teaching into management and leadership. Teachers’ motivations for making a move to administration are explored, as are the potential challenges that changing one’s status poses. Skills for administrators are then examined in the context of the management of academics and human resources, the handling of administrative duties, and the perspectives required for planning and collaborating. Finally, the chapter offers four recommendations that novice administrators can employ to support their ongoing development as managers and leaders. Keywords  Language program · Leadership · Management · Novice administrator · Transitioning

Teaching experience was the reference point for the new managers and the main justification for their role. (Rimmer, 2016, p. 83)

If you have just moved from language teaching into program administration or if you are contemplating such a move, you may want to consider what led you here and where it might be about to lead you. What are your expectations, your hopes, your fears? You may even feel like you have simply fallen into management, just as many individuals have fallen into English language teaching in the first place (Sakui, 2013). You might feel that a transition to administration is expected because it shows that you are progressing in your career, because you feel a responsibility to support your colleagues following the departure of a previous language-program administrator (LPA), or simply because the opportunity arose and was to be seized. Alternatively, you may have been working toward this goal for some time. Perhaps you are somewhere in between, having alternated between teaching and administrative responsibilities on your journey up to this point. Although you may have already E. Howard (*) EF Education First, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_2

15

16

E. Howard

gained some experience in management by taking on administrative or mentoring responsibilities as a senior teacher or in a less formal capacity (Rees & Porter, 2015; White et al., 2008), you would be in the minority if you had received formal management training before entering an administrative role in language-program administration (Rimmer, 2016). (See Chap. 3 for more information on how LPAs receive training.) Hopefully, you are excited, optimistic, and maybe a little proud to be taking this step. Even so, you probably have many questions and worries about just what you are getting into, and there will doubtless be many more questions that will arise in the course of adjusting to your new role that have not yet occurred to you. You are likely to find that you have already developed many essential skills for language-program administration through teaching; however, these skills will need to be adapted, refocused, and augmented to suit your new administrative role. Most teachers who move into administration already have substantial teaching experience and advanced educational qualifications, which are typical prerequisites for the move into administration. Indeed, this pattern is common across industries, with most managers beginning their careers as specialists in the fields that they manage (Rees & Porter, 2015). The move often brings with it familiar rewards and challenges. Perhaps the clearest benefit of making this transition is that it is perceived as a progression in one’s career, so it is often accompanied by an attendant salary increase. However, a seasoned language teacher may also find deeper, more personal advantages to moving from teaching to administration such as the broadening of one’s professional identity as a result of committing to an administrative or leadership path—a change that mirrors the professionalization of the language-­ teaching field, particularly English language teaching (Sakui, 2013; White et  al., 2008). Novice LPAs may be relieved to learn that they can adapt many of the skills that they have developed as a result of teaching (e.g., engagement in curriculum-­ development efforts, management of multiple teaching responsibilities, coordination with peers) to their new role as LPAs; however, transitioning from language-teaching specialist to LPA also entails having to acquire new skills. For novice LPAs, the realization that new skills will be required can be somewhat overwhelming, particularly for teachers who have only just developed confidence and expertise in teaching. Novice LPAs often find themselves forced into focusing on the completion of day-to-day survival tasks (White et al., 2008), making it difficult to access the rewards of autonomy and creativity in their new role. Faced with the prospect of acquiring new skills, along with managing the day-to-day challenges that most novice LPAs face, it is normal for teacher-turned-novice-LPA to seek opportunities to return to the comfort of the classroom, perhaps with the intention of “helping out” or “keeping their hand in” (Rees & Porter, 2015). The temptation to focus on skills that are familiar over the challenges of acquiring new skills also increases when an LPA’s role emphasizes hybridity, in other words, when teaching is included in an LPA’s job description. When LPAs identify as teachers first and foremost (Sakui, 2013), the temptation to embrace the familiar is intensified. Novice LPAs must resolve such tensions to develop new skills and competencies. Figure 2.1 shows the tensions present in language-program administration. These different perspectives can either contribute to the success of LPAs or trap the unwary teacher- turned-LPA in counterproductive approaches.

2  Making the Transition: From Language Teacher to Program Administrator

17

Fig. 2.1  Tensions in views of administration

Central to resolving these tensions is developing an understanding of (a) how experiences in teaching can prepare novice LPAs for their new roles as administrators (see Chaps. 3 and 4 for more information on LPA responsibilities), (b) how experiences in administration can be expanded upon to view pedagogical principles more broadly, and (c) how LPAs can use their more comprehensive grasp of pedagogical principles to support and enhance the educational missions of their language programs. This chapter explores how teachers’ classroom experiences and pedagogical expertise can be used to develop their skills and competencies as LPAs. Four general skill areas for LPAs are discussed: (a) managing academic matters, (b) managing human resources, (c) understanding administrative responsibilities, and (d) developing a managerial perspective. The chapter concludes with suggestions for further training and development. By understanding the different aspects of an LPA’s role and how these aspects relate to the practice of teaching, novice LPAs can develop competence, build confidence, and achieve both effectiveness and satisfaction as they balance their old and new identities.

Managing Academic Matters When first making the transition from teaching to language-program administration, the aspects of program administration most directly related to pedagogy are likely to feel the most familiar and appealing. Although LPAs’ roles vary across language programs (and home institutions), it is often the case that LPAs assume the role of leading other language-teaching professionals (White et al., 2008). In fact, it

18

E. Howard

is reasonable to assume that LPAs’ duties will include classroom observation and feedback, teacher training, and syllabus development. Experienced teachers who transition to administration can build upon their knowledge base and classroom expertise that result from past formal training, continuing professional development (CPD), and actual classroom teaching. It is those experiences that can most immediately be brought to bear when taking on a leadership role. (See Chap. 4 for additional information on LPAs’ responsibilities for CPD and teacher supervision.) In most language programs, a regime of regular classroom observations is essential (and often officially mandated) to assure quality teaching and the development of teaching skills through constructive feedback. Because LPAs are both the leaders of the teaching team and expert language teachers themselves, they will naturally conduct many of these observations. LPAs with teaching backgrounds have a sense of what makes a good lesson, have probably already been observed, and have also observed a number of lessons as part of their own training; these experiences make classroom observations familiar processes. However, in an administrative position, one is not the teacher being observed, so the purpose of classroom observation moves away from reflection on one’s own teaching and practice to the evaluation and development of teaching for the teachers being observed (Hockley, 2014; Yürekli, 2013). This shift in focus presents two significant challenges for LPAs: (a) offering useful feedback for teachers whose styles and stages in their careers may vary widely from one another and from the LPA and (b) having the courage to provide feedback to teachers who may be more experienced than the LPA (Rimmer, 2016). Resolving both challenges can be aided by clearly defined and agreed on observation criteria, the core of which are often formally codified in institutional policies and criteria, although there is some debate over how detailed these should be (Leshem & Bar-Hama, 2008). A specific focus or target for observations may also be agreed upon by the LPA and the teacher being observed (Murdoch, 2000) so that feedback is recognized as personally relevant. Nevertheless, it is often especially productive to give feedback by means of the familiar classroom practices of elicitation and guided reflection to emphasize teachers’ personal development and autonomy and build consensus between the LPA and the teacher being observed. The cycle of classroom observations is typically supported by CPD, delivered in-house, externally, or both. Because formal teacher training is a broad field with its own literature (see Malderez & Wedell, 2007, and The Teacher Trainer for overviews) and may make up a greater or lesser part of an LPA’s duties, it cannot be explored fully here. However, teachers making the transition to administration will recognize familiar teaching practices that apply just as much to teacher supervision and classroom observations as to language teaching; these include conducting needs analyses, personalizing the curriculum to meet students’ needs, monitoring student progress, providing feedback, and helping students learn by production, reflection, and autonomy. Teachers-turned-LPAs are fortunate that the skills that they developed for planning and delivering instruction in their language classes are useful when planning for and delivering teacher-training sessions. In addition to classroom observation and teacher supervision, LPAs oftentimes play a key role in selecting course materials and determining how those materials

2  Making the Transition: From Language Teacher to Program Administrator

19

are to be used. (See Chap. 4 for additional information on updating and revising curricula.) How much control an administrator can have over what is taught will vary significantly across language programs. LPAs may want to take on responsibilities in the area of curriculum design and development (also referred to as syllabus design and development) because of their linguistic and pedagogical expertise, coupled with their contextual knowledge of student needs and institutional resources. At the same time, it is important for LPAs to recognize that the field of curriculum design and development is also diverse (see Macalister & Nation, 2020; Richards, 2017). Involvement in curriculum design and development may be of limited relevance to LPAs who are constrained by curricular policies in large institutions, especially when working within a public education system or a network of schools or universities. However intellectually engaging and rewarding curriculum design may be, it is a demanding undertaking if it is to be done well. LPAs need to decide if they are going to assume the responsibility or if they are going to delegate. The pros and cons must be weighed against limitations of the language program’s available resources and other administrative commitments. Teachers who transition to language-­program administration must acknowledge the fact that they most probably have less direct control over what happens in the classroom than they did as teachers.

Managing Human Resources Removal from the immediate activity of the classroom highlights an LPA’s reliance on others to achieve organizational goals, which can be challenging for formerly independent teachers. LPAs are compelled to delegate for several reasons, namely, the sheer scale and variety of administrative-, pedagogic-, and customer-support activities that run through an LPA’s office. These activities can overwhelm LPAs who take on full responsibility for them—a situation that leads to personal burnout, a demoralized team, and systemic ineffectiveness (Goleman, 2000; Sostrin, 2017). Delegation has further benefits: it can give language-program personnel an opportunity to (a) complete a task or achieve a goal and (b) develop a sense of responsibility for the program. Furthermore, delegation provides immediate opportunities for their CPD. An additional, yet crucial, group that must also be managed within a language program is the learners, whose active engagement and participation and whose adherence to regulations, procedures, and deadlines are just as necessary for educational effectiveness as they are for teachers and language-program personnel. Managing learners requires special care to balance their expectations for autonomy and desire to have an influence on their own educational trajectories with their abilities to do so because of their often low levels of language proficiency and limited experiences in language education (Mahatmya et  al., 2014). Given that learners, teachers, and other language-program personnel operate in the same system and that managing them requires similar skills, all three groups are considered here.

20

E. Howard

Nonetheless, it is important to remember that the management of people for effective teaching and learning goes far beyond directing activities and must include the satisfaction and well-being of the stakeholders, as well as the resolution of conflicts and complaints. Fortunately, many of the skills required to manage various individuals within a language program will already be familiar to novice LPAs from experiences in the classroom, albeit in modified forms or with different emphases. Perhaps the skills that are the strongest among teachers are those associated with effective communication and the building of rapport (Hockley, 2004; Pickering, 1999). Classroom skills support the development of leadership capabilities because teachers must engage, inspire, motivate, and direct their learners in the classroom—skills that go beyond abilities associated with effective instruction such as giving clear instructions and feedback (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009). These instructional skills are also important for LPAs, in customer service and in interactions with colleagues and students. The skills just need to be adjusted to communicate more complex or emotive messages, particularly when the messages are people-oriented and quite different from the language-oriented ones in classroom contexts. Indeed, harnessing soft skills (i.e., the skills one needs for working effectively with others) and learning to navigate diverse roles are vital bridges between teaching and management (Goleman, 2000). Nonetheless, administrators must also learn new roles and new strategies for carrying out these new roles. Motivation is a familiar classroom construct that is closely linked to the development of LPAs’ management and leadership skills. In the management context, motivation takes on a new complexity and significance. A process that is central to understanding motivation, and one that is familiar from the classroom, is a kind of needs analysis, whereby LPAs gather information to understand the personal and individual circumstances, work requirements, and goals of stakeholders (including students and all language-program personal) to keep them not only satisfied but also engaged and productive (see Maslow, 1943; Herzberg, 1968; for seminal work on this topic). Through the process of asking stakeholders to articulate goals for themselves that are consonant with the goals and objectives of the language program, LPAs can ensure (and restore, if needed) the motivation of learners and language-program personnel at both strategic and individual levels as needs arise (Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014). This process highlights the importance of getting to know language-program personnel and students, understanding them, and recognizing their individuality. Although this process is familiar for teachers as a result of attending to motivation in a class, in the management setting, these motivations are likely to be much more diverse among stakeholders, making it challenging to navigate and reconcile them. One of the biggest challenges that novice LPAs face is handling dissatisfaction. Although classroom teachers inevitably deal with disengaged or disgruntled students, complaints from students and language-program personnel take up a much higher proportion of LPAs’ responsibilities than those of teachers, and these complaints are less amenable to being delegated. The increase in undesirable interactions can be one of the most challenging and dispiriting aspects of the move from teaching to administration. It requires that LPAs develop the ability to detach

2  Making the Transition: From Language Teacher to Program Administrator

21

themselves personally from complaints, and it is a process that demands a delicately balanced performance (Hochschild, 2012). In these circumstances, an LPA’s ability to communicate, listen, and empathize will be essential. Equally important is appreciating the value of all types of feedback, combined with the ability to navigate direct or imprecise expressions of concern. In language-program administration, LPAs experience a broad range of communicative interactions. To ensure the well-being of both students and language-­ program personnel, LPAs must develop skills for communicating effectively regardless of whether the communication is desirable or undesirable. Menniss (2014) states that teachers who are better cared for and have their needs met will be better able and motivated to do their best work, and the same is true for students. Equally important, teachers who have their needs met are more likely to make greater contributions to the overall learning environment and success of the language program. Similarly, students who have their needs met will be more engaged and better able to learn and make their own contributions. While teachers are essential for monitoring their students’ well-being in the classroom, LPAs must expand on this responsibility to encompass interrelated factors beyond the classroom that can affect the health and well-being of students and language-program personnel (Mercer, 2021). (See Chap. 13 for details related to human-resource management.)

Understanding Administrative Responsibilities For many teachers who move into administration, it is the administrative duties that feel, at least initially, the most unfamiliar and intimidating (Hockley, 2004). Depending on specific institutional arrangements, these duties could easily include record-keeping, communication, and resource management, especially financial resource management and budgeting (see Chap. 15 for more information). Despite the formal and cultural distinctions made between academic and administrative departments (Erasmus, 2020a; White, 2003), LPAs in academic units will typically spend a significant proportion of their time on these tasks, especially when they are novice LPAs (Panferov, 2012/2017; Sakui, 2013). These administrative tasks are a potential source of discomfort, especially for teachers-turned-LPAs who had previously, as teachers, been able to devote themselves primarily to their core pedagogic activities, accompanied by a handful of circumscribed administrative tasks. A further challenge for teachers in the move to administration comes from losing the clearly defined structure of a teaching timetable, which is replaced by what seems like an endless to-do list. Even if novice LPAs are aware of this new pattern of work, it will require the development of a new knowledge base and a set of skills to adapt to it effectively. A key requirement for adjusting to a new pattern of work entails becoming familiar with systems and procedures. Hopefully, at least a significant part of the new knowledge will be covered in the induction and handover processes that take place when the LPA first accepts the position. However, many details can only be learned

22

E. Howard

through experience. LPAs must be prepared to ask for help as needs arise and know whom to ask to get the necessary information. Equally important is the need to reduce time spent on mundane and routine tasks; it is important to seek ways to streamline these types of tasks, which may take the form of technological shortcuts or the creation of new procedures or document templates. These streamlining innovations will require some familiarity with the language program, as well as an investment of time, but they can provide quick and satisfying returns in efficiency and productivity. Alongside managing systems and procedures, LPAs will need to develop their time-management skills (see Chap. 16 for details on time management). Time-­ management skills may have already been developed as part of lesson planning and teachers’ own needs for personal organization. However, the emphasis and scope of time management shift for LPAs. The complexity and high stakes of language-­ program administration require prioritization, according to the consequences and interdependencies of tasks. In order to prioritize and act effectively, it is crucial that time be devoted to planning, beginning with the activities that are required of oneself and others. Although using valuable time to plan may seem a distraction from impending tasks, the value of doing so to avoid later omissions or waste will rapidly become apparent. Time management for LPAs should incorporate effective delegation. This key skill is often alien to a relatively self-sufficient classroom teacher, but it is essential for effective administration (Sostrin, 2017). Delegation requires core people-management skills, from matching tasks to people, through engaging and communicating with them during the process, and following up with them when tasks have been completed. It is one thing to plan a project or to find a solution to a problem, but it is quite another to ensure that everyone involved in the project knows what specific actions to take. Consequently, even with well-developed communication skills, the administrative arena of multiple roles and interdependencies makes communication more challenging. From the beginning of a new project, it is critical to establish how and with whom one needs to communicate. While teachers have fairly clear lines of communication (primarily to their students), the lines of communication for LPAs are more complicated. Administrators must (a) consider teachers, students, other administrators, and external suppliers; (b) decide from whom to seek information and points of view; and (c) determine with whom to communicate procedures, events, and changes. LPAs must then consider when and how to communicate effectively and efficiently. As in teaching, effective communication is incorporated into a plan and a set of procedures, although such preparation is subject to immediate time pressures and interruptions, which are even more common in administration than the classroom. Even so, a clear plan for communication—which includes how, when, and with whom to communicate—makes administrative work much smoother and more effective. Thus, while the practical functions of administration are usually quickly learned, achieving them effectively requires teachers-turned-managers to expand their leadership skills and their understanding of the organization in which they operate.

2  Making the Transition: From Language Teacher to Program Administrator

23

Developing a Managerial Perspective Many of the challenges and situations with which LPAs must grapple and which pose the greatest number of challenges for teachers as they assume positions in management and leadership derive from comprehending the scale and scope of a managerial perspective. In the course of their duties, LPAs work directly and indirectly with a much wider network of colleagues and stakeholders than they did as teachers. When language programs are situated within larger institutions, such as universities, LPAs must work to build relationships across departments and gain an understanding of the different roles, goals, and priorities within the institution and the interrelationships among individuals and units. A managerial perspective requires that LPAs become familiar with processes within the language program, especially processes that define how language-program activities are directed toward the achievement of goals. These workplace activities may be quite different from the comfortable environment of the classroom, which is defined primarily by familiar teaching processes and procedures (Cacciattolo, 2014; White, 2003). Recognizing the multiplicity of processes and relationships within a language program is essential for developing a managerial perspective; however, developing this perspective can be confusing for a teacher who has previously worked relatively independently or among other teachers with shared pedagogic assumptions. Novice LPAs should note that the communication skills and the flexibility derived from engaging and motivating students with different goals, temperaments, and cultural backgrounds are valuable for developing a managerial perspective. Similarly, as teachers, novice LPAs will have worked with other departments or units to resolve issues related to student welfare or school facilities. These already established relationships form the foundations for understanding and developing this new perspective. To achieve the objectives of the language program and collaborate effectively with other units from a managerial perspective, LPAs must recognize the competing pressures within the language program. This recognition is especially valuable when LPAs are trying to work productively with units beyond the language program and within the same institution (Gabarro & Kotter, 2005). To work productively and collaboratively with other units requires an understanding not only of the language program’s academic function but also its commercial and professional functions, including its function as a service provider to its most important clients, the students (Pennington & Hoekje, 2014). The language program’s commercial function calls for alertness to financial constraints and a willingness to engage with areas like marketing and student recruitment, perhaps by creating opportunities for marketable content such as photographs of school events. A language program’s professional functions may include maintaining external accreditation through record keeping and quality assurance. These functions need to be considered from a range of different perspectives—external stakeholders; students, with their diverse needs and expectations; and teachers, who will have their own needs and expectations for both the program and their roles in it. Listening and encouraging students to take

24

E. Howard

ownership over their learning is a skill developed in the classroom that can be repurposed for language-program administration (Menniss, 2014). Although LPAs devote much of their time to the everyday details of administration and people management, especially when they are first assuming the role, they must maintain a focus on language-program goals, objectives, and values, while also developing a vision of themselves as LPAs and leaders. Just as a teacher has clearly defined syllabus goals that can be subdivided into objectives and achieved within lessons, albeit within a broad paradigm of pedagogical values, an LPA needs to plan in both broad and specific terms how to further the language program’s mission, which may be expressed generally and abstractly, in the short term or long term, and in multiple areas of practice (White et al., 2008). Planning at this level requires that an LPA understand explicit and implicit organizational objectives, examine diverse stakeholder needs, and reflect on their own pedagogic and managerial beliefs and goals. Ultimately, this process might lead to significant change or to the undertaking of large-scale projects, but it will also shape the approach that administrators take in carrying out their everyday duties, the roles that they adopt, and the decisions that they make. By developing a vision consonant with the specific context, their team of language-program personnel and students, and themselves, LPAs will be better placed to motivate those around them, enhancing quality and well-being throughout the program.

Taking Advantage of Management Training and Development Despite the foundations provided by a novice LPA’s teaching background (e.g., content knowledge as well as communication, organization, and leadership skills), there is still much for the novice LPA to learn. As has been observed, few LPAs receive formal training or qualifications in the specific skills and knowledge of language-­program administration before starting their new role, in part because preparation for management in language-program administration is limited (Rimmer, 2016). Nonetheless, novice LPAs benefit from various kinds of support and development to maximize their effectiveness and minimize their anxiety, both initially and in order to progress and improve over time. Participation in CPD supports the novice LPA in building a professional identity that can lead to greater satisfaction and engagement. The following recommendations can assist new LPAs in achieving both the competence and confidence to succeed. 1. Investigate your context. Effective language-program administration relies on a broad and often detailed knowledge of the organization, its objectives and procedures, individual stakeholders, their needs and goals, and various other contextual factors. The novice LPA might begin investigating the language-program context by becoming familiar with key policies and procedures in the institution, such as those that propel the student from enrollment to post-graduation (Erasmus, 2020b). However, to support students better and lead successful

2  Making the Transition: From Language Teacher to Program Administrator

25

change efforts, it is necessary to collect information on the needs and experiences of students, whether formally or informally, as well as examine the context of the language program (Everard et al., 2004). These investigations can provide rich (and sometimes unpredictable) sources of information and an inspiration for organizational and personal development, often going far beyond their original purpose. 2. Seek out training that is available. Suitable training might include accredited courses leading to a formal qualification; some of those courses may count as credit towards, for example, a Master’s degree. Even in settings where formal qualifications or degrees are not required for those in management and leadership (Rimmer, 2016), such courses can provide an opportunity to explore language-­program administration issues in depth alongside like-minded peers. These types of training can help novice LPAs develop self-confidence, as well as satisfy requirements set by others. Even short and online courses on aspects of management, with or without a focus on language-teaching contexts, can be useful, especially for particular areas of concern (e.g., digital technologies, marketing, budgets). Less formal learning—which results from reading the professional literature and conference attendance—can provide fruitful input on core concepts and best practices, although the trick will be to contextualize, adapt, and implement insights gained. 3 . Learn from other administrators. One of the most valuable sources of support and development when entering management, and even afterwards, is colleagues with whom the novice LPA can discuss challenges and ideas; more experienced colleagues can serve as mentors through formal or informal arrangements. One’s mentor might be a line manager (i.e., a person with direct managerial responsibility for a particular employee), especially one who has progressed along the same path, although others might be found through professional associations or other networks (Panferov, 2012/2017). Indeed, friends in other fields, such as project management or human resources (HR), can provide welcome insights and perspectives from their fields. If the opportunity arises, aspiring, novice, and even established LPAs can benefit from shadowing and assisting colleagues. When the language program is part of a larger institution, shadowing in a parallel unit can provide especially valuable knowledge and broaden an understanding of the wider organization. 4 . Reflect on your own practice. Reflection remains among the most valuable tools for professional development, especially when external or formal forms of support are not available due to time, resources, or other circumstances (Higginbotham, 2019). Reflective activities might simply entail an informal consideration or review of the day’s events, although a more structured approach through journaling or methodical analyses can help an LPA stay focused and productive (Bolton & Delderfield, 2018). Indeed, a mixture of formal and informal, solitary, and collaborative approaches to reflection strengthens all options. Whatever format reflection takes, it will be made more productive by (a) being specific and concrete; (b) kindly and dispassionately considering different participants’ ­perspectives, needs, and constraints; (c) being realistic about what can

26

E. Howard

Fig. 2.2  A reflective cycle for language-program administrators

be achieved in practice; and (d) considering the relative merits of alternative outcomes. Figure 2.2 illustrates how these four recommendations can be combined in a version of the Reflective Cycle, most notably codified and popularized by Kolb (1984). These four recommendations may sound familiar to novice LPAs because similar tips are shared with teachers-in-training; indeed, the reflective and investigative skills that proved essential to survival and progress in the classroom can be repurposed and refashioned to equip novice LPAs for their new careers as administrators. These skills are emblematic of how a teacher becomes a learner in the new context of language-program administration but does so with a solid foundation of skills and a knowledge base from teaching that equip them to find success and satisfaction in their new role.

Reflecting on Making the Transition to Program Administrator 1. Think of a time when a student or colleague had a problem that you helped to solve. How did you do this? What institutional knowledge and personal skills did you use? How might these be applied to an administrative context? 2. What aspects of your teaching career do you think will assist you (or have assisted you) the most in transitioning from teacher to administrator?

2  Making the Transition: From Language Teacher to Program Administrator

27

Suggested Reading Hockley, A. (2004). From language teacher to language teaching manager. ELT Management, 35, 16–18.  https://lamsig.iatefl.org/wp-­content/uploads/2013/05/4-­Hockley-­From-­lang-­teacher-­ to-­lang-­teaching-­manager.pdf The author summarizes the essential skills and knowledge required for program management using the Knowledge-aided Assessment and Structured Applications (KASA) framework. He explores how this framework relates to the prior experience of those entering the field from teaching and highlights the key challenges that they face.

References Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. Journal of Institutional Psychology, 36(4), 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2010.511399 Bolton, G., & Delderfield, R. (2018). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development (5th ed.). SAGE. Cacciattolo, K. (2014). Understanding organisational cultures. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 10(10) https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/4782 Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers. Cambridge University Press. Erasmus, G. (2020a, June 11). Academic vs. non-academic roles in a school – Is it a 50/50 balance? Pavilion ELT. https://www.modernenglishteacher.com/academic-­vs-­non-­academic-­roles-­in-­a­school-­is-­it-­a-­5050-­balance Erasmus, G. (2020b, February 19). The customer journey – How they experience your organisation. Pavilion ELT. https://www.modernenglishteacher.com/the-­customer-­journey-­how-­they­experience-­your-­organisation Everard, K.  B., Morris, G., & Wilson, I. (2004). Effective school management (4th ed.). Paul Chapman Publishing. Gabarro, J. J., & Kotter, J. P. (2005). Managing your boss. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr. org/2005/01/managing-­your-­boss Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr. org/2000/03/leadership-­that-­gets-­results Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53–62. https://hbr.org/2003/01/one-­more-­time-­how-­do-­you-­motivate-­employees Higginbotham, C. (2019). Professional development: Life or death after pre-service training? ELT Journal, 73(4), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz021 Hochschild, A. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (3rd ed.). University of California Press. Hockley, A. (2004). From language teacher to language teaching manager. ELT Management, 35, 16–18. https://lamsig.iatefl.org/wp-­content/uploads/2013/05/4-­Hockley-­From-­lang-­teacher-­ to-­lang-­teaching-­manager.pdf Hockley, A. (2014). Classroom observations – Moving from evaluation to development. SPELT Quarterly, 29(3), 2–10. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Leshem, S., & Bar-Hama, R. (2008). Evaluating teaching practice. ELT Journal, 62(3), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm020 Macalister, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2020). Language curriculum design (2nd ed.). Routledge.

28

E. Howard

Mahatmya, D., Brown, R. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2014). Student-as-client. The Phi Delta Kappan, 95(6), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171409500607 Malderez, A., & Wedell, M. (2007). Teaching teachers: Processes and practices. Bloomsbury Publishing. Maslow, A.  H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 Menniss, P. (2014). Client care. IATEFL leadership and management, SIG Newsletter, 45, 20–23. Mercer, S. (2021). An agenda for well-being in ELT: An ecological perspective. ELT Journal, 75(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa062 Murdoch, G. (2000). Introducing a teacher-supportive evaluation system. ELT Journal, 54(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.1.54 Panferov, S. (2017). Transitioning from teacher to administrator. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp. 3–18). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Pennington, M.  C., & Hoekje, B.  J. (2014). Framing English language teaching. System, 46, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.08.005 Pickering, G. (1999). Roads to quality street. ELT Management, 28, 5–9. https://lamsig.iatefl.org/ wp-­content/uploads/2013/05/3-­Pickering-­Roads-­to-­Quality-­Street.pdf Rees, W. D., & Porter, C. (2015). Skills of management & leadership. Palgrave Macmillan. Richards, J.  C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Rimmer, W. (2016). The experience of initial management training in ELT. ELT Journal, 70(1), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv035 Sakui, K. (2013). Can you manage? English Teaching Professional, 89. https://www.modernenglishteacher.com/can-­you-­manage Sostrin, J. (2017). To be a great leader, you have to learn how to delegate well. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/10/to-­be-­a-­great-­leader-­you-­have-­to-­learn-­how-­to-­delegate-­well White, R. (2003). Behind the scenes at the LTO. ELT Management, 33, 7–11. https://lamsig.iatefl. org/wp-­content/uploads/2013/05/4-­White-­Behind-­the-­Scenes-­at-­the-­LTO.pdf White, R., Hockley, A., van der Horst Jansen, J., & Laughner, M. S. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations. Cambridge University Press. Yürekli, A. (2013). The six-category intervention analysis: A classroom observation reference. ELT Journal, 67(3), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs102 Edmund Howard is University Pathways Manager at EF Education First (Oxford). He was a general English teacher and a senior teacher before entering program administration in 2018. He now manages and teaches in University Foundation and Pre-Masters programs, as well as supporting administration for general English. His professional and academic interests include curriculum development and learner and professional identities in English Language Teaching.  

Chapter 3

Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities Benjamin L. McMurry, Norman W. Evans, Pricila Klein Dutra, Corbin Montaño, Sydney Sohler, and Valmene Teriipaia Whippy Abstract  Given the dynamic and evolving nature of language-program administration, this chapter has drawn insights from an empirical study designed to investigate practicing language-program administrators’ (LPAs’) perceptions and beliefs about their most important responsibilities. The chapter discusses the six responsibilities that practicing LPAs considered to be most important and offers suggestions that LPAs can follow to develop skills for carrying out these responsibilities. Keywords  Language-program administration · LPA · Responsibilities · Skills · Training Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards. (Law, 1960, p. 2)

Language-program administration can be very rewarding, but it can also be demanding and unpredictable. Our (McMurry’s and Evans’s) many years of experience as language-program administrators (LPAs) have taught us how essential experience is to being able to view language-program administration as rewarding. At the same time, we also recognize that novice LPAs cannot draw on such experience and that lack of experience, along with the complexities of the job, make language-program B. L. McMurry (*) · N. W. Evans · V. T. Whippy Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] P. K. Dutra Internexus, Provo, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. Montaño Brigham Young University-Hawai’i, Laie, HI, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. Sohler Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_3

29

30

B. L. McMurry et al.

administration challenging. Novice LPAs often feel as Law stated in the opening quote to this chapter: they are being given the test first before they have had the requisite lessons. Understanding LPAs’ responsibilities and being able to prioritize them are central components of overall effectiveness in language-program management and leadership. In addition, knowledge of LPA responsibilities can be used to make the job more manageable, which, in turn, can lead to more satisfaction in one’s career. Gaining an understanding of LPAs’ responsibilities may seem like a straightforward task, but it is not as straightforward as it might appear, particularly for novice LPAs. Novice LPAs bring diverse backgrounds, a wide range of teaching experiences, and other areas of expertise to their positions as LPAs. According to Coombe et al. (2008), many English-language teachers find themselves thrust into leadership positions before they are ready to cope with their new and expanded roles in management and leadership; in fact, the learning curve for novice LPAs can be rather steep. Christison and Stoller (2012/2017) noted some of these challenges as they recalled their own experiences, “The job of a language-program administrator [is] multifaceted, requiring a wide range of skills, knowledge, and expertise that we had not acquired as a result of our educational backgrounds nor our experiences as language teachers” (p. vii). Furthermore, Bailey and Llamas (2012/2017) emphasized the need to understand LPAs’ responsibilities as they relate to specific contexts, stating that “certain responsibilities are central, no matter the type of language program while others are highly context sensitive” (p. 29). Novice LPAs might not be prepared to differentiate between general responsibilities that are needed in most language programs and those responsibilities that are most important in distinct contexts. Internal and external regulations place demands on the specific responsibilities that LPAs must assume. For example, students who wish to study at universities in the United States are required to obtain F-1 visas. University-based intensive English programs (IEPs) that accept students who are F-1 visa holders must issue I-20 forms; LPAs must assume specific responsibilities for issuing these forms and develop the knowledge base and skills related to governmental requirements. U.S.based refugee and other immigrant programs do not issue I-20 forms but rather have a different set of governmental regulations to follow, meaning that LPAs in adult education will also have responsibilities specific to their context. Despite the contextual differences that influence LPAs’ responsibilities, it is also important to recognize that LPAs carry out similar responsibilities across varied contexts, for example, evaluating language-program mission, vision, and goal statements. Bailey and Llamas (2012/2017) used a questionnaire to survey 200 respondents. The questionnaire focused on what knowledge and skills LPAs needed to carry out their work effectively as leaders and managers. While their study is informative, it is also important to remember that language programs continue to evolve in response to changes in real-world contexts and much has changed in our world in the past decade, particularly in terms of access to digital technologies and the increase in human migration. More current information is needed to understand the skills and responsibilities that are required to lead language programs effectively in diverse contexts in the twenty-first century.

3  Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities

31

This chapter reports results of research that was designed to investigate practicing LPAs’ perceptions of their most important responsibilities. The purpose of the research was to determine what experienced and practicing LPAs believed were their most important responsibilities; in this way, we could frame the discussion of LPA responsibilities in this chapter around those deemed most important. The research also investigated roles of LPAs relative to each responsibility and what type of training they had received. The research questions that guided the study were the following: 1 . What do practicing LPAs perceive as their most important responsibilities? 2. For each of the responsibilities, what degree of accountability do LPAs have? 3. What types of training do LPAs receive for each of the responsibilities?

Methodology Research Design This research was conceptualized as survey research. Survey research entails collecting data from a predetermined group, in this case practicing LPAs, with the ultimate goal of uncovering insights into a predetermined issue (in this study, the administrative responsibilities that LPAs perceive as most important). Survey research encompasses different types of information gathering—for example, face-­ to-­face interviews, telephone surveys, panel surveys, and questionnaires. For the current study, we chose a questionnaire because it allowed us to communicate easily with a diverse group of LPAs who were working in different contexts worldwide (e.g., binational centers, international schools, and IEPs). (See Chap. 4 for more information on different types of language programs.)

The Questionnaire By adapting and building on Bailey and Llamas (2012/2017), we created a questionnaire for the current research that focused on 28 administrative responsibilities.11 We combined some of the responsibilities in the Bailey and Llamas questionnaire. For example, recruiting teachers and hiring teachers were combined into one responsibility. We added other responsibilities that were based on our own administrative experiences, including assessing students within the language program, participating in accreditation tasks, coordinating student activities, planning

 For a copy of the questionnaire or additional information regarding the research reported here, please contact the first author [email protected] 1

32

B. L. McMurry et al.

Table 3.1  LPA Responsibilities in Rank Order LPA Responsibilities 1. Determining and evaluating program mission, vision, and goal statements 2. Evaluating overall program effectiveness 3. Developing, evaluating, and revising curriculum 4. Testing language proficiency 5. Assessing students within the program 6. Supervising teachers 7. Creating or maintaining relationships with external stakeholders 8. Evaluating teachers 9. Recruiting students 10. Providing justification for the program 11. Developing and maintaining budgets 12. Training teachers 13. Recruiting and hiring teachers 14. Advising students 15. Scheduling classes 16. Participating in accreditation tasks 17. Maintaining student and personnel records 18. Creating or maintaining relationships with other external organizations 19. Marketing or advertising 20. Evaluating technology 21. Monitoring expenses 22. Coordinating student activities 23. Dealing with student immigration (i.e., visas, I-20 s) 24. Coordinating student orientation 25. Training support staff 26. Facilitating research 27. Managing office supplies and support 28. Evaluating support staff

Number of times the item appeared in the top 10 86 78 77 59 55 55 47 46 45 43 42 42 39 39 36 36 34 31 30 29 27 23 23 19 15 12 9 3

and implementing student orientation, and facilitating research projects. Table 3.1 lists the LPA responsibilities included in the questionnaire.

Participants Questionnaire participants (N = 152) came from diverse contexts and were experienced LPAs. The majority of participants worked in IEPs and university-based English programs (n = 101), while other participants had experience in primary and secondary school settings, adult-education programs, and international schools. The

3  Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities

33

mean for the number of years of experience as LPAs was 10, and for teaching, it was 16. One-hundred seventeen participants had master’s degrees, and 94 of the 117 degrees were in TESOL or a related field. Thirty-three LPAs had doctoral degrees. The participants were also active in professional associations such as TESOL International Association, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, EnglishUSA, and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL).

Data Collection and Analysis The questionnaire was initially distributed via email and social media to LPAs whom the authors knew and later to an expanded list that was created after searching the internet for LPAs’ contact information. LPAs who received our initial request for participation were also asked to share the questionnaire with additional LPAs in their own circles. Making the questionnaire available online allowed the researchers to collect data in a timely manner from a wide range of participants. Participants answered questions about themselves and the institutions in which they worked. Then, they were asked to respond to the 28 LPA responsibilities in three separate ways. In the first iteration, they indicated the role that they played for each of the responsibilities by indicating one of the three choices: 1. Direct accountability The LPA is directly responsible. The LPA delegates the responsibility. 2 . The LPA provides input to decision makers. 3. No LPA accountability. If respondents answered 1 or 2, they moved to the second iteration. In the second iteration, participants indicated the type of training that they had received to fulfill each responsibility: (a) on-the-job training, (b) formal education, (c) workshops and conferences, or (d) other. They also indicated whether they desired additional training (with a yes/no response). By the third iteration, most participants were quite familiar with the list of LPA responsibilities in the questionnaire, so we asked them to identify the 10 responsibilities that they believed to be most important in their current positions. Data from the first iteration were coded for the role that respondents played and totals were calculated. Data from the second iteration were coded for type of training received to fulfill each responsibility, including a plus or minus to indicate whether the respondents wanted more training. Totals were calculated. Data that resulted from the third iteration were analyzed by calculating the frequency for each of the responsibilities (i.e., the number of times that each responsibility appeared in the 10 most important choices) across the total number of participants.

34

B. L. McMurry et al.

Results Table 3.1 presents the 28 LPA responsibilities in rank order, beginning with the responsibility that garnered the highest frequency count (86/152), Determining and evaluating program mission, vision, and goal statements, and ending with the one with the least, Evaluating support staff (3/152). Results from data that were based on the first iteration (i.e., the degree of accountability) and the second iteration (i.e., the type of training that respondents received) are embedded in the discussion section, where appropriate and applicable.

Discussion Our discussion highlights the six LPA responsibilities that were deemed most important by the practicing LPAs in this study: (a) determining and evaluating program mission, vision, and goal statements; (b) evaluating overall program effectiveness; (c) developing, evaluating, and revising curriculum; (d) testing language proficiency; (e) assessing learners within the program; and (f) supervising teachers. In our discussion, we address testing language proficiency and assessing students within the program together given the similarities between the two tasks. Furthermore, we broadened our discussion of supervising teachers to include another important responsibility relative to human resources, which is advising students. We decided to combine our discussion of supervising teachers and advising students because of our own experiences as LPAs, especially our experiences during the COVID pandemic with its impact on the mental health of both language teachers and learners.

 etermining and Evaluating Program Mission, Vision, D and Goal Statements Determining and evaluating a language program’s mission, vision, and goal statements were ranked as the most important responsibilities by LPAs in this study. The importance of these two inextricably linked administrative responsibilities is reinforced by the Commission of English Language Program Accreditation (CEA), which identifies them in its first CEA Standard for English language programs and institutions: The program or language institution has a written statement of its mission and goals, which guides activities, policies, and [the] allocation of resources. This statement is communicated to faculty, students, and staff, as well as to prospective students, student sponsors, and the public, and is evaluated periodically. (CEA, n.d.)

3  Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities

35

These responsibilities were ranked in the top 10 more often than any other administrative responsibility. Only eight LPAs reported delegating these responsibilities, suggesting that LPAs most often assumed responsibility for them personally. Creating mission, vision, and goal statements is part of strategic planning (see Chap. 5 for more information on strategic planning). A language program’s mission, vision, and goals influence other LPA responsibilities, so it is not surprising that practicing LPAs in this study considered these responsibilities to be central to their work.

Evaluating Overall Program Effectiveness Scriven (1991) defined evaluation as the systematic process to determine the merit, worth, value, significance, or quality of the construct being evaluated. For LPAs, evaluation entails questioning and determining if the language program is fulfilling its expected purpose through its vision, mission, and goal statements. Seventy-eight questionnaire respondents indicated that evaluating the overall effectiveness of their program was among the top 10 most important tasks. Only 12 of all the practicing LPAs indicated that they delegated evaluation of their language programs. (See Chap. 7 for more information on accreditation schemes for evaluating quality in language programs.) Thirty-six respondents indicated that they had received formal training in program evaluation, while 79 LPAs noted they had received on-the-job training. Fifty noted that they had attended conference sessions or participated in continuing professional development on the topic. Twenty-six respondents indicated that they wanted more training relative to language-program evaluation.

Developing, Evaluating, and Revising Curriculum Few aspects of an LPA’s responsibilities are more multifaceted than developing and revising curriculum. To contextualize what it means to develop, evaluate, and revise curriculum, we first need to have a clear concept of what curriculum means (Christison & Murray, 2020; Macalister & Nation, 2020; Richards, 2017). For our purposes, we define curriculum as the why, what, where, when, how, and who of instruction. It is a carefully structured framework of theories, methodologies, assessments, resources, facilities, people, and experiences that functions as a dynamic and working instructional plan. Its purpose is to orient teachers and staff so that they can guide and support learners in achieving individual and program objectives. A curriculum should be tailored to fit a specific context rather than being imposed upon it, and it must respond to local needs, customs, and constraints (Macalister & Nation, 2020). In practice, a curriculum provides direction, clarity, and focus while supporting teachers’ autonomy and recognizing their abilities.

36

B. L. McMurry et al.

Seventy-seven of the LPAs who were surveyed placed responsibilities for the curriculum among their top 10 responsibilities, but 38 said they delegated this responsibility to someone else. Even though curriculum is central to a language program, only 65/152 reported having formal training for this LPA responsibility. The majority (87/152) said that they had developed this skill through on-the-job training. Also of note is the fact that 27 participants indicated that they would like further training in curriculum design and development. Training for this responsibility was the most frequently requested one from among the 28 responsibilities in the questionnaire.

 esting Language Proficiency and Assessing Students Within T the Language Program Language proficiency testing and program-level assessments are closely connected and rarely mutually exclusive, so we are combining our discussion of these two responsibilities. The principles and practices that govern both responsibilities are similar, for example, deciding what needs to be assessed, designing specifications for tests and assessments, creating prototypes, evaluating and piloting assessments, scoring tests and assessments, and reporting data (Fulcher (2013). Language Proficiency Testing Language proficiency testing, including for the purposes of student placements, is an essential responsibility for both teachers and LPAs. Without valid and reliable assessments, it is difficult for LPAs to place students in classes that are appropriately designed for their level of language proficiency, evaluate their progress, and determine language-program effectiveness. Carefully crafted assessments “engage program stakeholders and promote a commitment to institutional objectives” (Davis & McKay, 2018, p. 7). Testing language proficiency was ranked fourth among the most important LPA responsibilities. Almost one-third of the participants delegated this responsibility to someone else in the language program. This result is understandable as most participants reported that they received on-the-job training in language testing and only a few practicing LPAs indicated that they had received training in language testing through formal education. Language proficiency testing for the purposes of placing students in appropriate courses is one of the first experiences that students will have with a language program, and it will shape students’ initial impressions of the program and their future experiences. If a student is incorrectly placed, the student, their classmates, and their teachers can be negatively affected. In contrast, correct placement can set a student up for success. A clear understanding of how to place students effectively is essential to the success of both the students and the language program.

3  Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities

37

Assessing Students Within the Language Program Assessing students within the language program ranked fifth among the most important LPA responsibilities. Language programs engage students in a wide range of assessment activities for a number of different reasons, for example, to measure performances on classroom tasks that are tied to course objectives or to ascertain student progress at a given program level (to determine if the student should repeat a level of instruction or move up to the next level.). If there is a strong relationship between what is taught and what is assessed, student performances on program-­ level assessments can also serve as indicators of the quality of instruction. If students are performing below expected levels on program-level assessments, LPAs may want to take a careful look at instruction. Program-level assessments also help students in identifying their strengths and weaknesses. Program-level assessments that are reliable, valid, and practical can act as references for student improvement or the basis for making changes within the language program (Macalister & Nation, 2020).

Supervising Teachers and Advising Students The management of human resources is typically viewed as central to language-­ program administration (see Chap. 13 for more details). Here we report on the results of our study with regard to two aspects of human-resource management: supervising teachers and advising students. Supervising Teachers Working with teachers is an important responsibility for LPAs. In fact, four of the 28 administrative responsibilities (see Table 3.1) in the questionnaire were related to teachers—evaluating teachers, recruiting and hiring teachers, supervising teachers, and training teachers. These four responsibilities often overlap. In the process of supervising teachers, LPAs need to make certain that teachers are well informed about the specific criteria that will be used to evaluate them. When recruiting and hiring teachers, LPAs need to ensure that the teachers who are hired are aware of the program’s mission statement and overall goals, and the same is true for supervising teachers. Teacher training focuses on implementing curricula, planning lessons, managing a classroom, utilizing technology and other resources, and setting and achieving goals, all of which overlap with teacher supervision responsibilities. In the current questionnaire, teacher supervision was identified as the sixth most important responsibility. Fifty-five of the 152 respondents put this responsibility as one of their top 10. Results also showed that 120/152 participants received on-the-­ job rather than formal training for supervising teachers.

38

B. L. McMurry et al.

To be successful as teacher supervisors, LPAs must know their teachers, for example, their previous employment histories, prior education and training, language and cultural backgrounds, and language-teaching ideologies. Teacher supervisors must consider teachers’ current employment statuses as well because full- and part-time teachers come to a program with very different expectations. A teacher may also have accepted three or four different teaching jobs just to make ends meet, a situation that can impact a teacher’s performance in the classroom. Another important consideration for LPAs is understanding language teachers’ ideologies. For instance, the LPA needs to ascertain if teachers’ ideologies are consistent with language-­program ideologies (e.g., relative to ideologies that favor multilingualism rather than monolingualism; Christison & Krulatz, 2020; Conteh & Meier, 2014; Krulatz & Christison, 2021). Language programs that have clearly articulated program goals, well-crafted mission statements, and a firmly established curriculum with instructional guidelines and documents specifically outlining what is expected of teachers provide a strong foundation for effective supervision. Advising Students A related responsibility in terms of human-resource management and one in which LPAs regularly participate is advising students. Most LPAs advise students to some degree, even though few focus mainly on this responsibility. Students often approach LPAs, in their capacity as advisors, with physical and mental health issues in addition to their educational concerns. Common physical concerns are related to housing difficulties, finances, and health concerns. Homesickness, relationship issues, and culture shock (see Chap. 11 for additional information on culture shock) all impact mental health. Educational concerns presented by students include navigating an unfamiliar education system, talking with teachers, and resolving conflicts with classmates. Issues of racism and discrimination are ongoing concerns in language-­program settings where students come from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. In addition, LGBTQ+ students face additional challenges, and LPAs must be prepared to advise them. Because many language-program students find themselves in a new country with few social connections, the LPA often becomes a trusted advisor. Training and preparation for the role of student advisor is typically done on-the-­ job. Based on our experiences as advisors, we offer three suggestions to help novice LPAs prepare for this responsibility. 1. LPAs should be familiar with students’ rights—in the language program or perhaps the university or school district where the program is located, and in the country where the language program is situated. For example, in the United States, FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) outlines policies and practices for protecting students’ rights. 2. It is essential that LPAs know when to seek counsel and advice from trained professionals. For example, a student who threatens suicide needs help far

3  Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities

39

beyond what an LPA can provide. LPAs should have a list of external resources and know whom to contact for issues outside of the language program. Contact information for the local housing authority, law enforcement, medical services, immigration specialists, and mental health providers should all be in an LPA’s student-advisement “toolbox.” 3. LPAs need to learn how to communicate appropriately with a wide range of students and be adept at listening without giving advice or inserting their own ideas or thoughts. This type of interaction with students creates an environment where students are supported and feel encouraged to work through their problems. LPAs should focus on empowering students to resolve their own problems. Asking reflective questions and refraining from telling students exactly what to do supports such empowerment. Novice LPAs need to be aware that in their roles as LPAs, they will likely be called upon to be advisors and at times act as confidants.

Implications LPAs assume many diverse responsibilities, making the job of language-program administration multidimensional and challenging, particularly for novice LPAs who are in the process of developing their administrative knowledge and skills. The results of the current research can be useful for novice LPAs. The rank-ordered list of LPAs’ most important responsibilities (Table 3.1), based on the perceptions of the experienced LPAs who participated in this study, gives novice LPAs a way to focus on their own development at a time when it may seem that all LPA responsibilities require their attention. How novice LPAs ultimately use the findings of the study reported here is dependent on (a) the specific responsibilities that they may have in the contexts in which they are working, (b) their individual interests and learning preferences, and (c) their access to available resources. After novice LPAs have decided on the administrative responsibilities on which they want to focus, they must determine how to continue to develop their expertise relative to those responsibilities. The professional-development options that are described in the sections that follow are suggested to encourage novice and aspiring LPAs to continue to develop their knowledge base and skills while at the same time recognizing that many novice LPAs must also carry out their professional responsibilities.

Professional-Development Resources When looking for professional-development resources, trusted professional organizations (e.g., TESOL International Association, IATEFL, ACTFL, NAFSA) and accrediting institutions (e.g., CEA) are often excellent sources of professional-­development

40

B. L. McMurry et al.

materials for LPAs. Such materials include journals, newsletters, briefs, books, podcasts, blogs, and “toolkits” for managing different issues. Many organizations host virtual town halls focused on specific issues that may be of value to language-­program administrators. Practicing and experienced LPAs can also serve as valuable resources; they might even agree to serve more formally as mentors. While most practicing and experienced LPAs are more than willing to support novice LPAs in the development of their knowledge and skills, it is essential to remember that LPAs are very busy individuals. Thus, novice LPAs wanting to confer with practicing LPAs should consider their end goals and desired outcomes before contacting an experienced LPA for advice, suggestions, and/or mentoring.

Courses and Webinars While it takes more than coursework to become a skilled LPA, taking online and/or face-to-face courses can help novice LPAs gain important knowledge. Online courses and webinars come in many varieties, ranging from university-offered courses to course-on-demand platforms such as Udemy (see https://www.udemy. com). Professional organizations also offer courses, webinars, and certification programs in language-program administration. Novice and aspiring LPAs who are currently teaching, working, and/or studying at a university should look broadly across university offerings to find courses in administration, leadership, management, and other areas related directly to language programs. For example, MA TESOL programs often offer courses in curriculum design, language assessment, and language-­ program administration. Business colleges likely offer courses that focus on organizational leadership, which can be useful in articulating language-program mission and goal statements. Education departments often offer graduate-level courses in program evaluation and language curricula as well.

Conferences and Workshops Conferences and workshops sponsored by professional associations are also valuable professional-development resources. Professional language-teaching organizations such as TESOL International Association, IATEFL, and ACTFL offer workshops as part of their annual conferences. Individual conference papers and presentations may be relevant to LPA responsibilities as well. In addition to language-­ teaching organizations, other organizations offer professional-­ development opportunities that may be useful to LPAs, for example, NAFSA conferences offer workshops tied closely to the duties of LPAs. Business-related conferences may cover topics that are useful for LPAs as well, such as setting goals, creating vision statements, overseeing financial resources, and leading teams.

3  Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities

41

Internships and Shadowing Many practicing and experienced LPAs are willing to share their expertise through job shadowing or internship experiences. Job shadowing is a type of on-the-job training that allows an interested employee, for example, an aspiring LPA, to follow and closely observe another employee performing the job. This type of learning is often used to introduce new employees to an organization or a new role. Some language programs offer internships. In an internship, an aspiring LPA volunteers to work in a language program, most often without pay, to gain work experience or satisfy requirements for a qualification. Internships are often formal arrangements between two entities; internships function much like a teaching practicum does for a language-teaching degree.

Conclusion While practicing and experienced LPAs may find this chapter on LPA responsibilities informative and useful, especially as it relates to the delineation of LPAs’ responsibilities, the chapter has primarily been directed toward novice and aspiring LPAs. In other words, the chapter targets teachers who are just starting a career in language teaching and those who have a great deal of teaching experience yet aspire to be LPAs at some time in the future. It may be helpful for our target audience to take another look at the demographics of the participants (described earlier in the Participants subsection) from the perspective of understanding the job market and securing a position as an LPA. Many of the participants (127/152) had obtained advanced degrees. These degrees were most often in TESOL and related fields, such as second and foreign language teaching. Many had degrees in education, and some were in business. It seems that formal education, regardless of the focus of the discipline in which the degree was obtained, was an important predictor of success in acquiring positions in language-program administration, at least for the participants in this study. Even though results revealed that training for specific LPA responsibilities is most often acquired through on-the-job experiences, an advanced degree was also deemed important. Advanced study may be an important consideration for both novice and aspiring LPAs as they plan for their future careers in language-­ program administration.

Reflecting on LPAs’ Responsibilities 1. Consider the LPA responsibilities itemized in Table 3.1 carefully. Choose the 10 LPA responsibilities that you believe you are best prepared to assume. Share your list with a peer if possible and be prepared to explain why you made these selections.

42

B. L. McMurry et al.

2. Choose three LPA responsibilities from Table 3.1 that you believe you are the least prepared to assume. Consider the suggestions offered in the chapter for increasing your knowledge base and skills and outline plans for improving your knowledge and skills for these responsibilities.

Suggested Readings Davis, J. M., & McKay, T. H. (Eds.). (2018). A guide to useful evaluation of language programs. Georgetown University Press. Davis and McKay outline principles from the field of program evaluation and apply them to language-learning contexts. This book will help orient LPAs to evaluation practices and provide an informative knowledge base from which LPAs can design and carry out high-caliber evaluations.

References Bailey, K., & Llamas, C. (2017). Language program administrators’ knowledge and skills. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp. 19–34). ALTA English. (Original work published 2012). Christison, M. A., & Krulatz, A. (2020, October 9). Moving towards a multilingual paradigm in English language teaching [Keynote Presentation]. Intermountain TESOL Annual Conference, Virtual. https://itesol.org Christison, M. A., & Murray, D. E. (2020). What English language teachers need to know volume III: Designing curriculum (2nd ed.). Routledge. Christison, M. A., & Stoller, F. L. (2017). A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed.). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA). (n.d.). Retrieved from https:// cea-­accredit.org Conteh, J. (2014). In G. Meier (Ed.), The multilingual turn in language education: Opportunities and challenges. Multilingual Matters. Coombe, C., McCloskey, M. L., Stephenson, L., & Anderson, N. J. (2008). Leadership in English language teaching and learning. University of Michigan. Davis, J. M., & McKay, T. H. (Eds.). (2018). A guide to useful evaluation of language programs. Georgetown University Press. Fulcher, G. (2013). Practical language testing. Routledge. Krulatz, A., & Christison, M. A. (2021). Working toward a multilingual paradigm in content-based instruction: Implications for teacher education. In M. A. Christison, D. Christian, & J. Crandall (Eds.), Research on integrating language and content in diverse contexts (pp. 3–20). Routledge. Law, V. S. (1960). This week. August Issue (p. 2). Joseph P. Knapp. Macalister, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2020). Language curriculum design. Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Richards, J.  C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Sage.

3  Perceptions of Language-Program Administrators’ Most Important Responsibilities

43

Benjamin L.  McMurry is the Administrative Coordinator at the English Language Center at Brigham Young University (BYU), where he overseas curriculum, assessment, evaluation, teacher training, and institutional research. He has an affinity for materials development and working with teams to create meaningful learning experiences for students. His research interests include materials development, the psychology of language learning, and language-program administration. Ben has taught and administered in intensive English programs at various institutions over the past two decades.  

Norman W. Evans is a Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Brigham Young University (BYU) where he teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in TESOL materials and methods, curriculum development, and program administration. His career spans nearly 30 years in such capacities as ESL teacher, program administrator, teacher trainer, researcher, and author. For over 20 years, he has directed or codirected English language programs in Utah, Hawaii, and the South Pacific. His research interests include written corrective feedback, curriculum design, and language program development.  

Pricila Klein Dutra graduated from BYU with an MA TESOL with an emphasis in languageprogram accreditation. She is a center director at Internexus, Provo.  

Corbin Montaño is currently an adjunct professor at Brigham Young University, Hawaii. She also owns an online school that focuses on teaching English to Latinos.  

Sydney Sohler graduated from BYU in 2020 with an MA TESOL. She teaches English at Utah Valley University, Orem.  

Valmene Teriipaia Whippy is from Bora Bora and earned an MA TESOL from Brigham Young University with an emphasis in language-program administration.  

Chapter 4

Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators Polina Vinogradova and Heather Linville

Abstract  This chapter depicts the complex global language-program landscape by describing seven distinct language-program types: adult-education programs, binational centers, international schools, private language schools, public schools, refugee-resettlement programs, and university-based language programs. To illustrate the overarching characteristics of each program type, the authors describe the students served, the program’s major functions, common designations, administrative homes, course emphases, and select challenges for language-program administrators. The authors then examine eight administrative responsibilities assumed by language-program administrators in these contexts. These responsibilities center on managing human resources, budgeting, marketing and recruiting, developing partnerships, updating curricula, planning for innovation, creating opportunities for continuing professional development, and supporting equity, diversity, and inclusion. Keywords  Administration · English-language program · Language-program administrators · Language-program types · Management · Responsibilities It would not be an exaggeration to declare that the role of the ESL program director is both complex and formidable. (Eaton, 2017, p. 16)

Language-program administrators (LPAs) have various titles and responsibilities depending on the program that they lead, its structure, its location, its key stakeholders, its funding sources, and the level of autonomy that they enjoy. While some language programs are private and independent, others are positioned within universities, community colleges, public schools, adult education programs, and P. Vinogradova (*) American University, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] H. Linville University of Wisconsin La-Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_4

45

46

P. Vinogradova and H. Linville

refugee-resettlement programs. LPAs can be program directors who oversee most aspects of their programs, department chairs who oversee large departments in which language programs are situated, owners of private language schools, program coordinators who have primary responsibility for language curricula and teaching staff, lead teachers (e.g., in secondary schools) who ensure curricular continuity and innovation, executive directors of refugee-resettlement programs and literacy programs, and directors of offices responsible for the support of international students in tertiary institutions. For the purposes of this chapter, we refer to these individuals, despite their varied official titles, as LPAs. Administrative structures and LPAs’ responsibilities vary depending on geographical location; the overall language-program structure; views on language teaching, language learning, and teacher roles; the demand for English language courses; and the status of English in the local context. In many settings, LPAs make curricular and personnel decisions that can impact students’ well-being and influence local language policies. In other settings, language curricula are determined by “higher authorities” such as Ministries of Education, Departments of Education, local school districts, and other governing boards. In most program contexts, LPAs face challenges including navigating the dynamics of managing teachers, providing student support, developing fair personnel practices, and managing and resolving conflicts. In this chapter, we provide an overview of language-program types in diverse contexts and identify a sampling of LPA responsibilities that have relevance, though in varying amounts, in these contexts. To do so, we have drawn upon literature on language-program administration (e.g., Christison & Stoller, 2012/2017; Eaton, 2017; Raza et  al., 2021), the reflections of practicing LPAs, and our own administrative and academic experiences.

Overview of Types of English Language Programs A wide array of English-language programs exists worldwide, with learners at all language-proficiency levels, of different ages, and with different purposes for learning English as a second/additional/foreign/international language. It is challenging to categorize existing program types because the same type of program in the same context can have different organizational structures and goals. To illustrate, let’s consider a subset of university-based language programs. A university-based program in Australia most often serves students who have traveled to Australia to study English and complete a university degree. A seemingly similar type of program at an Englishmedium university in Turkey primarily serves students from Turkey (and other Turkic-language countries) who need a certain level of English to complete a university degree. A university-based program in Indonesia, on the other hand, might serve local students who are studying English to meet personal goals or secure a job, rather than satisfy requirements to earn a university degree. These different universitybased English-language programs may offer similar language classes, but the students that they serve and program goals are distinct.

4  Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators

47

Parallel comparisons could be made among language programs of a number of other types, including adult-education programs, binational centers, international schools, public schools, private language schools, and refugee-resettlement programs.1 The subsections that follow provide an overview of these types of language programs by highlighting select features of each program type, including students served; major functions; common designations, administrative homes (when applicable), and course emphases; and select challenges for LPAs. The global language-program landscape is too complex to provide a comprehensive depiction of each language-program type, but we believe that the general descriptions offered illustrate the variations among these language-program types. Some of the programs showcased (e.g., in primary and secondary schools) offer instruction in additional content areas, but we focus solely on the language-instruction element of each. Despite commonalities among programs of each type, it is important to keep in mind that every language program is unique.

Adult-Education Programs • Students Served: Adult students who are learning English as an additional language and are from a variety of linguistic, educational, and cultural backgrounds; also served are adult students who are home language speakers of English and need to develop skills in English for employment and professional purposes. • Major Functions: Empower adult learners to reach their goals (e.g., language-­ skill improvement, success in carrying out daily responsibilities, high-school equivalency diploma preparation, further education, better job prospects, computer literacy, citizenship); enable students to be fully engaged in their communities. (See Parisoff & Reeder, 2012/2017, for more details.) • Common Designations: Adult Basic Education (ABE), Adult Secondary Education (ASE), English Language Acquisition for Adults. • Common Administrative Homes: Educational institutions (community colleges, literacy councils, public-school districts, university extension programs), community organizations (e.g., libraries), religious organizations, and prisons. • Common Course Emphases: General English, Vocational English, Workplace literacy, High-school equivalency diploma preparation, Citizenship, Computer literacy. • Select Challenges for Language-Program Administrators: Advocating for the program, its students, and teachers; engaging in outreach; supervising and providing continuing education opportunities for teachers and staff; writing  Because of space constraints, we are unable to cover many other language-program types, such as community literacy centers and programs administered by foreign-government embassies or other entities (e.g., Alliance Française, American Corners, British Council Centers, Cervantes Institutes, Goethe Institutes, Japanese Cultural Centers). 1

48

P. Vinogradova and H. Linville

grants; fundraising; overseeing various programs; liaising with stakeholders and community partners; budgeting; responding to diverse student needs; managing instability in enrollments caused by economic and political factors; and retaining faculty (because many programs rely on part-time instructors).

Binational Centers (BNCs) • Students Served: English as a foreign language (EFL) students from all age groups. • Major Functions: Cultivate mutual understanding, promote intellectual and cultural exchanges, and strengthen ties between people of the host country (where the BNC is located) and partnering countries (e.g., Australia, the United States). Teach English (and sometimes local languages), offer cultural programming, advise students who wish to study abroad, prepare students for standardized international exams needed to apply for international study, maintain a library open to the community. (See Morghen, 2012/2017, for more details.) • Common Designations: Binational Center (BNC), Cultural Institute (e.g., Instituto Cultural Argentino Norteamericano). • Common Course Emphases: English for young learners, English for adolescents, English as a Foreign Language—beginning to advanced levels, English for Specific Purposes, test preparation. • Select Challenges for Language-Program Administrators: Reporting to and carrying out directives from a board of directors, staffing and budgeting, developing community partnerships, organizing teacher-development opportunities, overseeing administrative and academic staff, and interfacing with foreign government offices (e.g., U.S. Department of State, British Council).

International Schools • Students Served: Primarily school-age students (Kindergarten through Grade 12) living outside of their home countries with their families; also served are students from the local population. • Major Functions: Offer primary and secondary education (typically in English, though some international schools offer bilingual programs). Provide students from non-English backgrounds with language support; prepare students for enrollment in colleges and universities abroad (e.g., in the United States). (See Scholz, 2012/2017, for more details.) • Common Designation: International Schools. • Common Course Emphases: Academic English preparation for different grade levels and for students who enter the school with different language proficiencies,

4  Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators

49

acculturation to academic environments (e.g., US-style education), promotion of cross-cultural understanding and respect for cultural differences among learners. • Select Challenges for Language-Program Administrators: Assessing and placing students, scheduling classes in consultation with school principals, supporting mainstream teachers as they strive to integrate ESL students into their classes, managing parental and school-official concerns, working within a hierarchical system, and focusing on intercultural understanding. In coordination with ESL teachers, educating parents about their roles as partners in their children’s education. Educating the larger international-school community about the differences between ESL and special-needs students.

Primary and Secondary Public Schools • Students Served: Students enrolled in Grades 1 through 12 (including kindergarten and Grade 13 in some locations) from diverse language backgrounds. • Major Functions: Provide comprehensive education across grade levels, with curricula regulated by school districts, Boards of Education, Departments of Education, or Ministries of Education (depending on the location). Schools in ESL settings support English learners (ELs) with language instruction. Schools in EFL settings offer EFL classes as school subjects and/or content and language integrated instruction (CLIL). • Common Designations: K–12 public schools; primary, secondary, and upper secondary schools; elementary, middle, and high schools; compulsory education sector. • Common Course Emphases: In ESL settings, courses for ELs aim to prepare students for the academic expectations of content courses across grade levels, with emphases on language improvement, learning-strategy instruction, and preparation for classroom dynamics (including student-student collaboration, project-based learning). English language curricula vary greatly; models of instruction include pull-out programs, push-in (inclusion) programs, sheltered instruction, mainstreaming or structured immersion, newcomer programs, bilingual education. In EFL settings, classes focus on language-skills development and/or CLIL. (See Dalton-Puffer, 2017; Lindahl & Christison, 2012/2017, for more details.) • Select Challenges for Language-Program Administrators: Coordinating personnel and providing them with in-service professional-development opportunities; overseeing mandated high-stakes testing; supervising multilingual English teachers; overseeing compliance with mandated curricula and textbooks; ensuring that teachers understand and use preferred pedagogical practices as endorsed by the school, district, state, and/or country. In ESL settings, handling fluctuations in student enrollments and demographics; serving diverse ELs from varied language, cultural, and educational backgrounds; educating mainstream content-

50

P. Vinogradova and H. Linville

area teachers about ELs in their classes; ensuring compliance with local, state, and national educational policies.

Private Language Schools • Students Served: Students, of different ages, with various language-learning aims including students who (a) are preparing for university study in an English-­ speaking country, (b) have personal English development and enrichment goals, (c) are studying English for professional-development purposes, (d) desire a language and culture experience, and (e) want to improve their language with after-school or “cram school” courses. Some private language schools serve the English learning needs of employees in companies and organizations. Some private language schools are located on university campuses to provide English for academic purposes instruction (see university-based English language programs later in this chapter). • Major Functions: Identify a market or markets; develop desirable products and services; design language curricula and courses to meet the academic, personal, and/or professional language-learning needs of the identified market(s); manage and innovate to remain competitive and grow. (See Reeves, 2012/2017, for more details.) • Common Designations: Varied, depending on name of parent organization, ownership model, operational structure, and business goals. • Common Administrative Home: Multi-location chains of language schools, private education companies or centers, and sometimes university campuses. • Common Course Emphases: Varied, depending on target student populations. • Select Challenges for Language-Program Administrators: Managing aspects of the language program, including its market-driven environment and the quality of its educational programming; overseeing student services; coordinating course offerings; managing personnel policies; budgeting; marketing; balancing educational mission and need for profitability; and coordinating efforts with the central or corporate office.

Refugee-Resettlement Programs • Students Served: Refugees, asylum seekers, and other new arrivals of all ages (children through older adults). • Major Functions: Work with community partners and local organizations (governmental, non-profit, religious) to support individuals as they transition and integrate into a new community. Provide essential health, housing, and financial

4  Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators

51

services; provide job training and English language training. Teach self-sufficiency. • Common Designations: Refugee Placement and Assistance, Refugee Development Center. • Common Course Emphases: Survival English, Intercultural Communication Skills, Job Skills. • Select Challenges for Language-Program Administrators: Securing funding, training volunteer teachers, creating partnerships with governmental and community organizations, staying informed about current and prospective refugee populations, responding to quickly changing global events, and working with the local community to ensure respect for newcomers.

University-Based English Language Programs • Students Served: University-age students at varying language-proficiency levels who aspire to earn a degree, must satisfy a university language requirement, and/or desire to improve their English for professional or personal purposes. In English-speaking countries, students are typically international students with a range of linguistic and educational backgrounds. In countries where English is not the primary language, students typically come from local and regional language backgrounds. • Major Functions: Provide students with language, learning-strategy, and academic-skills instruction that prepares them for university studies. • Common Designations: Intensive English Programs (IEPs, see Hamrick, 2012/2017, for more details), Foundation Programs, Language Prep Programs, Language-Support Programs. • Common Administrative Home: University-based English Departments, Linguistics Departments, Continuing Education units, or stand-alone language-­ program units. • Common Course Emphases: English for Academic Purposes, English for Specific Purposes, General English, Content and Language Integrated Instruction (CLIL), test preparation (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS). • Select Challenges for Language-Program Administrators: Liaising with university leadership and other campus units (including academic departments); responding to students’ evolving academic needs; scheduling multiple levels of instruction; engaging in teacher observation and supervision; overseeing curriculum renewal; managing personnel; handling fluctuations in student enrollments; staying current about local and global politics; advocating for students, teachers, and the program; and budgeting.

52

P. Vinogradova and H. Linville

Language-Program Administrator Responsibilities Across Contexts The responsibilities that LPAs assume vary widely across contexts, even in contexts that seem similar on the surface. To shed light on how LPAs carry out a subset of administrative responsibilities, we include the voices of practicing LPAs from diverse contexts who responded online to a set of questions2 that were delivered via TESOL International Association listservs. The purpose of the questions was to identify how LPAs carry out responsibilities in eight areas of language-program administration: (a) managing human resources, (b) funding and budgeting, (c) marketing and recruiting, (d) developing partnerships, (e) updating and revising curricula, (f) planning for innovation and change, (g) creating opportunities for continuing professional development, and (h) supporting equity, diversity, and inclusion. (Respondents are identified by their initials and the country in which they direct language programs.)

Managing Human Resources One of the responsibilities that LPAs assume in many contexts is the management of human resources (HR)—language-program personnel and students. Because many LPAs were once teachers themselves, the management of teachers may feel like a natural fit. It is important to know your team to construct a solid program. This implies understanding that every member of the team is crucial when it comes to the development of the program. (VMR, Chile)

Depending on the context, LPAs may oversee varied HR matters (see Chap. 13 for more details; see also Chap. 10 on faculty empowerment). Those HR responsibilities could include hiring (and also de-selecting; Christison & Murray, 2009), teacher supervision and evaluation, class scheduling and teacher assignments, and the handling of complaints and concerns. Supporting teachers by helping them avoid burn-out also falls under the domain of HR management. Supporting students is part of HR management. LPAs generally find it easy to focus on students and their needs because many LPAs started as teachers. In some language programs, working with and supporting students represent ways in which LPAs build a sense of community in the program. As one LPA points out, I consider all our ESL students as members of our ESL family. . . . Supporting them and providing assistance to ensure their well-being are keys to success. Students know that they can come to me with any question or concern, and that they will be heard. (JD, United States)

 Readers who would like access to the questions posted online should contact the first author.

2

4  Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators

53

Yet, balancing HR responsibilities with other duties and competing demands on their time can be challenging for LPAs. It is sometimes the case that LPAs find it necessary to delegate student-related HR responsibilities to other language-program personnel or possibly a student-services office.

Funding and Budgeting LPAs who oversee program funding and budgets have multifaceted responsibilities (see Chap. 15 for details). These tasks often entail asking for permission to purchase equipment, justifying expenses, prioritizing language-program and faculty needs, saying “no” to colleagues and their initiatives, and writing end-of-fiscal-year reports. The entire process can be frustrating, as revealed in this quotation: I have to ask the Dean if we want to spend money. Then, she has to get approval from the Vice President of Academic Affairs. It’s not easy. I wanted to get a class set of books for Spring semester, and I still don’t have an answer. (EN, United States)

Language-program funding sources vary widely. Operating funds may come from tuition, course fees, grants, governmental support, non-profit organizations, public donations (often in the case of free literacy training and refugee-resettlement programs), or a combination of these sources. Even though our department is part of a state university (state universities in Ecuador are free), our language students pay for their courses because we are open to the community. (AP, Ecuador)

These various funding sources can impact a program’s budget structure and define how LPAs engage in budgeting and finances. Our general funding falls under the International Student and Scholar Services area that I oversee, but there is no specific ELL program budget. (SG, United States)

For LPAs who have little background and training in financial matters, budgeting can be challenging and is generally perceived as stressful and time consuming.

Marketing and Recruiting Depending on the language-program context, LPAs may be responsible for marketing the program and recruiting students, which is especially true of LPAs working in private language schools and university-based language programs. Because LPAs often lack prior training in marketing and recruitment, they may collaborate with other units at the same institution or organization (e.g., a marketing and recruitment office), investigate how similar programs engage in marketing and recruitment initiatives, and/or supervise a staff member who can lead these efforts. Internal and external partnerships represent valuable forms of support for LPAs who assume such responsibilities.

54

P. Vinogradova and H. Linville We strive to strike a balance among various marketing strategies to improve student enrollment numbers. These strategies include institutional partnerships, web-based ads, social media, extensive use of agents, etc. (JD, United States)

Because satisfied students are often the best recruiters, referrals from prior students are often used as marketing strategies. Most of our students are referrals from past students. Our internal philosophy in the early years of our program was to develop high levels of credibility among students. (AP, Ecuador)

Developing Partnerships In most language-program settings, LPAs establish, manage, and develop partnerships both internal and external to the language program. For example, in publicschool contexts, LPAs typically partner with principals, mainstream content-­area teachers, parents, and school-board members. In refugee-resettlement programs, LPAs partner with community, governmental, non-profit, and religious organizations (to name a few). LPAs in university-based programs typically build partnerships with academic departments, the campus housing office, libraries, and student-support units. Seeing the increasing demand for support for students who had completed our language program, our librarian and I discussed the possibility of collaborating and offering voluntary workshops in areas not sufficiently addressed [elsewhere on campus]. (YL, Hong Kong)

LPAs in university-based and adult education programs oftentimes build partnerships with TESOL degree/certificate programs. As part of those partnerships, LPAs welcome TESOL candidates to their language programs to fulfill teaching-­ practicum, classroom-observation, or practice-teaching requirements. This form of partnership, in turn, provides service and professional-development opportunities for the language-program teachers who mentor the TESOL candidates. Such collaboration enriches learning opportunities for language learners, TESOL candidates, and their mentors. The goal of language-student enrichment also drives many of the community partnerships that LPAs establish. For example, LPAs often invite guest presenters from the community to share their expertise with language-program students. LPAs also organize externships, that is, short-term service opportunities for language students in local businesses. Other external partnerships entail collaboration with non-profit institutions and associations—such as the Center for Applied Linguistics (in Washington, D.C.), the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL), and TESOL International—that offer professional-­ development opportunities for teachers. In language programs that are tuition-driven, establishing external partnerships for the purposes of student recruitment is a vital responsibility for LPAs. In the United States, language programs often establish relationships with for-profit companies as a means to recruit students.

4  Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators

55

Our program relies on partnerships for student enrollments. We partner with [organization X] for our pathway program; the partnership has contributed to the majority of our IEP enrollments. However, to not be fully dependent on one organization for students and to increase student diversity, we have established strong partnerships with international universities as well. (KJ, United States)

Regardless of the context, partnerships that complement language-program needs in the local context are essential to a language program’s stability, growth, and student success.

Updating and Revising the Curriculum LPAs oftentimes have responsibilities for managing and updating language-program curricula, but their specific tasks vary widely across language-program contexts. For instance, in centrally managed language programs (such as in some private language schools, binational centers, and primary and secondary schools), the curriculum may be established at the district, corporate, or Ministry of Education level. In centralized settings such as these, it becomes the responsibility of the LPA to oversee the implementation of the mandated curriculum. In many university-­ based language programs, LPAs and teachers make most of the curricular decisions. Updating the language curriculum as well as polishing each level’s syllabi are some of the main responsibilities that I encounter every semester. (AP, Ecuador)

It is sometimes the case, however, that higher-level administrators, in units beyond the language program, impose curricular requirements and/or changes without consulting the LPA or taking into account the LPA’s expertise in English language teaching and learning. The faculty in our program work in groups to make curricular changes, but over the past five to six years, many curricular changes have been thrust upon us by the Academic Vice-­ President. (EN, United States)

In fact, language-program curricula in many university-based programs are linked to institution-wide curricular structures (e.g., academic-writing requirements). Being part of the larger institution, then, requires partnerships between and across academic units. These partnerships require LPAs to work collaboratively across units to satisfy a range of curricular issues. Our curriculum is, in part, influenced by the college’s first-year writing curriculum. We teach sheltered sections of first-year writing that adhere to program and institutional writing-skills development guidelines. (SG, United States)

Even language programs that have autonomy in developing their own curricula must keep in mind local resources and expectations as well as the contexts in which students will realistically use English. For example, Oda (2018) describes the shift from an EFL curriculum to a curriculum more focused on English as a lingua franca in a Japanese higher-education context. This shift was based on an evaluation of students’ needs and wants.

56

P. Vinogradova and H. Linville

Management of such curricular issues requires LPAs to have a vision; knowledge of commercially available materials; familiarity with recent research developments in the field; and an openness to innovation. LPAs also benefit from having a team of language-program teachers who can critically evaluate the existing curriculum; engage in needs analyses; and propose, implement, and assess changes at different stages of the curriculum-revision process.

Planning for Innovation and Change Planning for innovation and responding to change are responsibilities that likely all LPAs must assume to ensure language-program success, stability, and competitiveness. (See Chap. 6 for more on innovation.) We are constantly re-evaluating and trying to see how we can improve our craft. A good teacher never stops looking for ways to get better. (SG, United States)

Curricular and technological innovations (see Chap. 14 on technology) attract students and enhance program competitiveness in the global English language teaching market. Innovations can increase and sustain student satisfaction with their language-program experiences. Moreover, curricular innovations can lead to a positive, collaborative, supportive, and collegial program atmosphere regardless of the context. Our department, as well as our university, has been a leading institution in terms of English language teaching. We were the first language center in Ecuador to standardize learning procedures (22 years ago), offer TEFL certification to our teachers and community members (19 years ago), implement a professional-development program for faculty (18 years ago), and offer remote classes (last year)—at all 14 levels of instruction and in two languages—a few days after the pandemic and worldwide lock down started. (AP, Ecuador)

In fact, LPAs in most program types oversaw curricular innovations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a matter of a few weeks, LPAs set up and implemented productive, collaborative, and equitable virtual and hybrid program offerings. Innovation and creativity have been keys to meeting the needs of our language-program students, especially during the recent pandemic. Our extensive use of engaging educational technology has proven effective in increasing students’ English language proficiency as well as their continued satisfaction and engagement with the program. (JD, United States)

Whatever the impetus, technological innovations require thoughtful leadership, collaboration with teachers and students, an understanding of students’ circumstances, and a willingness to explore technological resources to find creative ways to deliver instruction. To support technological innovations, LPAs must be aware of teachers’ preparedness, set teachers up for success with training opportunities, and engage in training themselves. In India, a combination of broadcast media (i.e., TV, radio, and online streaming) came into practice during the pandemic. However, in the long run, to be able to sustain this method of teaching, educators need infrastructural and policy level support. . . . It is also worth

4  Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators

57

reflecting further on how multimodal and multisensory experiences and new pedagogical paradigms in teaching and learning might impact the socio-cultural fabric [of the language program]. (KK, India)

With regard to successful technology integration, LPAs should be concerned with quality control (see Chap. 7 for more details) to ensure that technology-in-use is pedagogically sound and will positively impact students’ language learning. We are fortunate to have a robust instructional-design team. During the pandemic, the team created a set of high-quality remote synchronous (HQRS) standards for teaching online using Canvas and Zoom. The team offered standards training sessions for faculty. My approach to technology was to create a simple HQRS checklist that I distributed to instructors. I then reviewed each instructor’s Canvas site and provided feedback. I worked with the instructional-design team to develop a Canvas template home page so that students had clearly recognizable (and consistent) links to the syllabus, Zoom, registration sites, and technology-support services. (CH, United States)

Creating Opportunities for Professional Development Continuing professional development (CPD) benefits everyone associated with a language program, including LPAs themselves. LPAs should pay close attention to CPD for novice teachers as this is the time “that teachers either develop a sense of efficacy as teachers or they leave the profession” (Crandall & Christison, 2016, p. 9). CPD can take various forms such as membership in professional associations and participation in professional conferences, webinars, or longer courses. CPD can also be delivered in-house by language-program personnel or an invited expert. We started something called “Learn from the Expert.” The idea is to bring experts to our university. . . . We are also constantly sharing information about and stemming from webinars, conferences, and workshops organized by teachers for teachers. We frequently meet to discuss best practices and give advice to each other. (JT, Mexico)

CPD helps language-program personnel stay current. Teachers are typically energized by CPD, thereby preventing teacher burnout. (See Chaps. 10 and 13 for discussions of teacher burnout.) I will consider anything teachers suggest that would help them with their work. (YL, Hong Kong)

Current approaches to CPD view teachers as creators of knowledge; thus, it is best carried out in collaborative ways (Crandall & Christison, 2016). I try to leave enough space in our routine work schedules to provide my colleagues and myself with sufficient time for research, reading, projects, reflection, and other professional-­ development (PD) endeavors. I encourage my colleagues to be part of professional networks and organizations so that we can share among ourselves news of PD activities outside our institution. I strongly believe that PD is directly proportional to personal wellbeing. (PBB, India)

Whenever possible, LPAs should consider providing time off and/or offering financial support to teachers for CPD.

58

P. Vinogradova and H. Linville

Supporting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion In some language-program contexts, LPAs are able to make decisions that impact the ways in which their language programs deal with and prioritize issues related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Of course, relevant local or national policies play an important role when making EDI decisions. Social justice in education is both a process and a goal which cannot be achieved unless there is equal participation of all groups in society. (KK, India)

EDI-related decisions are wide-ranging and can include what variety of English to teach, who to hire, what students to serve, and what types of courses to offer. LPAs benefit from educating themselves about EDI issues, establishing EDI goals, and then administering in ways that assist language-program personnel in reaching these goals. Our ESL program approaches equity, diversity, inclusion by . . . upholding the dignity of all persons, welcoming all to participate, and dialoguing with diverse cultures, perspectives, and beliefs. (JD, United States)

LPAs should strive to be cognizant of how multilingualism and ethnic and racial groups are perceived in their local contexts. The following quote exemplifies the intricate nuances of EDI work. North East India is extremely multilingual, but not all languages and varieties enjoy similar privileges or respect. Dominant linguistic communities and regional language groups find better opportunities for literacy development in their home languages, while many minority groups are still unrepresented in education. . . . In our program, we critique notions of language, power, privilege, and inclusion. We encourage students to revisit their own linguistic repertoires and promote translanguaging pedagogy. We support home-language use as a resource in the English classroom and provide pedagogical training in mother tongue-based multilingual education. (PBB, India)

LPAs who are in a position to engage in the hiring of personnel should target the hiring of teachers who understand the value of language diversity and World Englishes. The Ecuadorian constitution considers our state multicultural and multilingual. In our language program, more than 14 different countries are represented among faculty members. . . . Our students definitely get a taste of different Englishes, from native English-­speaking teachers (from Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Singapore, and the USA) and nonnative English-speaking teachers (from, e.g., native Spanish, French, and Dutch language backgrounds). (AP, Ecuador)

In some contexts, LPAs may find it necessary to speak out against policies that do not support EDI initiatives, such as privileging certain language varieties or the insistence on hiring “native English-speaking teachers” (see De Costa et al., 2021; Selvi, 2014; see also Chap. 11 for more on advocacy). Our approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion . . . is influenced not only by our own multi-­ ethnic backgrounds, but also the need to advocate for our students as well as teaching them how to advocate for themselves. . . . We whole-heartedly acknowledge the value of

4  Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators

59

multilingualism and the legitimacy of World Englishes and English as a global language. (SG, United States)

LPAs enter their leadership positions with their own values and beliefs related to social justice. An important part of their decision making entails taking into account institutional, local, and national cultures.

Conclusion In this chapter, we focused on language programs of different types and the varied responsibilities that LPAs might have in them. We showcased seven types of language programs, including adult-education programs, binational centers, international schools, public schools, private language schools, refugee-resettlement programs, and university-based language programs. For each program type, we identified students served, major functions, common designations, administrative homes, course emphases, and select challenges for LPAs. Our presentation of diverse language-program types was followed by commentary on eight administrative responsibilities that LPAs likely have, but to different degrees, in these contexts. The voices of practicing LPAs who work in diverse contexts were incorporated into our discussion as a means to illustrate the different ways in which LPAs approach these responsibilities.

Reflecting on Language-Program Administration in Diverse Contexts 1. Consider your local language-program context and how it impacts three of the eight administrative areas explored in this chapter. What changes in your own administrative practices might you implement based on what you have read? 2. Reflect specifically on the role of an LPA in supporting equity, diversity, and inclusion. What obstacles might an LPA encounter in your language-program context in supporting such an important initiative? What aspects of the local culture might facilitate such an initiative?

Suggested Readings Gunsalus, C.  K. (2021). The college administrator’s survival guide: Revised edition. Harvard University Press. This practical guide—for new U.S.-based college administrators—offers suggestions, which can be adapted to other educational settings, on how to establish rapport with and manage colleagues, address conflicts, set up rules and expectations, and be a consistent and fair leader. The book uses scenarios to suggest practical solutions to issues often encountered by academic administrators.

60

P. Vinogradova and H. Linville

Hart, C.  P., & Nasj, F.  M. (2022). Coaching to empower teachers: A framework for improving instruction and well-being. Routledge. This book offers an asset-based coaching framework that can help administrators create supportive, collegial, and knowledge-based relationships with teachers. Further, it offers coaching techniques that LPAs can implement as part of professional-development programming in their programs.

References Christison, M. A., & Murray, D. E. (2009). A model for leadership in English language teaching: An introduction to leadership IQ. In M. A. Christison & D. E. Murray (Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (pp. 27–49). Routledge. Christison, M. A., & Stoller, F. L. (Eds.). (2017). A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed.). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Crandall, J., & Christison, M. A. (2016). An overview of research in English language teacher education and professional development. In J. Crandall & M. A. Christison (Eds.), Teacher education and professional development in TESOL: Global perspectives (pp. 3–34). Routledge. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2017). Same but different: Content and language integrated learning and content-­based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language and content (2nd ed., pp. 151–164). University of Michigan Press. De Costa, P.  I., Green-Eneix, C., Li, W., & Rawal, H. (2021). Interrogating race in the NEST/ NNEST ideological dichotomy: Insights from raciolinguistics, culturally sustaining pedagogy, and translanguaging. In R. Rubdy & R. Tupas (Eds.), World Englishes: Volume 2 Ideologies (pp. 127–140). Bloomsbury. Eaton, S. E. (2017). Perceptions of ESL program management in Canadian higher education: A qualitative case study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(9), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.9.2 Hamrick, J. (2017). Intensive English programs. In M.  A. Christison & F.  L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp. 321–328). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Lindahl, K.  M., & Christison, M.  A. (2017). K12 schools. In M.  A. Christison & F.  L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp. 337–344). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Morghen, V. I. (2017). Binational centers. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp.  313–320). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Oda, M. (2018). A post-EFL approach to the administration of English language programs. JACET ELF SIG Journal, 2, 32–38. Parisoff, C., & Reeder, N. (2017). Adult education programs. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp. 305–311). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Raza, R., Manasreh, M., King, M., & Eslami, Z. (2021). Context specific leadership in English language program administration: What can we learn from the autoethnographies of leaders? International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 1–21. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13603124.2021.1944672 Reeves, M. (2017). Private language schools. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp.  345–352). Alta English. (Original work published 2012).

4  Language Programs in Diverse Contexts: Voices of Language-Program Administrators

61

Scholz, C. M. (2017). International schools. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp.  329–336). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Selvi, A. F. (2014). Myths and misconceptions about nonnative English speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) movement. TESOL Journal, 5(3), 573–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.158 Polina Vinogradova, Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer and TESOL Program Director at American University, Washington, D. C., is an experienced program administrator. Her research focuses on uses of digital stories in language education, postmethod pedagogy, and advocacy in language-teacher development. Other research interests include a pedagogy of multiliteracies, language-teacher education, and social justice for English learners. She is co-editor (with Joan Kang Shin) of Contemporary Foundations for Teaching English as an Additional Language: Pedagogical Approaches and Classroom Applications (Routledge, 2021). She has worked with English language teachers from around the world and contributed to the TESOL International Association in various ways.  

Heather Linville is Professor and TESOL Director at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse. Her research explores how teachers advocate for English learners and how personal, experiential, and contextual factors influence advocacy beliefs and actions. Other research interests include digital storytelling, language-teacher education, critical language awareness, and social justice for English learners. Heather has several publications, including Advocacy in English Language Teaching and Learning (Routledge, 2019; co-edited with James Whiting). As an experienced program administrator, she has traveled and worked in Chile, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, and Panama and has served the TESOL International Association in various ways.  

Part II

Leadership in Language Programs

Chapter 5

Becoming Strategic Gabriela Kleckova, Denise E. Murray, and  MaryAnn Christison

Abstract  This chapter focuses on strategic planning (SP) through a discussion of ideas and strategies that language-program administrators (LPAs) need to consider to ensure the health and sustainability of their programs. Because of our ever-­ changing world, it is important for LPAs and their staff to become dynamic thinkers who think strategically and plan for dynamic stability. The focus on SP is meant to help LPAs and all staff develop the skills and strategies needed to be strategic in their professional activities within the language program. The SP process requires that programs conduct a comprehensive environmental scan both internally and externally; LPAs need to choose the strategic planning model that is the best fit for their context. To understand the complexity of the environment, the SP process needs to be collaborative, engaging all stakeholders. The chapter introduces specific tools that LPAs can use as they chart the future of their organizations—tools for mapping strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT), as well as tools for developing goals and strategies. Keywords  Dynamic stability · Dynamic thinking · Environmental scan · Strategic plan · Strategic planning · Strategic thinking

Setting oneself on a predetermined course in unknown waters is the perfect way to sail straight into an iceberg. (Mintzberg, 1987, p. 26)

G. Kleckova (*) University of West Bohemia, Plzeň, Czech Republic D. E. Murray Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] M.A. Christison University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_5

65

66

G. Kleckova et al.

At first glance, the quotation at the beginning of the chapter may seem like an odd choice to start a chapter on strategic planning (SP) in language programs. However, by invoking the sinking of the Titanic, the quotation allows us to reflect on the fact that the shipping company and ship’s crew believed in their own myth that the Titanic was unsinkable. Consequently, they failed to make the necessary preparations for how to adapt to changing circumstances, such as how to avoid colliding with an iceberg. The story of the Titanic reminds those of us who work in language programs of the need for planning in turbulent times. In this chapter, we discuss planning concepts and highlight strategies that language-­program administrators (LPAs) can consider in order to ensure the health and sustainability of their programs. We believe the information is relevant across the various sectors in which language educators work, such as intensive language programs in private and public universities, private and public compulsory schooling, private language centers, and adult education programs. We also believe that both new and experienced administrators will find the SP process useful, even though some may find it challenging because of their diverse backgrounds and experiences. Administrators who are newly hired to a program are still learning about the context, so they may be unaware of what they do not know or whom to ask to obtain the necessary information associated with SP. On the other hand, teachers who have been teaching in a program for a long time and then transition into administration already have a good understanding of their context (see Chap. 2 on transitioning from teacher to LPA). No matter what background or experience administrators have, they need to conduct a self-audit to become clear about their own values and beliefs relative to the programs in which they work, as well as the world of language programs beyond their own. It is outside the scope of this chapter to provide detailed guidelines for such an audit. However, the process is similar to developing reflective practice for teachers (Farrell, 2021). In this chapter, we focus on key elements that underpin the general processes associated with creating a strategic plan so that LPAs have flexibility in how they engage in SP. Elsewhere we have provided a detailed step-by-step process for how to develop a strategic plan (Christison & Murray, 2008; Murray & Christison, 2009).

Strategic Planning To begin our discussion of the SP process, we share the following scenario as a way to ground the ideas that we present on the practice of language-program administration. We include skills related to both management and leadership (Murray & Christison, 2009).

5  Becoming Strategic

67

Scenario: A university is undergoing an organizational change process, which has included creating a new English teaching unit to be responsible for English language classes for university students. The language classes that were previously offered across various colleges and departments will be concentrated into one location. The new English program is being established to provide high-quality instruction and services to students from across the university. It is a strategic decision that has been made by the university in order to manage its operations better, utilize its resources, and achieve quality improvements in its academic programs. The teaching staff has been recruited from within and outside the university, and you have been hired to lead the unit. • How will you lead and manage the new unit successfully? • How will you measure your progress and success? • How will you keep the new unit on track and meet the expectations of the university management? • How will you manage everyone’s efforts to serve the unit well? • How will you know what is and is not good for the program as decisions are made? • How will you encourage productivity in your unit? • How will you improve student outcomes and experiences? • How will you build a successful English language program? • How will you develop opportunities for growth and innovations? • How will you maintain a healthy and sustainable unit? • How will you maintain efficiency and productivity? • How will you budget and prioritize your financial needs?

To answer the questions related to the scenario and lead this new unit will require that the new administrator determine the most effective administrative and educational arrangements for carrying out the unit’s mission. In language programs, the processes that underpin SP must be flexible because programs are located in different contexts globally and cater to the educational needs of a variety of learners. To address such diversity and encourage LPAs to be flexible, we present alternative ways of conceptualizing SP (McNamara, n.d.). These different conceptualizations make it possible for leaders to respond to their local contexts and select a model that fits with the specific characteristics of the program. Considering fit for purpose is an essential consideration for LPAs when launching a SP initiative. As you read through these common models, think about which model(s) would be suitable for your own program; or if you are not currently working in a language program, refer to the language program described in the opening scenario.

68

G. Kleckova et al.

Conventional Strategic Planning The conventional model of SP is the best fit for language programs that are well established, have sufficient resources, and have developed goals and objectives that are rather ambitious and progressive. This type of SP works best when the external environment is relatively stable and when the program’s internal climate is also relatively free from a large number of issues that need immediate resolutions. Conventional SP is typically centered on five distinct phases: (a) establishing and/or updating mission, vision, and values statements; (b) participating in a process that focuses on understanding both the internal and external environment; (c) reviewing multi-year goals in relationship to the program’s vision; (d) developing multi-year action plans to achieve goals; and (e) creating plans for supporting goals. Phases (a)–(c) are generally organized into a strategic plan while (d) and (e) are used as an operational plan for the program for a short period of time.

Issues-Based Strategic Planning An issues-based approach to SP is a good fit for programs that have inadequate or restricted resources and cannot pursue ambitious or long-term goals. It is also useful for programs in which there is very little buy in for participating in SP. McNamara (n.d.) states that in these circumstances the SP process is like trying to run a marathon, deciding on a route, and establishing benchmarks “while concurrently having heart problems, bad feet, and no running clothes” (n.p.). The issues-based model focuses on two important processes: (a) identifying a limited number of issues on which to focus and (b) creating action plans to address each issue over a period of about 6–12  months. The information compiled in (a) and (b) serves as an initial strategic plan. The value of participating in such a plan is that it lays the groundwork for programs to undertake a more ambitious form of SP in the future and allows an English language teaching (ELT) program to develop an outward-looking orientation.

Organic Strategic Planning Some LPAs view conventional SP, with its sequence of step-by-step activities, as too linear, restricting, and predictable. It may be a challenge to focus on long-term goals when a program is dynamic, vigorous, and continually evolving. While an organic model of SP includes a focus on a long-term vision, it is relatively fluid. The vision is achieved when personnel have the freedom to choose tasks to support the program’s long-term vision through the following phases:

5  Becoming Strategic

69

1. As many individuals as possible meet to either create a vision statement or to revisit and reaffirm an existing one. 2. Each individual identifies at least one realistic action that he or she will undertake to help the program achieve its vision. 3. Individuals meet regularly to report on their progress.

Real-Time Strategic Planning Real-time SP is also based on the notion that ELT programs change too quickly for conventional strategic planning to remain relevant for very long; it is particularly useful for language-teaching programs that experience rapidly changing environments outside of the program. Five typical phases characterize real-time SP: 1. Mission, vision, and values statements are articulated or revisited. 2. Individuals are identified for participation in Phases 3 and 4. 3. An external environmental scan is conducted (i.e., a process wherein opportunities and threats facing the program are identified). 4. The group evaluates the internal workings of the program and makes lists of strengths and weaknesses. 5. The information generated in Phases 3 and 4 is used as the basis for setting program goals. Phases 2–5 are repeated every six months or on a yearly basis.

Alignment Strategic Planning The primary purpose of alignment SP is to align a program’s internal operations with overall long-term goals through three phases as follows: (a) identifying a small number of long-term goals on which to focus, (b) analyzing internal operations most directly relevant to each of the goals, and (c) aligning operations to achieve goals. Items (a)-(b) collectively become the strategic plan and are repeated regularly with different long-term goals.

Inspirational Strategic Planning Inspirational SP is appropriate for LPAs who have very little time available for SP even though it may be a priority and may have the necessary support of stakeholders. The phases are as follows:

70

G. Kleckova et al.

1. Gather together a group of individuals who are interested in SP and developing a strategic plan. 2. Imagine an ELT program that is consistent with the program’s mission and vision statement. 3. Brainstorm a list of exciting, long-term goals that are consistent with the mission and vision. Phases 1–3 serve as a strategic plan. While this process is highly energizing, it is also important to note that the outcomes may be unrealistic or unachievable as they are not tied to an operational plan. However, inspirational SP can be useful as it generates outward focused discussion.

Dynamic Thinking In this section we introduce two important concepts that underpin SP, strategic thinking and dynamic stability.

Strategic Thinking Unlike SP, which sets a direction for a period of time for an organization, strategic thinking is a mindset, which LPAs need to use to support the strategic direction of the organization across an extended time frame. Such a mindset allows an LPA to constantly examine the large picture from the perspectives of both the inside and outside of the program to make decisions about what matters most. The HBR Guide to Thinking Strategically (2019) states that “in its most basic sense, strategic thinking is about analyzing opportunities and problems from a broad perspective and understanding the potential impact your actions might have on the future of your organization, your team, or your bottom line” (pp. 2–3). Research shows that effective leaders are strategic thinkers (Craig, 2018). They are mindful of the present as well as the future. They think within time frames of today, tomorrow, and three years from now. They continually assess realities and respond to them in order to advance their organizations. By examining situations from multiple perspectives and seeing the big picture, they perceive opportunities, as well as problems, before they emerge. They ask questions, challenge assumptions, gather information, seek understanding, and plan a course of action (HBR guide to thinking strategically, 2019). In other words, they proactively scan the environment, adapt, adjust, and/or develop strategies that drive good results. They consider a variety of actions and scenarios, bearing in mind their strategic objectives. Furthermore, they think ahead to improve the organization’s performance and results.

5  Becoming Strategic

71

The following questions (from the HBR guide to thinking strategically, 2019) provide guidance for initial strategic thinking: • • • • • • • • • • •

What’s our strategy—and my role in executing it? What are the risks to our strategy—and to me? What is the purpose and role of my organization? Who are my organization’s key stakeholders? Where are opportunities for change in my organization? What trends are happening inside my organization? How do I make a strategic decision? How do I create a plan to execute multiple goals? What key objectives should my team be focusing on? How can I inspire strategic thinking in my team? How do I communicate a vision to my team? (pp. 259–269)

Answering these questions assists LPAs in developing a critical knowledge base and a set of skills related to strategic thinking. Cantero-Gomez (2019) outlines seven basic traits, which have been observed in strategic thinkers. • Vision: Strategic thinkers have a clear idea of what the organization should be like in the future. • Framework: They have a plan and a timeline of action that move the organization toward the desired vision. • Perceptiveness: They observe and analyze the organization and the outer world from different perspectives. • Assertiveness: They act and make decisions with confidence yet with respect for others’ needs. • Flexibility: They are able to shift their thinking and ideas to achieve success. • Emotional balance: They are mindful of their emotions and manage them when decisions are made. • Patience: They realize that creating the desired vision is a long-term process of carefully outlined steps. To become strategic thinkers, LPAs should consider and reflect on their own actions and internal mindsets to determine whether they align with each of the traits and where growth may be needed. To make decisions and respond effectively to challenges requires leaders and managers who are flexible and resilient. Pedersen (2021) suggests a number of different qualities that leaders need in order to navigate in these uncertain times, one of which is vision, the ability to conceptualize the organization’s future and “[h]ave a clear purpose that provides a compass point for others.” Like a compass, leaders must be able to “shift from strategic planning to setting strategic intent, and be flexible in how [they] get there” (n.p.). The compass then becomes an apt metaphor for a quality of leaders. Leaders who are strategic thinkers have vision and function in much the same way as a compass. In other words, they are able to swivel in any direction as needed in order to overcome obstacles while still keeping the original

72

G. Kleckova et al.

destination in mind. Strategic thinkers adjust their mindsets based on the information they gather and then adjust the strategic direction of their organizations accordingly.

Dynamic Stability Given the complex environment in which language programs function, SP needs to be conducted from the perspective of dynamic stability. Dynamic stability is the term typically used to explain how the construction of mechanical items, such as bicycles, boats, aircraft, or power grids, allows them to return to a steady state after being buffeted by winds, waves, or other forces (e.g., Beatty, 2021). In other words, such items are designed to be strong, yet flexible enough not to collapse when they are required to undergo a course correction. In language-program administration, SP needs this same attention relative to dynamic stability. The plan needs to allow for both small, tactical changes (e.g., a change in a textbook), as well as larger course corrections (e.g., a move to the online delivery of courses). To plan for such dynamic stability requires an understanding of what contributes to the health and stability of the program, that is, how both the program and staff can continue to grow professionally and personally. Furthermore, it requires collaboration among stakeholders to understand both the internal and external contexts in which the program operates. With these understandings, stakeholders can envisage where the program can be positioned strategically.

Program Health and Sustainability The purpose of engaging in SP is to create healthy and sustainable programs. To accomplish this goal, LPAs and their staff use strategic thinking that promotes dynamic stability and results in dynamic thinking. Healthy and sustainable language programs maintain and deliver services of high quality over time, including quality language instruction. They have mechanisms that provide stability across various elements of a program’s life so that goals can be reached and the program can endure in an always changing environment. Although one of the key dimensions of organizational sustainability is its financial stability (funding), other important dimensions are needed to guarantee overall sustainability, such as strategic sustainability, product and program sustainability, and personnel sustainability (Organizational Sustainability, n.d.). To promote program health and sustainability, LPAs need to have a clear and realistic vision, a purpose, and an understanding of organizational goals. Being clear and realistic ensures that the organization has sufficient resources to pursue its endeavors. LPAs also need to ensure excellent products, services, and programs. High-quality products, services, and programs lead to strong results (e.g., attracting

5  Becoming Strategic

73

students, generating revenue). Furthermore, LPAs need to support personnel so that they can perform effectively and reliably. The knowledge and competencies of those working in a language program are closely tied to the effectiveness of products, services, and programs. In addition, LPAs need to conduct financial reserve studies and initiate contingency planning (see Chap. 15 for a more detailed discussion of financial planning). Although both require an extended period of time, building a financial reserve, as well as engaging in contingency planning if funding decreases, will assure that there is funding at times of financial crises (Organizational Sustainability, n.d.).

General Processes Associated with Developing a Strategic Plan A strategic plan is the product of the SP process. It can be characterized as a digital road map because it offers a route that has been planned. In addition, when unexpected events occur that require a diversion from the original route, such as road construction, an accident, or a detour, a digital road map responds appropriately. Even with unexpected events that may change the route and travel time, the destination does not change. Similarly, language-program workplaces may experience disruption, volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (Pedersen, 2021), which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and also by non-pandemic related global and local disruptions, such as increased migration, technological innovations, changes in government policies, and new approaches to defining and participating in work. A strategic plan is used to leverage the resources of the language program so that the goals of the program can be achieved (Maritan & Lee, 2017). Resources include human skills, which take into account students’ skill sets, finances, an inventory of assets, and technology, as well as the availability of resources such as water, gas, and electricity. The strategic plan also establishes principles for resource allocation, prioritization, and coordination. These principles form the framework for the priorities that are articulated in the program’s vision, mission, values, and goals. They also form the basis for how administrators distribute resources within the program’s operations so that the process is principled, rather than ad hoc, even in times of plenty, insufficiency, or disruption. LPAs often need to make decisions with limited knowledge, such as when there is a sudden decrease in student enrollment. Despite the lack of complete knowledge, LPAs still need to make principled decisions, especially when the decisions involve making adjustments to the program, such as in the areas of personnel, curriculum design, or funding. LPAs also need to engage in three iterative processes: (a) conducting environmental scans to understand the context, (b) analyzing and mapping data from the scans, and (c) determining strategies and guiding principles for use in the future. In the next section, we offer tools and suggest strategies for engaging in each of these iterative processes.

74

G. Kleckova et al.

Understanding Context An environmental scan is a useful tool for understanding a language program’s specific context. Before beginning an environmental scan, several steps need to be undertaken. We state these steps as questions and include some explanation about what is required to answer the questions. 1. Who are the stakeholders? Stakeholders’ needs form a central set of data for creating a strategic plan. It is important to “think outside the box.” For example, if an institution receives grants, the granting agency would be a stakeholder. 2. Who will develop the strategic plan? We believe that successful planning needs to provide all stakeholders with an opportunity to be involved in some way. A strategic plan that is designed by the LPA alone is unlikely to be fully supported by stakeholders who have had no opportunity to provide input. To make the process manageable, a small, representative committee of individuals who are most familiar with the organization can be used to lead the exercise. 3. How should stakeholders be consulted? The most common tools used are survey questions and focus groups. Whichever tools are used, they must ask specific questions about stakeholder needs and perceptions. 4. What are the program’s values? What principles for action derive from these values? Part of the internal analysis needs to include determining core values because these will drive the strategic plan and its implementation. Value ­statements may address issues of quality, equity, diversity, ethics, and approaches to learning and teaching. SWOT Analysis The most common tool for conducting an environmental scan is the SWOT analysis. SWOT refers to strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Strengths and weaknesses are internal, while opportunities and threats are external. Strengths of the organization may include the expertise of staff, the school’s reputation, or its student diversity. It is essential to assess the organization’s weaknesses honestly because ignoring problems or deficiencies prevents the organization from developing strategies for improvement. Opportunities are externally driven and may result from an influx of students, external funding opportunities, or changes in government policy. Threats are external to the organization and may include policies or procedures that could lead to a loss of students or increased competition. Figure 5.1 can be used to collate the ideas that are generated from a SWOT analysis. Although a SWOT analysis is useful, we have found that the four categories can sometimes be too general to produce actionable data. To make data actionable, it is necessary to carefully consider what constitutes a threat or a strength in each specific context. What may be a weakness in one organization may be a strength in another. We offer two frameworks used in business that we have found particularly useful in language-program administration because they allow for specificity and build on the contributions of a SWOT analysis.

5  Becoming Strategic

75

Strengths (S)

Opportunities (O)

Weaknesses (W)

Threats (T)

Fig. 5.1  SWOT chart

External Factors

Internal Factors



Stakeholder needs and power.



Structures and systems



Sociopolitical, economic,



Resources (availability and capability

technological, and well-being forces 

Competitors and allies

of resources) 

Organizational culture

Fig. 5.2  Environmental Factors of Relevance to Language Programs

Alternative Frameworks Bruce (2000) lists four factors to consider for internal analysis, which he calls a capability platform: commitment and creativity of staff, culture of the organization, competencies and experiences of the staff, and organizational structures and systems. Porter (1979) developed a framework, consisting of five forces, which he used to analyze competition in the form of an external scan: threat of substitutes, threat of new entrants, bargaining power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers, and rivalry among existing firms. While many educators consider their profession to be a service and other language providers as colleagues, it is also important to note that English language education worldwide is a multibillion dollar industry and highly competitive, except for perhaps state-provided compulsory education. We have expanded the Bruce and Porter frameworks to include additional aspects of the environment that impact language programs (see Fig. 5.2 and the discussion that follows). External Factors  Stakeholders have different needs, and some of these needs may conflict with those of other stakeholders. For example, while parents and students may want learners to become proficient in English quickly, teachers may focus on the complexities of language learning and not on the time it takes. Additionally,

76

G. Kleckova et al.

stakeholders have different levels of power, for example, children have less power than parents, and parents may have less power than funding agencies. Sociopolitical, economic, technological, and well-being forces operate at micro and macro levels. In our view, educators have a duty of care (i.e., a moral, if not a legal, obligation to safeguard others from harm) for the well-being of their students, such as if a child’s family is homeless or the world is experiencing a global pandemic. Similarly, sociopolitical, economic, and technological forces occur locally, nationally, and globally. For example, while there may be insufficient infrastructure locally to use social media, there is a global push for educators to help learners become technologically proficient. Another external factor to consider is the strength of competitors. At the same time, it is useful to determine which organizations may be complementary so that collaborations might be possible. For example, complementary programs might collaborate to apply for a government grant. Internal Factors  It is important to review the structures and systems that are in place within a language program because many of these become fossilized over time and are no longer fit for purpose. For example, the recruitment and admissions of international students may be conducted at the university level, but the a­ dmissions office may take too long to decide on acceptance, making it impossible for students to obtain visas in time. Different types of resources need to be identified and evaluated to determine their capability. What financial resources does the program have access to? Are they sufficient? Is the ratio of part-time to full-time staff the best balance? Is the mix of staff’s diversity, areas of expertise, and experience the best balance? Are the technology resources sufficient for instructional and administrative purposes? Organizational culture refers to the values, beliefs, expectations, and practices that an organization embraces. Like other cultures, it is dynamic and has sub-­ cultures. Many different frameworks have been used to describe organizational culture. Handy’s (2005) framework, one of the most often cited, identifies four types of organizational cultures: (a) power or club, (b) role, (d) task, and (d) person cultures. Power or club cultures have strong leaders who have ultimate power, while role cultures define people by the work they do, rather than the position they hold. Task cultures focus on outcomes, while person cultures value people for their skills. Cope (1990) offers a different framework and describes organizational structures in terms of the different cultures they create: (a) bureaucratic, (b) collegial, (c) political, (d) anarchical, and (e) rational. Bureaucratic organizations are highly stratified and highly regulated, especially as to who can make decisions. In contrast, a collegial culture is collaborative and usually consists of equally committed experts. In political organizations, people assume that conflict over resources is the norm and so decisions are negotiated compromises. Anarchical organizations usually consist of professionals with no specific leader, such as in many law firms. In rational organizations, decision making is conducted in a logical, analytical manner, and systems are core to action.

5  Becoming Strategic

77

Analyzing and Mapping the Context After data from both external and internal scans have been collected, the individuals charged with designing the strategic plan need to analyze the data to determine strategic directions and establish program goals. In Fig. 5.3, we propose a graphic representation that encapsulates the frameworks of both Porter and Bruce, along with additional data collected in the environmental scans. Figure 5.3 visually represents how to use data from the environmental scans, how these data intersect with the program’s purpose, and how overlapping concepts result in data that show how the program fits within its environment, that is, its niche. The niche depicted in the figure will be unique for each program because no two contexts are the same. From the characteristics of this niche can be ascertained the mission and goals of the strategic plan, and the strategic directions of the program. If the program already has mission, vision, and values statements, they should be revisited and possibly updated to ensure that they clearly characterize the program’s niche, that is, the position the program is attempting to occupy in the language teaching landscape. The overall goals and strategic direction for the future of the program are decided from an analysis of the niche. It is then necessary to determine the strategies for how to achieve the goals that arise from the characteristics of the niche.

Fig. 5.3  Finding a Niche

78

G. Kleckova et al.

Determining Strategies and Guiding Principles The niche (as shown in Fig. 5.3) needs to be fleshed out with the strategies that will comprise the strategic plan. These strategies are developed through an analysis of (a) the internal strengths and weaknesses and (b) the external threats and opportunities. Strengths are mapped against both threats and opportunities. For each strength, the program needs to determine what threats may impact the strength, and similarly, what opportunities they have the capability to embrace (Bruce, 2000). For the program’s weaknesses, the program needs to consider which weaknesses pose threats and which provide opportunities for growth. We offer two examples to illustrate how strategies might emerge from the process of examining strengths and weaknesses in a university-based English-language program. In the first example, the program has identified one of its strengths as its English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses for students planning for degrees in engineering and accounting, and the program has received positive evaluations from the degree-granting departments. The country in which the university resides has a shortage of doctors, nurses, and other medical staff and is planning to recruit qualified foreign personnel, who will need to improve their English proficiency before they can pass professional examinations in order to obtain employment and be able to practice. The need for an ESP course for nurses represents an opportunity for the language program. Therefore, a strategy might be for the program to explore offering English for Medicine courses specifically for nurses. This strategy would be fleshed out with operational actions, such as partnering with a local medical provider to supply the medical content for such a course. The second example focuses on personnel, both teaching and non-teaching staff in the language program. Staff, whether part-time or full-time, are paid on the university salary scale. This scale includes benefits, such as paid sick leave and vacation, which add to the cost of running the program (see Chap. 15 for details on the impact of fringe benefits on budgeting). Consequently, student tuition would be higher than in other similar programs in the area, which constitutes a threat for recruiting students. However, the threat can also be a strength for recruiting highly qualified, effective staff. A strategy might be to focus student advertising on the expertise of the staff and the advantages of studying English in a university setting. As we have already discussed, to achieve dynamic stability, a language program needs to develop agreed upon principles for making both tactical and strategic adjustments when confronted with challenges to the well-being of the program. These principles help guide decision making in times of stress and uncertainty so that decisions are not reactive. Nevertheless, decision making in such times cannot be totally rational because there is usually insufficient information or time to make carefully considered decisions. (See Chap. 9 for more on the LPA’s role in decision making and crisis management.) However, if strategic thinking, values, and principles are already the basis upon which the organization operates, decisions are likely to be logical and reasonable (Toulmin, 2001). The principles, which derive from the vision, mission, and values, may address issues around fairness, equity, diversity,

5  Becoming Strategic

79

respect, professionalism, transparency, quality, well-being, and continuing professional development. The principles become the basis for decision making during change and other challenges. For example, if a program has both transparency and fairness as values, one operating principle might be to convene staff (both educators and support staff), present issues and alternative solutions, and solicit any additional solutions, while still acknowledging that the administrator may make the final decision. Similarly, an operating principle based on respect might mean that both part-­ time and full-time staff would be offered continuing professional development. The value of well-being might result in a principle for how to provide students with access to counselors if they experience trauma, such as the death of a family member or an incident of racial harassment in the community. Principles, such as these, become the basis for dealing with change and uncertainty, and their use creates dynamic stability in the program.

An ELT Framework for SP In addition to the frameworks from the business world (i.e., the frameworks from Porter and Bruce), LPAs may want to consider using a framework that is more closely tied to the ELT profession, namely, the Action Agenda for the TESOL Profession (TESOL International Association, 2018). The Action Agenda for the TESOL Profession is the culminating outcome from the 2017 Summit for the Future of the TESOL Profession. The Summit initiative was an exercise in SP on a global scale, with the goal of having stakeholders commit to collaborating on a comprehensive shared vision to guide policy, practice, and research in ELT worldwide. Stakeholders included ELT teachers, researchers, and administrators from every continent except Antarctica; ELT publishers; professional associations such as TESOL International Association,  IATEFL, the Educational Testing Service, and the International Literacy Association; the Office of English Language Programs, U.S. Department of State; the British Council; representatives from Ministries of Education from different countries; and The International Research Foundation for English language education (TIRF). The SP process was conducted through an extensive literature review, online discussions, and an in-person two-day meeting in Athens, Greece, the latter attended by ELT educators from 64 countries. An international steering committee distilled the discussions into an action agenda, with five priorities, each of which is accompanied by action steps that can be taken to audit a program. We provide an example (adapted for this chapter): Priority 2: Redesign English-language programs to foster global engagement. Action steps: • Engage in practices that recognize multilingualism as an asset to English language teaching—an asset that positively influences language outcomes, innovation, and practice.

80

G. Kleckova et al.

• Expand the capability, accessibility, and skill sets of educators to use technology in professional and student learning. • Encourage educators at different levels of experience to reflect critically on established practices and to enact change when needed. (Adapted from TESOL International Association, 2018, p. 6.) LPAs who use this framework will be able to situate their own programs within the broad scope of the ELT profession. LPAs typically recognize multilingualism as an asset, but they may not have explicitly discussed, designed, or implemented instructional practices that capitalize on this asset. Therefore, they might decide to include such an initiative as one of their SP strategies. For the second action step, LPAs might decide to undertake an audit of teachers’ skill sets as part of an internal environmental scan and include professional development on technology as a strategy. For the third action step, LPAs might decide to use this step as part of their internal environmental scan. As we have shown, using the Action Agenda for the TESOL Profession to interrogate one’s program can inform the process of understanding the internal context.

Conclusion The global context for language programs is complex and volatile. In this chapter, we have provided LPAs with knowledge and sample tools to become strategic in terms of planning, thinking, and acting in order to navigate the environment and maintain the health and sustainability of their programs. We have discussed strategic planning, described relevant procedures for uncovering the data needed for informed planning, and highlighted how strategies and principles can be determined and used. However, undertaking strategic planning and developing a strategic plan are not sufficient for ensuring a healthy and sustainable program. LPAs and staff need to use strategic thinking, which promotes dynamic stability and results in dynamic thinking. We have used the term dynamic thinking to represent the integral relationship between strategic thinking and dynamic stability. It is LPAs’ strategic thinking that allows programs to survive and thrive in the complex and volatile world of language teaching in the twenty-first century.

Reflecting on Becoming Strategic 1. Re-read the questions at the end of the scenario in the introduction to the chapter. Which questions are best addressed by the SP process? 2. Reflect on an example of program instability that you have experienced as a former student, teacher, or administrator. How would you use the principle of dynamic stability in order to plan for the future so that the program can manage such instability successfully?

5  Becoming Strategic

81

Suggested Readings Christison, M.  A., & Murray, D.  E. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times. Routledge. This edited volume introduces both theoretical approaches to leadership and practical skills that leaders in English language education need to be effective. The volume is organized around three themes: (a) the roles and characteristics of leaders, (b) skills for leading, and (c) ELT leadership in practice. Chapter authors discuss practical skills in detail and provide readers with the opportunity to acquire new skills and apply them in their own contexts. HBR guide to thinking strategically. (2019). Harvard Business Review Press. The highly practical book consists of eight sections, each of which covers an important element of strategic thinking and the ways in which it shapes the work you do as a leader. The book guides you step-by-step in building your strategic thinking and executing it in your daily work. The specific tips, guiding questions, tools, and advice can be easily translated to language-program contexts.

References Beatty, B. (2021, April 14). Leading in a time of change: The need for dynamic stability. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/leading-­in-­a-­time-­of-­change-­the-­need-­for-­dynamic-­ stability/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=olc_today&utm_ term=2021-­04-­20 Bruce, R. (2000). Creating your strategic future. Harper Collins. Cantero-Gomez, P. (2019, February 5). The 7 critical skills of successful strategic thinkers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/palomacanterogomez/2019/02/05/the-­7 -­c ritical-­s kills-­o f-­ successful-­strategic-­thinkers/?sh=28328ff6656b Christison, M. A., & Murray, D. E. (2008). Strategic planning for English language teachers and leaders. In C. Coombe, M. L. McCloskey, L. Stephenson, & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Leadership in English language teaching and learning (pp. 128–140). University of Michigan Press. Cope, R. G. (1990). High involvement strategic planning: When people and their ideas matter. Blackwell. Craig, W. (2018, February 27). Strategic thinkers are found to be the most highly effective leaders. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamcraig/2018/02/27/strategic-­thinkers-­are-­found­to-­be-­the-­most-­highly-­effective-­leaders/?sh=86e40ec524fe Farrell, S. C. (2021). Doing reflective practice in English language teaching: 120 activities for effective classroom management, lesson planning, and professional development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003178729 Handy, C. (2005). Understanding organizations (4th ed.). Penguin Global. HBR guide to thinking strategically. (2019). Harvard Business Review Press. Maritan, C. A., & Lee, G. K. (2017). Resource allocation and strategy. Journal of Management, 43(8), 2411–2420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729738 McNamara, C. (n.d.). Basic overview of various strategic planning models. https://managementhelp.org/strategicplanning/models.htm Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept II: Another look at why organizations need strategies. California Management Review, 30(1), 25–32. Murray, D.  E., & Christison, M.  A. (2009). Planning strategically. In M.  A. Christison & D. E. Murray (Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (pp. 136–155). Routledge.

82

G. Kleckova et al.

Organizational Sustainability. (n.d.). Free Management Library. https://managementhelp.org/organizationalsustainability/index.htm Pedersen, K. L. (2021, March 25). Qualities online learning leaders need to help their organization thrive in uncertain times. The OLC Blog. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/qualities-­online-­ learning-­leaders-­need-­to-­help-­their-­organization-­thrive-­in-­uncertain-­times/?utm_source= newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=olc_today&utm_term=2021-­03-­30 Porter, M.  E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 137–145. TESOL International Association. (2018). Action agenda for the future of the TESOL profession. https://www.tesol.org/media/pvucm0rg/3-15-tesol-action-agenda_execsummary_web.pdf Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to reason. Harvard University Press. Gabriela Kleckova is Head of the English Department in the Faculty of Education, University of West Bohemia, Czech Republic, where she also teaches second language teacher education courses. Her research interests include visual design and elements of English language teaching materials, teacher education, innovation in education, and leadership. Her most recent publication, co-edited with Justin Quinn, is titled Anglophone Literature in Second-Language Teacher Education: Curriculum Innovation Through Intercultural Communication (2021). Kleckova was TESOL International Association President (2021–2022) and a TESOL Board of Directors member (2012–2015).  

Denise E.  Murray is Professor Emerita at Macquarie University, Sydney and San José State University, California. She was founding chair of the Department of Linguistics and Language Development at San José. Subsequently she was Executive Director of the AMEP Research Centre and the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research at Macquarie University. She served on TESOL International’s Board of Directors for seven years, including as President (1996–1997). Her research interests include the intersection of language, society, and technology; and leadership in language education. Her extensive publication record includes the co-edited volume Leadership in English Language Education.  

MaryAnn Christison is a professor at the University of Utah in the Department of Linguistics. She was founding Director of the International Program and English Language Center at Snow College and served in that position for 20 years prior to her appointment at the University. She has authored, co-authored, and co-edited over 25 books and written 145 articles and book chapters on applied linguistics and English language teaching. Two co-edited books were specifically on language program administration (with F. L. Stoller), and one was on leadership in English language teaching (with D. E. Murray).  

Chapter 6

Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation Kabelo Sebolai and Fredricka L. Stoller

Abstract  Integral to language-program administrators’ leadership responsibilities are the oversight of and responsiveness to inevitable change, on the one hand, and innovations that result in program improvements, on the other. This chapter first distinguishes between change and innovation; it then focuses on innovation and the roles that language-program administrators (LPAs) must assume to ensure successful innovation diffusion. Innovation is depicted as the outcome of deliberate efforts by language-program personnel, including the LPA, that result in language-program enhancements. The chapter emphasizes that it is incumbent upon LPAs to capitalize on the conditions, inside and outside the language program, that serve as impetuses for innovation. Similarly, the chapter contends that successful innovation diffusion requires that LPAs be familiar with conditions that hinder innovation. Special attention is paid to stakeholders’ perceptions of innovations that facilitate or inhibit acceptance; perceived attributes of innovations that fall within a zone-of-innovation lead to more widespread acceptance. The chapter showcases a three-stage innovation-­diffusion process that begins with the initiation phase, followed by implementation and diffusion phases. The chapter concludes with tips that can guide LPAs in facilitating the innovation-diffusion process in their programs. Keywords  Change · Innovation · Innovation diffusion · Innovation management · Language-program administration · Language programs Innovation isn’t a single event, such as the light bulb going off above a cartoon character’s head. It’s an extended process... [that] needs to be managed as such. (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, pp. 44, 73)

K. Sebolai (*) Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] F. L. Stoller Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_6

83

84

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

Imagine a language program devoid of change and innovation. It is hard to do. Don’t we all have teachers who relocate, request a leave, or retire? Haven’t we all felt the effects of fluctuating student enrollments and the need to adjust the curriculum to meet new student needs? Haven’t we seen educational costs escalate and favorite textbooks go out of print? And haven’t we, at one time or another, received word “from above” that a tried-and-true administrative procedure must be modified? Those of us who have been in the field of language teaching long enough have witnessed countless changes in views about language teaching, learning, and assessment, oftentimes resulting in programmatic innovations (e.g., assessment for learning). At the curricular level, many of us have been involved in or overseen revitalization efforts that result in new course offerings, with modified content, time allotments, and configurations. Sometimes those revitalization efforts sustain themselves and sometimes they don’t. And haven’t we all hired recent graduates who, after a while, challenge the status quo and propose novel alternatives? From a budgetary perspective, some of us have experienced changes in revenue streams, possibly the result of a new institutional finance officer, that affect profit margins or our ability to break even. And others have even been mandated to add one or more languages to program offerings to support institutional or national plurilingual priorities. And then there was COVID, which led us to a form of crisis management and a turn to online platforms (for just about everything) almost overnight. Though rarely stated explicitly in our job descriptions, administrative oversight and responsiveness to change and innovation are central to language-program administrators’ responsibilities. For the purpose of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish between change and innovation, even though the terms are frequently used interchangeably. Change is often identified as one of the most stable features of organizational life (Puccio et  al., 2011). In all settings, including language programs, change is inevitable, resulting in an alteration in the status quo but not necessarily in improvements. Language programs experience change when, for example, language-program personnel1 accept new positions elsewhere, student demographics fluctuate, mandates are imposed by governmental legislation, or global pandemics occur. Language-­ program administrators (LPAs) often spend enormous amounts of time responding to changes such as these, despite the fact that they have little, if any, control over them. Innovation, conversely, results from deliberate efforts that are perceived as new, are intended to bring about improvements, and have the potential for diffusion (as stated in seminal publications that span decades, including Fullan, 2016; Kennedy, 1988; Macalister & Nation, 2020; Markee, 1997; Rogers, 2003; Stoller, 2009; White et al., 2008). Whereas change is inevitable, innovation is not. Innovation requires systematic planning to facilitate program revitalization, enhance teachers’ careers, minimize teacher burnout, and improve instruction. Examples of language-program  In this chapter, language-program personnel refers to everyone working in the program. Personnel with major teaching responsibilities and non-teaching responsibilities are referred to as instructors and staff, respectively. 1

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

85

innovations, which align themselves with the definition of innovation provided, are documented in journals (e.g., ELT Journal, English Teaching Forum, Journal of Educational Change, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, System, TESOL Journal) and books (e.g., Murray, 2008; Reinders & Nunan, 2017). Innovation2 has been characterized as an “imperative for all future-focused organizations” (Beswick et al., 2015, p. 201). Yet, despite the positive connotations associated with the term, taking the lead to promote innovation can be administratively challenging, in part because innovations require attitudinal and behavioral adjustments as well as a shared vision that “is achieved across a group of people working in concert” (Fullan, 2016, p. 35). Typically, innovations challenge the status quo, necessitating modifications in routine institutionalized practices (Lockton & Fargason, 2019). Thus, innovations can provoke discomfort, inertia, insecurity, and reluctance; and they sometimes mobilize opposition groups. Complicating matters further is the fact that innovations typically result in temporarily increased workloads, the need for retraining, and additional costs in terms of time, energy, and other resources. Despite these challenges, innovations energize and empower language-­program personnel who forge new paths, pilot novel ideas, see improvements, and witness the benefits of their labors. The resulting pride invigorates the program and creates greater job satisfaction among personnel, better learning conditions for students, and more effective management of program resources. The notions of newness and novelty, which run throughout discussions of innovation, are relative; what may be novel in one program may be considered “old hat” in another. That widely accepted practices in one program may be viewed as innovations in another should not diminish the significance of the innovations themselves; rather, it reveals the local, context-specific nature of innovation (Fullan, 2016; Rogers, 2003; Waters, 2014). An understanding of organizational cultures that foster innovation can help LPAs inspire innovation, mobilize those wanting to innovate, respond to the resistance that may emerge, and oversee the innovation-diffusion process. This chapter facilitates that understanding by exploring (a) impetuses for innovation, (b) characteristics of language programs that stimulate or hinder innovation, and (c) paths to successful innovation diffusion. The chapter concludes with 10 suggestions, provided to guide LPAs in their efforts to promote successful innovation while they simultaneously juggle the multifaceted demands of their positions.

Impetuses for Innovation It is said that some innovations spring from “Eureka” moments (i.e., flashes of insight), but most stem from deliberate multi-stage processes that involve numerous stakeholders. What inspires innovation is highly variable. Innovations can emerge

 See Fullan (2016) for a distinction between innovation and innovativeness (p. 10).

2

86

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

from unexpected occurrences, critical incidents, action-research findings, adaptations of others’ practices, strong leadership, external recommendations, among other sources. Five additional impetuses for innovation are noteworthy.

Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo Innovations are often inspired when current practices are viewed as needing an upgrade. Innovations that emerge from dissatisfaction can impact various language-­ program domains, including budgeting, course offerings, teaching and assessment, program governance, and technology. So, for instance, when instructors become increasingly discontent with current placement procedures, their dissatisfaction may mobilize them to generate new and possibly innovative placement measures. When students complain about having too few opportunities to interact in the target language, innovations that link students with competent speakers of the target language (in person or virtually) might be implemented. When LPAs sense dissatisfaction among personnel who are upset about perceived favoritism and the lack of transparency in administrative practices, decision-making processes may be adjusted to add transparency and more democratic processes to programmatic decision making. (See Zhang & Zhang, 2017, for a discussion of how dissatisfaction led to curricular revitalizations.)

Desire for More Professionalism The desire for professional growth, improved working conditions, and inclusive program governance often provides the impetus for language-program innovations. Examples of innovations that address such concerns include career ladder policies that reward instructors for professional development in teaching, administration, curriculum development, and/or assessment; peer observation guided by nonjudgmental approaches; support for language-program personnel through in-service professional development, a guest-speaker series, and release time for webinar attendance; opportunities for consensus building before decisions are made; and the establishment of self-governance structures that permit a review of program-wide procedures and policies. (See Chaps. 10 and 13 for their discussions of the importance of promoting professional growth among language-program personnel.)

Explicit and Implicit Mandates, Requests, and Concerns The momentum needed to support an organizational culture that is open to innovation often stems from (a) explicit and implicit mandates or (b) requests from governing boards, governmental legislation, or professional-association standards.

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

87

Similarly, concerns voiced by other stakeholders (e.g., teachers of mainstream content classes, student sponsors, local employers) can lead to innovations. For instance, a focused pronunciation course may be developed in response to local employers’ complaints about language-program graduates’ comprehensibility; and reading and writing instruction may be integrated, rather than taught as discrete skills, in response to mainstream teachers’ concerns about students’ academic preparedness.

Student Needs and Desires Recognizing language students’ needs and desires is another common stimulus for innovation. For example, the recognition that students now enter programs with heightened interests in issues such as climate change and sustainability could lead to the creation of content-based elective courses centered on these themes. Similarly, when increasing numbers of students enroll in language programs with aspirations to pursue a degree in, for instance, hotel restaurant management (HRM), the language program may add discipline-specific language courses—informed by consultations with HRM instructors and a review of HRM course expectations and materials—to their offerings. Addressing students’ digital literacy skills across the curriculum, as another example of programmatic innovation, may result from acknowledging that the forms of digital literacy that students are generally comfortable with (e.g., social networking) do not support the development of digital-­literacy skills needed for academic success (Cobb, 2017).

Instructor Interests and Expertise “Impassioned teachers” (Tomasetto & Carugati, 2018) often pave the way for language-­program innovations. When granted the opportunity, language-program instructors can build upon professional interests and expertise to innovate. Instructors often return from conferences and webinars with new ideas that are adaptable to their teaching settings. An instructor with interests in vocabulary, for instance, may experiment with innovative approaches to vocabulary instruction, which, with time, may be adopted by others; instructors with concerns about their students’ reading fluency may engage in a collaborative action-research project to assess ways in which to incorporate Readers Theater, for fluency development, into reading instruction. LPAs who are cognizant of common impetuses for programmatic innovation, such as those just introduced, are in the best position to take advantage of just the right moments to (a) introduce innovations to different stakeholders, (b) inspire innovation in others, (c) consider the merits of innovative proposals submitted to them, and (d) collaborate with others to create “road maps” to implementation.

88

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

 haracteristics of Language Programs That C Stimulate Innovation Some language programs are better poised to entertain, manage, and sustain innovation than others. The importance of administrative leadership cannot be overemphasized (Beswick et al., 2015; Puccio et al., 2011). In fact, Karavas-Doukas (1998) depicts the school leader (i.e., administrator) as the intermediary between innovations and teachers. Karavas-Doukas states that leaders’ actions or non-actions either facilitate or hinder organizational cultures that enable innovation. When administrators demonstrate support for innovations, work with staff on the challenges of implementation, communicate problems to appropriate individuals, make resources available, and support instructors’ professional development, they significantly affect the impact, quality, and sustainability of innovations. Other factors, such as those described in the subsections that follow, can contribute to the potential for innovation as well. Administrators who are aware of these factors are in a better position to harness the forces that must coalesce to bring about innovation.

Stable Team of Instructors Having a stable team of instructors (full-time, part-time, adjunct; on-site and virtual) can have a positive influence on programmatic innovation. Stability emerges when instructors, whatever their status, are comfortable sharing “their knowledge, concerns, questions, mistakes, and half-formed ideas” (Edmondson, 2019, p. xiv). Stability is strengthened when instructors feel confident to freely express their views, trust and respect their colleagues, and are certain that their voices are being heard and appreciated (Edmondson, 2019). LPAs can nurture a stable organizational culture when language-program personnel know that “their ideas are needed [and] valued” as revealed by leaders who “regularly ask ... and equip employees to innovate, exchange best practices, and speak up” (Hurt & Dye, 2020, p.  24). LPAs should keep in mind that instructors who demonstrate collaboration, commitment, creativity, engagement, flexibility, initiative, and professionalism are likely to contribute to the innovative potential of a language program if given the opportunity to do so. When hiring instructors and later evaluating their performance (see Chap. 13 for a discussion of hiring and evaluating language-program personnel), administrators should emphasize that such behaviors and attitudes are valued.

Flexible Organizational Framework LPAs can play an instrumental role in shaping the organizational and philosophical framework of their programs. Programs that are flexible and grant some degree of freedom to personnel have a greater potential for innovation. Such an atmosphere

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

89

necessitates shared trust and responsibility; an openness toward novel ideas, experimentation, and revitalization; and the acceptance of possible failure as one step toward innovation (Beswick et al., 2015; Rogers, 2003). A language program that supports its instructors with reasonable teaching loads, professional-growth opportunities, regular acknowledgements of achievements, and provisions for participatory management (see Chap. 10 for discussions of participatory decision making and consultative management/governance) contributes to an organizational culture in which instructors are willing to entertain and engage in innovative efforts.

Responsiveness to Calls for Change Programmatic responsiveness to mandates for change represents another variable that influences the innovative character of a language program. When LPAs take a proactive stance in response to fluctuations in, for example, student needs, parent-­ institution expectations, market demands, student enrollments, and trends in the field, the results can be innovative. The explicitness of some mandates (e.g., a direct request from the top official in one’s institution) requires immediate action, which may result in change (not necessarily innovation). The recognition of implicit mandates for change, however, requires a concerted effort on the part of administrators and instructors. To recognize less visible mandates for change necessitates ongoing assessments of student needs and institutional climate in addition to an understanding of instructors’ professional needs. Equally important, LPAs need to remain informed about host institution (or Ministry of Education) policies (and, in some locations, the regular and inevitable updating of policies) that might impact student enrollments, hiring practices, class scheduling, professional-development opportunities, and even the languages that programs are asked to teach (especially in multilingual settings). In programs serving the language-learning needs of international (rather than local) students, it is imperative to track international market demands and enrollment trends that are influenced by, for instance, global politics, economics, weather events, and pandemics. A familiarity with and monitoring of such issues can help LPAs identify implicit mandates for change and then act upon them in a deliberate fashion.

 haracteristics of Language Programs That C Hinder Innovation In contrast to programmatic variables that contribute positively to a language program’s potential for innovation, other variables can hinder that potential. Two obstacles worth noting relate to the very nature of innovation itself and the marginality of language programs in some settings. Although there are no easy ways to sidestep

90

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

these hindrances, recognizing them and learning to overcome them are key to building a culture of innovation.

Innovations as Hindrances Innovations, by definition, challenge the status quo, cause disruptions, and necessitate modifications in routine behaviors. Consequently, they often provoke some degree of insecurity; lead to increased workloads; require retraining; and demand time, energy, and resources. Further complicating matters is the fact that innovations are oftentimes viewed differently by the persons advocating for them and the persons who are being asked to implement them or who are impacted by them. When innovators fail to consider adopters’ viewpoints, difficulties are likely to arise. Typically, innovations take time to gain acceptance. Initially, only a handful of individuals are involved. Shortly thereafter, early adopters willingly implement the innovation. In middle stages, the majority, influenced by early adopters, accept the innovation. And finally, late adopters “give in,” while a minority steadfastly refuses to adopt the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Although little can be done to counter the time required for innovation diffusion, LPAs can provide the leadership needed to sustain the lengthy process when they demonstrate their willingness to usher in new policies and practices. LPAs should also do the following: • Acknowledge the time and patience required to move from early to later stages of the process. • Accept the fact that there may always be a few stalwart resisters. • Anticipate and address the challenges that adopters may encounter. If LPAs do not, those who initially endorse an innovation may become disillusioned, join forces with resisters, and revert to past practices. • Provide adequate administrative support in the form of reassigned time, resources, and retraining opportunities.

Marginality of Language Programs In some contexts, language programs are viewed as marginal by home institutions. In some second-language settings, students are viewed as “different” because of their diverse linguistic, educational, and cultural backgrounds. Instruction is often perceived to be remedial, developmental, or compensatory. It is frequently assumed that any speaker of the target language can teach it, an attitude that reveals a general disregard for the language-teaching profession. In some tertiary contexts, like in the United States, language-program instructors are often assigned a nonstandard status when they do not have the terminal degree expected of others on campus. In other settings, the value of the “services” offered by the language program is questioned,

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

91

the research conducted in the language program is disregarded or discouraged, and/ or the rightful “custodians” of the language(s) taught are believed to be others (e.g., degree-granting units such as Departments of English). These language-program “peculiarities” often contribute to perceptions of language programs as second-class units, which, in turn, deprive them of the prestige and funding opportunities needed to innovate. As long as misperceptions about language programs exist, innovative efforts may be thwarted. LPAs can combat misperceptions through advocacy (see Chap. 11 for a discussion of different forms of advocacy). LPAs can take steps such as these to combat misunderstandings: • Educate (and re-educate) those with whom LPAs interact in their institutions and communities so that those individuals gain an appreciation for the value of the language program’s mission, expertise, instruction, students, instructors, and research. • Avoid using terms that carry negative connotations (e.g., remedial, compensatory instruction, or student deficiencies) because they reinforce stereotypes. • Be proactive in publicizing the professional activities and accomplishments of language-program personnel and students, in addition to curricular innovations that may have applications elsewhere. • Familiarize others with the professional associations (e.g., IATEFL, TESOL) and journals centered on language-teaching matters, when appropriate, because they are typically unknown to those outside the field.

Paths to Successful Innovation Diffusion Innovation diffusion is achieved through a multi-phase process. Along the way, innovators (and their supporters) are likely to encounter (a) challenges in motivating individuals to embrace new ideas and abandon the security of the status quo and (b) interacting variables that facilitate or inhibit the process, as described in the sections that follow.

Innovation Diffusion Process The innovation diffusion process involves successive cycles that require long-term involvement, commitment, and support (see Fig. 6.1). Although introduced here in a linear fashion, the process itself is seldom linear. Key to the success of innovative efforts is the active engagement of stakeholders in all three phases of the process (Fullan, 2016). For classroom-related innovations, as an example, instructors should be (a) involved in decision making during the initiation stage, (b) central to the implementation stage, and (c) granted some control during the continuation/diffusion stage (Watson Todd, 2006). From early on, open channels of communication

92

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

Initiation Phase

Implementation Phase

Continuation/Diffusion Phase

Needs analysis

A shared understanding of the innovation in the abstract and in concrete terms

Ongoing training and support

Determination of a need for improvement Solicitation and evaluation of proposed innovation(s) in response to needs analyses Decision to proceed Gathering of support Review of available and needed resources

Inevitable modifications or slippage

Translation of innovation into practice

Formative & summative evaluation

Opportunities for capacity-building

Oversight and establishment of procedures to guide inevitable modifications

Piloting, if feasible, followed by broader implementation Attention to stakeholders’ attitudes and their need for support and training

Road map for implementation

Fig. 6.1  Innovation diffusion process

are essential because they assist program personnel in overcoming implementation glitches and provide LPAs with valuable insights into the progress of the innovation. Open communication, in fact, is one indicator of the importance of interpersonal relationships in the long-term process (Lockton & Fargason, 2019; Tomasetto & Carugati, 2018). Beswick et al. (2015) emphasize the value of clear, concise, consistent, continuous, and congruent communication, the latter referring to delivery that mirrors the authenticity of the person communicating (i.e., being your normal self). Initiation Phase The first phase, often referred to as the initiation phase, involves the consideration of an innovative idea. At this stage, even when innovations are grounded in strong academic theory and sound practical considerations, innovations rarely take hold

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

93

simply on account of their own merits. This phenomenon might explain why the same innovation can be strongly accepted in some language programs and vigorously criticized in others. Thus, this phase requires (a) needs analyses, (b) the determination of a need for improvement, (c) the solicitation and evaluation of proposals for improvement (linked to needs analyses), (d) the decision to proceed, (e) the gathering of support, (f) a review of available and needed resources, and finally (g) a road map for implementation, which recognizes the value of building a sense of ownership among those who are likely to be involved in the innovation. It is during this initiation phase when LPAs proposing top-down innovations need to build acceptance among language-program personnel because top-down reforms rarely succeed without grassroots understanding and support (Fullan, 2016). Similarly, personnel who propose bottom-up innovations need to secure the support of administrators and colleagues. Whether top-down or bottom-up, proposals for innovations require clarity so that goals, means of implementation, and terminology are unambiguously understood by stakeholders. Fullan (2016) and Arnott (2017) emphasize the centrality of establishing shared meaning among stakeholders. Implementation Phase At the initial-use stage, numerous factors are important. Reaching a shared understanding of the innovation in the abstract and in practical terms is critical. Without a shared understanding, misconceptions may translate into mismatched applications (or abandonment). Other important factors center on translating the innovation into practice, building individual and collective capacity (Fullan, 2016), piloting (as an effective way to work out glitches and build acceptance), and paying attention to the attitudes of stakeholders impacted by the innovation and their need for support and training. At this stage, it should come as no surprise that language-program personnel who have favorable attitudes toward an innovation are likely to be supportive (e.g., Owston, 2007). Conversely, when personnel are reticent about the innovation, they are likely to resist implementation. But positive attitudes by themselves do not ensure successful implementation. During the implementation phase (and later in the continuation phase), personnel need ongoing support in the form of encouragement, professional training, and resources. Training that guides personnel in becoming agents of change, rather than recipients of change, is most effective. El Shaban and Egbert (2018) provide an illustrative account of a two-stage teacher development model, building upon Rogers (2003), used to guide teachers in adopting computer-assisted language learning technologies.

94

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

Continuation/Diffusion Phase It is during the continuation phase (sometimes referred to as the diffusion phase) when the innovation becomes an integral part of the program, is accepted by most stakeholders, or is “challenged, reshaped, or rejected” (Murray, 2008, p. 1). At this juncture, language-program personnel may reinterpret the innovation in light of their own knowledge and experiences, causing some slippage from original conceptualizations (e.g., Carless, 2004; Lee et  al., 2016; Orafi & Borg, 2009; Sansom, 2017). Thus, over time, the innovation may change into a weakened, strengthened, or reinvented version of the original. Such modifications should not be viewed immediately as failures because they may have strong context-specific justifications (Murray, 2008). Because modifications (small or large) are likely to occur, administrators should establish procedures that guide the process rather than leave the process to chance (Watson Todd, 2006). Essential to this stage, therefore, are observations of the innovation being implemented (e.g., in classrooms, administrative offices) as well as formative and summative evaluations, which will determine if modifications are warranted, if support exists to continue and sustain the innovation (in its original or modified form), or if abandonment is inevitable. (See Macalister & Nation, 2020, for a discussion of these issues in relation to curricular change and innovation.)

Interacting Factors That Facilitate or Inhibit the Process Multiple factors interact to facilitate or inhibit the innovation diffusion process, including the language program itself, its home (or parent) institution, external variables, and innovation-related variables. Worthy of further exploration here are the innovation-related variables that play a critical role in the process. LPAs who understand the power of perceptions can use that knowledge to guide the process, especially during the initiation phase. Innovations have attributes that can lead to positive or negative perceptions, thereby influencing their adoption (cf. Kostoulas & Stelma, 2017). One of the most often cited set of properties attributed to innovations (Rogers, 2003) is presented in Table 6.1. Three of the five attributes proposed by Rogers—relative advantage, observability, and trialability—typically influence the adoption of an innovation in a positive manner. In the case of relative advantage, innovations that are perceived to be better than the ideas they supersede are more likely to be adopted than innovations that are perceived to be no different than current practices or only slight improvements over past practices. The greater the perceived advantage, the greater the likelihood of adoption. Similarly, innovations that are observable (i.e., visible), such as digital-literacy instruction or improved annual-review procedures, are more likely to be adopted than less visible innovations (e.g., a new philosophical approach to program management). In a similar way, innovations that can be piloted are more likely to gain the support of potential adopters than innovations that cannot be piloted.

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

95

Table 6.1  Perceived attributes of innovations Attribute Relative advantage Observability Trialability Complexity Compatibility Acceptability Feasibility Relevance

Definition of attributes Degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. Degree to which the innovation is visible to others. Degree to which an innovation can be piloted on a limited basis. Degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to use or understand. Degree to which an innovation is consistent with already existing philosophies, policies, practices, and beliefs. Match between program philosophy and the innovation. Match between program resources and the innovation. Match between perceived student needs and the innovation.

Source Rogers, 2003

Kelly, 1980

Complexity, on the other hand, is negatively related to adoption. The more complicated an innovation is perceived to be, whether it is actually complex or not, the more resistance is exhibited by potential adopters. Such resistance, in turn, can lead to possible rejection of the innovation. Compatibility, unlike the other attributes, can either accelerate or retard the rate of adoption. If an innovation is perceived to be “too compatible” with current practices, potential adopters may not think that the innovation is worth the time, trouble, or expense. On the other hand, if an innovation is perceived to be incompatible with institutionalized practices, it may be viewed as too radical and thus rejected. The second set of attributes itemized in Table 6.1 includes three perceived attributes that correlate positively with the rate and success of innovation diffusion (Kelly, 1980). More specifically, an innovation will likely be adopted when supporters perceive it to be acceptable, feasible, and relevant, as revealed by the innovation’s match with program philosophy, program resources, and student needs, respectively. Kelly’s notion of acceptability corresponds closely to Rogers’ compatibility. The other two attributes, feasibility and relevance, are not accounted for by Rogers’ set. Three additional factors (Table 6.2) play a role in the acceptance or rejection of innovations. The first factor, dissatisfaction, depicts the degree to which individuals perceive a need for change because of varying levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the status quo. In actuality, dissatisfaction with the status quo and a perceived need for improvement represent converse perspectives on the same general notion of satisfaction. These two perspectives suggest that a useful method for soliciting support for an innovation entails promoting the innovation as both a response to dissatisfaction with the status quo and an improvement over past practices. The second factor, viability, is positively related to adoption rate. When there is a match between (a) an innovation and institutional resources and (b) an innovation and student needs (cf. feasibility and relevance; Kelly, 1980), potential adopters are likely to view the innovation as viable. Innovations are also perceived to be viable when they are practical and useful. The more viable an innovation is perceived to be, the more likely its adoption.

96

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

Table 6.2  Factors that influence acceptance or rejection of innovations Factor Dissatisfaction Viability Balanced divergence

Role of factor The presence of some degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo facilitates the implementation of an innovation. The more viable an innovation is perceived to be, the more likely its adoption. Favorable attitudes develop toward an innovation when potential adopters view the innovation as sufficiently divergent, but not too divergent, from current practices.

Perceived attributes

Source Stoller (1994)

Stakeholders’ perceptions Too much

Just right

Too little

Compatibility Complexity Explicitness Flexibility Originality Visibility Fig. 6.2  Zone-of-innovation that motivates individuals to support innovations

The third factor, balanced divergence, combines six attributes from the innovation literature (i.e., compatibility with past practices, complexity, explicitness, flexibility, originality, and visibility). At first glance, the factor appears to combine a disparate set of attributes. Contrary to the literature, which suggests that such attributes are generally positively or negatively related to adoption rate, the balanced-­ divergence factor suggests that adoption rates depend on a perceived “middle range.” That is, when certain attributes are “sufficiently” present and fall within a perceived zone-of-innovation, adoption rates are likely to increase. Conversely, their perceived absence or excess is detrimental to adoption because they lead to unfavorable attitudes toward the innovation and undermine potential support. What seems to be at issue with the balanced-divergence factor is something akin to a “Goldilocks syndrome,” whereby attitudes toward an innovation can be too cold, too hot, or “just right.” When attributes making up this factor are perceived to fall outside the zone-of-innovation, the innovation is perceived to be too cold or too hot, undermining support for the innovation. When attributes are perceived to be sufficiently present (or just right), favorable attitudes toward the innovation develop. Figure 6.2 illustrates the zone-of-innovation phenomenon.

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

97

Let’s consider how the zone-of-innovation phenomenon works. For instance, when an innovation is perceived to be too compatible with current practices (i.e., too similar to current practices), it will not be viewed as an innovation; in such cases, the so-called innovation might simply be perceived as a minor adjustment in current practices and rejected. If, on the other hand, the innovation is perceived as incompatible with current practices, the innovation could be perceived as unacceptably divergent from current expectations and rejected. (See Goh & Yin, 2008, for a discussion of syllabus reform that met little resistance, in part because the innovation was viewed as compatible with past practices.) The concept underlying the zone-of-innovation has implications for the promotion of language-program innovations. When soliciting support for an innovative idea or considering a proposal for an innovation, LPAs should be sensitive to the role of the balanced-divergence factor. When the salient characteristics of an innovation are perceived to fall within the zone-of-innovation, the innovation has a better chance of acceptance. So how can LPAs make use of this information to promote innovation? An acknowledgment of the powerful role of perceptions represents one important step. When promoting an innovation (proposed by the LPA or others), LPAs should orchestrate their efforts with the knowledge that certain attributes are more likely to lead to acceptance and others are more likely to lead to rejection. An honest and persuasive presentation—one that guides events and presents innovative ideas so that they are likely to be accepted and implemented—requires that LPAs do the following: • Present the proposed innovation so that advantages (e.g., relative advantage, observability, feasibility) outweigh disadvantages (e.g., complexity). If LPAs truly believe in the innovation that they are advocating, the benefits should outweigh the difficulties without manipulation. • Explain how the proposed innovation is a response to dissatisfaction. Identify the beneficiaries and benefits of the innovation because they will clarify how the innovation is an improvement over current practices. • Highlight the usefulness, feasibility, and practicality of the proposed innovation; these features demonstrate how viable the innovation is. • Introduce innovations so that they are viewed as neither excessively divergent nor too similar to current practices. • Keep the zone-of-innovation phenomenon in mind when planning the early phases of the process.

 uiding Principles for the Successful Management G of Innovation LPAs should view the management of innovation (rather than change) as one of their most important leadership roles. Ten suggestions can guide LPAs in this important responsibility.

98

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

1. Accept change as an inevitable component of administration. Change is an inescapable aspect of the workplace. Yet, LPAs should not be complacent with change. LPAs should strive for innovation and work toward deliberate, rather than unplanned, efforts to promote innovation. When LPAs are open to alternatives, experimentation, and creativity, and willing to entertain differences of opinion, LPAs can more easily harness innovative energies. 2. Create program stability and help language-program personnel develop a sense of belonging. Because language-program personnel are needed to bring about innovations, LPAs should encourage and reward commitment, creativity, engagement, initiative, and professionalism. LPAs should also make available professional-development opportunities that can lead to new ideas and stimulate innovation. 3. Acknowledge the multifaceted nature of the innovation-diffusion process. There is more to the adoption of an innovation than simple acceptance or rejection. Adoption and sustainability involve an extended process. By recognizing the phases of the process and the interacting variables that come into play, LPAs can be more successful in their attempts at creating an organizational culture that fosters innovation. 4. Be willing to experience failure. It has been said that 75% of all innovations fail (Rogers, 2003). Thus, LPAs must accept failure on some attempts at innovation in order to succeed on others. Learning from failures (by determining what did not work) may serve as a stepping stone to future innovations (Beswick et al., 2015). 5. Share responsibility for innovation. Innovations cannot sustain themselves without a team of steadfast supporters. Thus, LPAs need to identify in-house leaders, support risk-takers, and develop mechanisms for teamwork, collaborative decision making, and transparency. 6. Recall that innovations are not equal. Although all innovations can be seen as improvements in the status quo, they share few other similarities. The extent to which innovations are accepted by potential adopters and supporters is strongly influenced by perceptions. Some perceived attributes (e.g., feasibility) contribute to positive responses, whereas others (e.g., complexity) create immediate barriers. The thoughtful consideration of these attributes can lead to more successful innovation efforts. 7. Remember that subjective perceptions are more persuasive than objective viewpoints. Potential adopters’ subjective perceptions of an innovation will influence their attitudes toward it. When an innovation is perceived to be complex (whether it is actually complex or not), it is difficult to solicit support for it. Because of the power of subjective perceptions, it is important to ascertain how potential adopters view proposed innovations. Such insights can help LPAs frame their introductions and solicitations for support. 8. Legitimize dissent and engage in active listening. Dissent, in one form or another, is not only inevitable, but also fundamental to successful innovation efforts (Fullan, 2016). Active listening is one way to handle resistance respectfully (Beswick et al., 2015). When given the opportunity to express differences

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

99

of opinion, resisters reveal fears, real or imagined, and fundamental problems that merit examination. To be a good listener in such circumstances requires that LPAs suspend their own advocacy, at least for a while. 9. Remember that innovation diffusion requires leadership and momentum. All innovations need a steadfast supporter and the momentum to move the innovation from early initiation phases through to sustainability. LPAs can provide the necessary leadership, while building momentum through trust, collaboration, and empowerment of language-program personnel (see Beswick et al., 2015). 10. Approach top-down innovations with care. Top-down innovations, like other innovations, are not guaranteed success. LPAs should schedule focus-group sessions and Q&A open meetings with important stakeholders to determine views, solicit feedback, answer questions, and take suggestions. The goal is to create a shared sense of ownership and commitment among language-program personnel and other stakeholders.

Reflecting on Innovation 1. Reflect on your past experience(s) with successful (and unsuccessful) language-­ program innovations. What lessons did you learn from those experiences that will inform future attempts at innovation? 2. Innovation requires a process that extends beyond the simple formulation of a good idea. Reflect on how this conception of innovation will guide you in inspiring language-program innovations in the future.

Suggested Readings Beswick, C., Bishop, D., & Geraghty, J. (2015). Building a culture of innovation: A practical framework for planning innovation at the core of your business. Kogan Page. The volume is focused on “leading for innovation” in the business world. Despite the focus on business, much of the book’s content is relevant, with adaptation, to language-program administration. Journal of Educational Change. This journal, though not singularly focused on change in language programs, publishes refereed articles that explore issues of relevance to LPAs.

References Arnott, S. (2017). Second language education and micro-policy implementation in Canada: The meaning of pedagogical change. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 258–284. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362168815619953

100

K. Sebolai and F. L. Stoller

Beswick, C., Bishop, D., & Geraghty, J. (2015). Building a culture of innovation: A practical framework for planning innovation at the core of your business. Kogan Page. Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–662. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588283 Cobb, T. (2017). Reading and technology: What’s new and what’s old about reading in hyperlinked multimedia environments? In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. volume III, pp. 312–327). Routledge. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley. El Shaban, A., & Egbert, J. (2018). Diffusing education technology: A model for language teacher professional development in CALL. System, 78, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2018.09.002 Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press. Goh, C.  C. M., & Yin, T.  M. (2008). Implementing the English language syllabus 2001  in Singapore schools: Interpretations and re-interpretations. In D.  E. Murray (Ed.), Planning change, changing plans: Innovations in second language teaching (pp.  85–107). University of Michigan Press. Hurt, K., & Dye, D. (2020). Courageous cultures: How to build teams of microinnovators, problem solvers, and customer advocates. Harper Collins. Karavas-Doukas, K. (1998). Evaluating the implementation of education innovations: Lessons from the past. In P. Rea-Dickins & K. P. Germaine (Eds.), Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching: Building bridges (pp. 25–50). Longman. Kelly, P. (1980). From innovation to adaptability: The changing perspective of curriculum development. In M. Galton (Ed.), Curriculum change (pp. 65–80). Leicester University Press. Kennedy, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied Linguistics, 9(4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.4.329 Kostoulas, A., & Stelma, J. (2017). Understanding curriculum change in an ELT school in Greece. ELT Journal, 71(3), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw087 Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(2), 248–269. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362168815581007 Lockton, M., & Fargason, S. (2019). Disrupting the status quo: How teachers grapple with reforms that compete with long-standing educational views. Journal of Educational Change, 20, 469–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-­019-­09351-­5 Macalister, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2020). Introducing change. In Language program curriculum (2nd ed., pp. 197–208). Routledge. Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge University Press. Murray, D. E. (Ed.). (2008). Planning change, changing plans: Innovations in second language teaching. University of Michigan Press. Orafi, S. M. S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. System, 37(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.11.004 Owston, R. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: An international study. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 61–77. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10833-­006-­9006-­6 Puccio, G. J., Murdock, M. C., & Mance, M. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change (2nd ed.). Sage. Reinders, H., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (2017). Innovation in language learning and teaching: The case of China. Palgrave Macmillan. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. Sansom, D.  W. (2017). Reinvention of classroom practice innovations. ELT Journal, 71(4), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw116 Stoller, F. L. (1994). The diffusion of innovations in intensive ESL programs. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 300–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.3.300

6  Taking the Lead to Promote Innovation

101

Stoller, F.  L. (2009). Innovation as the hallmark of effective leadership. In M.  A. Christison & D.  Murray (Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (pp. 73–84). Routledge. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2018). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Tomasetto, C., & Carugati, F. (2018). Social influence and diffusion of innovations in education. In S. Zappalá & C. Gray (Eds.), Impact of e-commerce on consumers and small firms. Routledge. Waters, A. (2014). Managing innovation in English language education: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 47(1), 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000426 Watson Todd, R. (2006). Continuing change after the innovation. System, 34, 1–14. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2005.09.002 White, R., Hockley, A., van der Horst Jansen, J., & Laughner, M. S. (2008). Managing change. In From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations (pp.  233–254). Cambridge University Press. Zhang, W., & Zhang, H. (2017). From EAP teaching to English-medium instruction: Innovation in EFL curriculum at Tsinghua University in China. In H. Reinders & D. Nunan (Eds.), Innovation in language learning and teaching: The case of China (pp. 155–172). Palgrave Macmillan. Kabelo Sebolai is head of the Language Unit at Cape Peninsula University of Technology in Cape Town, South Africa. He served as Language Centre Deputy Director at Stellenbosch University, initiated and led a curriculum-renewal initiative at Central University of Technology (Bloemfontein, South Africa), and coordinated language testing at the Centre for Educational Assessment at the University of Cape Town. He is the current chairperson of the Network of Expertise in Language Assessment (NExLA) and Editor-in-Chief of the SAALT (South African Association for Language Teaching) Journal for Language Teaching. His research interests revolve around academic language teaching and assessment.  

Fredricka L.  Stoller is Professor Emerita at Northern Arizona University (NAU). During her 35 years at NAU, she founded NAU’s Program in Intensive English (PIE), served as its Director, and then was an Advisory Board member. Fredricka has decades-long interests in language-­ program administration as evidenced by presentations and publications on the topic (numerous with MaryAnn Christison) and the graduate-level courses that she taught on the subject. She was a Fulbright senior scholar in Turkey (2002–03) as the MA-TEFL program director at Bilkent University, in Timor Leste (2014), and in Vietnam (2018).  

Chapter 7

The Promoter of Quality Thom Kiddle and Beccy Wigglesworth

Abstract  This chapter takes a practitioner-led approach to the promotion of quality within a language program: The approach comprises four vital steps: (a) understand what you already do; (b) understand what matters most; (c) plan, set targets, and make changes; and (d) measure and keep improving. The four-step approach is framed within the reality of ongoing change in language education, including a discussion of the recent and most rapid shift to online learning. Keywords  Change management · Customer journey · Customer service · Language-program administration · Promoter of quality · Quality assurance

Quality is a customer determination based on a customer’s actual experience with a product or service [and] measured against his or her requirements—stated or unstated, conscious or merely sensed. (Feigenbaum, 1983, cited in Rossner, 2017, p. 6).

This chapter is appropriately placed in this volume’s section on leadership because promoting quality undeniably means leading and making changes. Developing skills and competencies for promoting quality is one of the most important responsibilities for language-program administrators (LPAs). Yet, quality may also be one of the most misused (and overused) words in the English language. It seems that every company or business presents its products or services as high quality. As a result, the term “high quality” is used so often that it has become almost meaningless. At the same time, delivering both high quality and the right quality determines whether a language program has paying customers (i.e., students) who are booking and rebooking courses and recommending the language program to their friends and colleagues.

T. Kiddle (*) Norwich Institute for Language Education (NILE), Norwich, UK e-mail: [email protected] B. Wigglesworth International House World Organization, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_7

103

104

T. Kiddle and B. Wigglesworth

To assist LPAs in carrying out their responsibilities for promoting quality, the chapter begins with a focus on the skills and competencies that LPAs need to promote quality; it continues by highlighting quality in the context of online learning. We then introduce a four-step, practitioner-led approach to the promotion of quality: (a) understand what you already do; (b) understand what matters to customers; (c) plan, set targets, and make changes; and (d) measure and keep improving. The four-­ step approach is framed within the reality of ongoing change in language education, most recently as a result of the rapid shift to online learning during the pandemic.

Skills and Competences for Promoting Quality One of the first skills that an LPA must develop in order to promote quality is the ability to view quality from different perspectives because quality is seen differently through the eyes of diverse stakeholders who may be inside or outside the language program or the host institution. Consequently, how LPAs think and speak about quality must be adapted for different audiences—for students and their parents, for sponsors, and for internal use during formal inspection (i.e., review) processes. Even though LPAs must adopt diverse perspectives on quality, it is also important for LPAs to recognize that the underlying principles and processes that define quality should be fundamentally the same so that consistency and coherence relative to assuring quality can be achieved throughout the language program. A recent report on quality provision written by Ofsted (i.e., Office for Standards in Education) states that there are inherent relationships among intent, implementation, and impact, and these features are present in all assessments of quality provision (Ofsted, 2018). It may be illustrative to consider the areas of focus in the recently published Eaquals Academic Management Competency Framework (Eaquals, 2021) and consider the authors’ invitation to use the framework’s level-based descriptors for a range of purposes, including the development of skills and competencies and the self-evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. We introduce the competences proposed in the Eaquals framework as a way for LPAs to begin this process. The eight competences are as follows: • • • • • • • •

management of self; management of other people, systems, and processes; professional development; course and assessment design; planning and administration; managing resources; change management; and customer service and marketing.

The practitioner-led approach for assuring quality that we showcase in this chapter makes a case for the importance of including all the competences in the Eaquals

7  The Promoter of Quality

105

Framework. If LPAs are to fulfill their roles as promoters of quality, all of these competences must be developed. Not the least among the competences is the importance of change management, which carries with it the understanding that as promoters of quality within language programs, LPAs will be leading change. (See Chap. 6 for more details on change.) Leading change involves communicating the success of what LPAs already do and what has been achieved, displaying confidence in the type of change that is to be effected, and carefully planning the routes to achieving goals as a result of change.

Quality in Online Learning Even before the events of the Covid-19 pandemic, language programs were considering the quality of their online educational provision. Faced with the pandemic and with restrictions on travel and face-to-face meetings, educational enterprises worldwide had to move rapidly to deliver teaching, learning, and student services online. Consequently, a language program’s online presence now forms an important component of its quality (see Chap. 14 for more information on managing technology within a language program). It is reassuring to reflect, however, that even with the rapid shift to online learning, the question of quality has not been thrown into disarray with a need to rebuild language programs from scratch. Language learners still want to study in language programs where their needs are listened to, where there is access to clear information so that informed decisions can be made, where teachers are appropriately qualified and trained in up-to-date techniques, and where their progress is monitored and assessed to help them improve. These criteria have always formed the bedrock of quality provisions in language programs. What has possibly changed is the need to give reassurance to customers that these criteria are at the core of online, as well as face-to-face, programs. International House World Organisation recognized this need in mid-2020, and communicated this reassurance through its Online Promise, an update to its long-standing Client Promise (https://ihworld.com/about/quality-­and-­inspections). Other accreditation bodies have also responded to this need, for example adding supplementary schemes and Codes of Practice (e.g., AccreditationUK at https://www.britishcouncil.org/ sites/default/files/code_of_practice_for_online_elt_0.pdf). However, as Murray and Christison (2012) make clear, While responding to change innovatively and also constantly innovating are critical to the improvement of English language teaching worldwide, innovation must be undertaken with a clear understanding of its nature and how the local context impacts the way the innovations will be adopted and diffused (p. 73).

It is, perhaps, in the area of online education that this “clear understanding” is hardest to pinpoint, illustrate, and share.

106

T. Kiddle and B. Wigglesworth

Promoting Quality in Language Programs In order to promote quality in language programs, LPAs need to merge their understanding of what language programs must do to deliver quality language programs with what customers want. Bolitho (2012) states that “any change initiative needs to be founded on a clear understanding of the status quo and also of the reasons for undertaking change” (p.  39). To assist LPAs in promoting quality, we offer a practitioner-­led, four-step approach with specific activities and recommendations for promoting quality at each step. The approach is meant to emphasize the value of inclusion. We firmly believe that the insights that LPAs might gain from completing or carrying out any of the activities individually will pale in comparison to the value of taking a whole-staff approach such as setting up working groups to complete internal or self-assessments, reflecting on collective areas of expertise, and collaborating with those who have different perspectives. The use of collaborative processes in this practitioner-led approach ensures that all contexts of work within a language program are used determine perceptions of quality.

Step One: Understand What You Already Do To determine what your language program does, we offer four recommendations: (a) become familiar with external accreditation schemes and frameworks, (b) conduct a program self-assessment, (c) make use of existing quality-improvement plans, and (d) collect and analyze student data. Become Familiar with External Accreditation Schemes and Frameworks From a top-down perspective, it is helpful for LPAs to calibrate their thinking about quality through the use of external accreditation schemes or quality assurance (QA) frameworks. If a language program already subscribes to an external scheme, it can provide a good starting point for revisiting, reviewing, and producing an internal analysis of where the language program is situated at the current time. This internal analysis is helpful, regardless of the overall score that is awarded through the scheme or whether the score is a quantitative or qualitative grade because all schemes have the potential to identify areas for improvement and make recommendations. If the language program does not subscribe to an external accreditation scheme or framework, it can be helpful for LPAs to become familiar with some of the most common. There are many internationally recognized accreditation schemes or QA frameworks that have been designed specifically for language programs. We consider four frameworks to exemplify features of quality. The key themes from the four frameworks are summarized in Tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. Summaries make the task of

7  The Promoter of Quality

107

Table 7.1  Eaquals quality standards, Eaquals (2020) Sections A. Institutional Management and governance

B. Academic management

C. Student services D. Staff E. Learning environment and facilities

Standards 1. Management and administration 2. Quality assurance 3. Communication with staff 4. Communication with students and clients 1. Course design and supporting systems 2. Teaching and learning 3. Assessment and certification 4. Academic resources 1. Student services 1. Staff profile and development 2. Staff employment terms 1. Learning environment

Table 7.2 Accreditation UK (British Council and English UK) quality standards, British Council (2019) Sections A. Management

B. Premises and resources C. Teaching and learning

D. Welfare and student services

E. Safeguarding under 18 s

Standards 1. Strategic and quality management 2. Staff management and development 3. Student administration 4. Publicity 1. Premises and facilities 2. Learning resources 1. Academic staff profile 2. Academic management 3. Course design and implementation 4. Learners management 5. Classroom observation 1. Care of students 2. Accommodation 3. Leisure opportunities 1. Safeguarding under 18 s

Table 7.3 AQUEDUTOa quality assurance framework, AQUEDUTO (2017) Sections A. The institutional domain

B. The pedagogical domain C. The technological domain

Standards 1. Institutional strategy 2. Staff training, development, and performance management 3. Supporting the learning experience 1. Course design 2. Tutor competencies 1. Platform(s)

The association for quality education and training online

a

using these schemes for the purpose of gathering information and developing insights more focused and manageable. Of course, different schemes have different emphases, but in all schemes, there will be information that LPAs can use to help identify what the program currently

108

T. Kiddle and B. Wigglesworth

Table 7.4  International House World Organization inspection framework, International House World Organisation (2020) Sections A. The client

B. Staff and teachers

Standards 1. Courses and services designed to enable clients to learn 2. Safeguarding young learners 3. Listening to clients’ needs and providing clear information 4. Teachers and trainers who are appropriately qualified 5. Managers who ensure programs run smoothly 6. Assessment and feedback to help clients progress 1. Productive working environment 2. Performance management to support teaching skills 3. Professional development to improve teaching skills

does. The information derived from this process can be (a) built upon and used to define the features of quality that may be unique to the language program or (b) used to target areas that need improvement. This process may not coincide with the intentions of the authors of the accreditation schemes or QA frameworks, but at this stage, the focus is on understanding what the language program does and gathering insights. (See Chap. 5 for additional information about how to think strategically and determine what your program does well.) While there are some differences in emphasis and style among these frameworks, it is useful for LPAs to consider the crossover features in these four frameworks. All four frameworks include the following features of quality: • • • • • • • • •

communication both internal and external, design and management of the academic program, learning and classroom resources, management and management processes, pastoral support and learner wellbeing, premises and environment (including online platforms), qualifications and skills of teaching and support staff, staff development and training, and teaching and learning.

An important consideration for language programs using external frameworks is a need to relate the conceptualizations of quality inherent in the framework directly to the customers and stakeholders in the language program, taking the generic to the contextually specific. Learners and their sponsors will be different across language programs in diverse contexts or countries, and quality must be viewed from their perspective. In the words of Kiely (2012), “In documenting the experience of students … and those supporting their learning, we can capture both how successful the learning experience is, the factors which contribute to this [success], and how these might be further enhanced” (p. 88). The features of quality summarized in the frameworks are important for understanding what language programs do and, for the purposes of assuring quality, where they may need to improve. However, simply focusing on these lists to develop a plan for assuring quality would likely result in an inward-looking process.

7  The Promoter of Quality

109

We suggest different types of internal assessments (i.e., self-assessments) as a means of developing an external perspective. An external perspective is critical in determining quality because the true marker of quality for a language program is determined by how consumers (i.e., students) respond to and assess a language program. Conduct a Program Self-Assessment Program self-assessments (i.e., internal assessments) are largely conducted through the eyes of the people who know the language program well. Therefore, the process may be subject to confirmation bias, the tendency to recall, interpret, and favor information that supports one’s beliefs and values, as well as aspects of cognitive bias or the tendency of individuals to create their own subjective reality based on their perceptions of the input (see Yagoda, 2018, for a general introduction to cognitive bias). The reality is that “the existing system, though not functioning well, does not see itself as deficient in the way an external perspective might” (Kiely, 2012, p.  79). Therefore, self-assessment by an internal inspector can be very valuable because it can encourage a semi-external perspective. The internal inspector could be a colleague in another department or someone with a breadth of experience across different facets of the host institution. Ideally it would be someone with knowledge of and experiences with other teaching institutions. However, it is important to remember that the views of an internal inspector may not value or interpret the accreditation scheme in the same way as the scheme’s own inspectors. Even if the views of the internal inspector have the potential to differ from external inspectors or accreditors, the process is nonetheless useful in encouraging an external perspective on assuring quality. Laughton (2003) provides an interesting perspective on this phenomenon by describing a potential disagreement between an external body of accreditors and an internal stakeholder group comprised of academics in higher education institutions. Another type of self-assessment that LPAs may consider is the use a small group of trusted individuals who are external to the language program. These individuals are invited to answer questions anonymously. For example, if the focus of the self-­ assessment is on the quality of the website and application processes, the questions might focus on the experiences of new visitors to the website and their initial responses to application procedures: At what points did you find the procedures overly complex or lose patience with the process? Does the website rely on the internal “folk history” of those within the institution, or is the information clearly visible and accessible to individuals coming in fresh? These types of questions may unlock what Peterson and Spencer (1991, as cited in De Stefani, 2019) describe as “the deeply embedded patterns of organisational behaviour and the shared values, assumptions, beliefs, or ideologies that members have about their organisations or its work” (p. 142). New members of staff can also be a great asset in the self-assessment process. Recently hired colleagues with less experience in the language program can

110

T. Kiddle and B. Wigglesworth

sometimes be overlooked in an internal assessment structure because more experienced and senior colleagues may erroneously assume that newcomers have not yet accumulated the knowledge of internal systems and documentation to contribute to the process effectively. However, the newness of their experiences offers important insights into how clearly the ethos of the language program is visible and how well it is operationalized. Make Use of Quality-Improvement Plans An important resource to consider in trying to understand what a language program already does is to look closely at the existing quality-improvement plan, if there is one. Quality-improvement plans define what targets LPAs and others within the language program are already working towards and how these targets or goals are expressed. For example, goals might be framed as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) targets. If they are framed in this way, LPAs and other language-program leaders must determine if the goals are specific, measurable, etc. It is also important to determine how these goals align with the stated ethos of the language program. Along with the use of a quality-improvement plan, LPAs might also conduct a cost benefit analysis to expose areas in which disproportionate amounts of time or money are being invested with relatively minimal impact. Such an analysis may uncover areas that could be reprioritized because they are examples of the Pareto Principle, sometimes referred to as the 80/20 Rule (e.g., Koch, 1999) in which 80% of effort is being expended for 20% of the desired results. Targeting specific changes that have come about in the language program within the last 12 months is an essential element in efforts to understand what a language program already does. Given the rapidity with which changes can occur, it is possible that recent changes will be significant, such as a move to online instruction or the inclusion of a hybrid or blended provision. Previously ingrained institutional development principles and practices may have had to be temporarily side-lined or adapted to fit present realities. Identifying these changes and their impact on the learners and the language program are central to understanding what the current quality provision really looks like and how it is seen by stakeholders external to the program. Analyze and Evaluate Student Data Further valuable sources of information for understanding what the program already does are data that have been collected from learners. For example, re-enrollment rates or retention rates for longer programs are excellent indicators of how students really feel about the language program. Another important source of information may be patterns emerging from student satisfaction surveys. Surveys can be useful in identifying what the program does well and what needs to be improved.

7  The Promoter of Quality

111

To engage students in this process, it is important to communicate the purpose of the survey to students so that they feel they are participating in an important process in collaboration with the language program. Students need to know how their responses are going to be used. As Rossner (2017) notes, In the age of the internet we are all continually being asked to give feedback or provide reviews, and educational institutions are no exception…. [However,] a distinction needs to be made between feedback that is mainly for marketing purposes, such as positive reviews on websites, and feedback that is carefully elicited in order truly to gauge the opinions of students and their sponsors. (p. 141)

Positive comments are appreciated, but an analysis of complaints, either formal or informal, in terms of students’ experiences also provides valuable information. It may also be useful to compare data from current and former students. This process allows LPAs to see what aspects of quality are being made visible over time from the perspective of the learners. Such a process goes hand-in-hand with understanding what customers want, which is discussed in more detail in Step Two.

Step Two: Understand What Matters to Your Customers Learners’ experiences in a language program are comprised of more than what goes on in classroom spaces. They experience initial welcome and enrollment processes; they likely interact with support staff over absences or other administrative and technical queries; and they may need clarification on assessments and exam procedures. Their impressions of all of these experiences will affect their appraisal of quality in the language program. This information implies that LPAs need to look carefully at all of the people and systems that their customers will come into contact with throughout their learning experiences and consider the connectedness of experiences and consistency of quality across these interactions. Customer experience is commonly defined as how customers feel as a result of every interaction that they have with the program. For students in a language program, these interactions include a wide range of experiences from how clear the website was when students first Googled it to how excited students were when they received congratulatory wishes for successfully passing their courses and finishing the program. All these interactions are collectively called the customer journey, and this journey includes everything that students experience, from face-to-face conversations, e-mail communication, and phone calls to understanding student reactions to static information on the website. Students’ opinions about the quality of a language program are based on how they feel as a result of all interactions. At some point, our learners will leave the language program, and the way in which they end their experience in the language program will have a profound impact on their perceptions of quality. As Kahneman (2011) makes clear in the Peak End Rule—significant cognitive weight is given to the end of an experience; it is the end experience that determines how the experience is retained in the mind of the learner. In many contexts, the closure of an educational experience may be focused

112

T. Kiddle and B. Wigglesworth

on a final examination or other types of formal assessments. When this is the case, it is important to remember that communicating results, making them meaningful and applicable to a broad educational context, and recognizing other less measurable aspects of the learning experience will have as much of an impact on learner perceptions of quality as the validity of the assessments themselves. In terms of practical approaches to understanding how quality is perceived by language-program students, we recommend viewing the whole experience as an end-to-end lifecycle. One way to do this is to undertake some form of customer journey mapping, which involves looking at all the points at which learners will interact with people and processes, and determine how effective and rewarding their experiences will be at each touchpoint. Customer journey mapping is a great way to bring previously invisible experiences to light and identify areas for improvement. It is also an opportunity to get colleagues with different roles to become involved in a collaborative exercise so that they develop an understanding of how their interactions contribute to the whole. A greater understanding can facilitate coherence and synergy. A final recommendation is to focus not only on what happens at each stage of the learner’s journey but also on how that interaction makes the learner feel—their perceptions of whether their needs are understood, their individual circumstances and requirements are respected, and the human connection and attendant inclusive practices are adaptive and flexible. (See Chap. 11 on advocating for language learners.) We offer a quote for LPAs to consider that is often attributed to Maya Angelou, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said and people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

Step Three: Plan, Set Targets, and Make Changes In Step Three, we now turn our attention to a consideration of putting into practice the insights gained from the processes in Steps One and Two. Having identified two pillars of this process, that is, identifying (a) what a language program is good at and could improve on and (b) what matters to the customers or students, the first exhortation for LPAs at this point is to recognize and praise language-program personnel for doing good work! Negating or otherwise reducing in importance the existing quality in people and processes can be demotivating and will unnecessarily increase resistance to change. We recommend raising the visibility of the areas in which quality has been acknowledged and ensuring that the people responsible for quality in these areas are recognized. Acknowledging quality should be viewed as a fundamental building block. In developing a plan, it is necessary to look both creatively and realistically at what areas could be improved upon. This requires balancing the practical realities of time, human resources, costs, and potential areas of resistance and fragility. Implementing change is possible with innovative thinking and a desire among team members to make changes; however, change can be a disruptive process and should,

7  The Promoter of Quality

113

in all cases, be seen as iterative. It is also valuable to keep a keen eye out for the domino effect wherein one change might initiate a succession of changes, as well as an awareness of the fact that the first conceptualization of innovation may not be the one you stay with because it is necessary to see how it works in practice. (See Chap. 6 for additional insights on the innovation-diffusion process.) After determining what could be improved, it is necessary to prioritize. A plan that has the agreement and buy-in of language-program personnel is essential. Making change is never going to be as easy as “just doing stuff.” Some changes can be implemented in a short to medium timeframe (six to twelve months) while some may take longer (1–2 years). In the process of prioritizing, models and frameworks can be useful. For example, the McKinsey 7-S Framework (see McKinsey 7-S Framework, n.d., for a straightforward overview) places Shared Values at the center and proposes six other considerations—Strategy, Structure, Systems, Skills, Styles, and Staff. The 7-S Framework is intended to help identify what changes are achievable within the language program and what needs to be considered in terms of detailed planning. To understand the process of prioritization, it can be useful to use an analogy from classroom planning. When planning a lesson, teachers start with what the intended outcomes are for learners and then work backwards to determine the learning activities and timeframes that will allow learners to achieve the outcomes. Thinking systematically about changes and their desired effect on quality will help to identify any problem areas that are currently having the biggest impact on your learners’ perceptions of quality and also help to identify areas where you can make the most visible and significant gains in quality. By being proactive about “wowing” customers, it is possible that a significant number of small changes will cumulatively add up to a larger impact, which is the doctrine of marginal gains. Within all these activities, it is crucial for the LPA to be an advocate of and catalyst for quality innovation (see Chap. 6 for more details on innovation) by leading from the front and being able to answer the when, how, and who questions, as well as the most important why question. Quality innovation is also about empowering individuals within a language program to make changes. We acknowledge that making change is easier said than done, but if LPAs are isolated in their efforts or if they are pursuing personal agendas, there are likely to be detrimental effects on the changes they want to foster and on their own wellbeing and motivation. It is very likely that some aspects of whole-staff continuing professional development (CPD) will be needed in terms of the skills and competences needed to effect a change and also to understand why the change is important. Two key factors in resistance are the fear of an increased workload and an attitude that reflects, “We already do a good job.” It is important not to underestimate the impact of these fears on both the language program working environment and individual motivation, so resistance should be addressed proactively and pre-emptively through the involvement of all staff or representative working groups from the outset. As suggested previously in Step One, recognizing existing quality in the language program is an essential factor in mediating resistance.

114

T. Kiddle and B. Wigglesworth

By framing the intended outcomes for increased language-program quality in terms of SMART goals, it is possible to make proposals transparent and tangible for all stakeholders. Some changes proposed for improving quality may be short term and easy, for example, providing clearer information about assessment criteria and grading procedures. Some changes, however, may be structural and long-term and require implementing a planned system in the areas of teacher training and whole-­ staff CPD, alterations to the qualifications or skills required for recruitment, or an overhaul of induction and onboarding practices (i.e., the practice of integrating new staff into the culture of the language program). Setting unrealistic expectations in these areas is counter-productive, and the LPA may need support to build expertise over time. If LPAs work in a language program within a larger unit, such as a university, other departments and programs may also be involved. In these cases, it is necessary to identify quality activities in these units and determine how to dovetail them with language-program objectives. We urge the development of LPAs’ internal self-awareness and an understanding that ensuring quality means that LPAs are in it for the long haul. Some improvements will not be seen immediately, and at times, LPAs may feel a sense of “two-­ steps-­forward, one-step-back.” Nevertheless, it is important for LPAs to keep going and keep leading others with vision and enthusiasm.

Step Four: Measure and Keep Improving One of the SMART goals for quality improvement is making goals measurable. It is important to define what making goals measurable entails for a language program. External accreditation schemes, which provide numerical and non-numerical scores (e.g., “Good” or “Outstanding,” as in the UK government’s OFSTED scheme, or 18/25 as in the Eaquals scheme), can be useful both for determining internal awareness and external promotion. With all quality inspection schemes, the true value lies in the qualitative commentary that accompanies feedback. It is crucial that this feedback be made visible, particularly for internal stakeholders, as part of the reinforcement of quality assurance as an ongoing process. Both authors of this chapter come from educational organizations and have personal standpoints that place great value on the external perspective in the measurement of quality and strongly encourage the use of accreditation schemes. However, embracing external accreditation as part of a language program’s measurement of quality does not remove the need to consider a program’s internal measurement systems. Because the current approach of most quality assurance schemes is centered on a three- or four-year cycle of inspections, there is an attendant risk for the language program to lose the focus on quality in the intervening periods. LPAs should consider other quantitative measurements available, for example, customer satisfaction measures and re-enrollment rates, as measures of internal quality. Online learning and its underlying systems may also offer a wealth of insights in terms of web analytics and platform data reports, which indicate where and for how long learners have spent their time engaging with the online program. As with the

7  The Promoter of Quality

115

external measurements highlighted earlier, great value should be placed on any qualitative data that accompanies the quantitative data because qualitative data will help LPAs understand answers to the why question as well as the what questions. LPAs should also be mindful of the statement from Cameron (1963), “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted” (p.  13). Certainly, the emotional impact of interactions and experiences in the learner journey will fall into the category of things that count but are not always counted. There may also be valuable insights from regular appraisal systems conducted with and by staff in the language program that fit as well. Teaching staff form a key conduit for these less-measurable perceptions of quality, and equally so, they support colleagues who can offer insights into other aspects of learners’ experiences. In a similar vein, we believe it is a responsibility of an LPA to understand the importance of creating an inclusive environment and determine how to measure quality within a language program from that perspective (see Chap. 11 for additional information on the importance of inclusion in language programs). These measurements may include working with students from displaced populations or with learners who have special educational needs related to gender and inclusion, disabilities, or ethnicity. While the majority of students’ contact time may well be with teachers, as Douglas (2019) states, “successful inclusive practices will only be secured by change at all levels within the system” (p.  6). The ongoing nature of change within language programs leads us to the final component in Step Four— keep improving. Our approach throughout this chapter has been to reinforce the conceptualization of quality as an ongoing and iterative process.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have focused on what aspects and features of quality LPAs should focus on and promote. Our goal has been to encourage all LPAs to consider the current context in which they are working, to determine what is possible within their own language-program settings, and, most importantly, to ascertain what is important to their clients. Being able to adopt a learner’s perspective in all approaches to assuring quality can be challenging. Nevertheless, it is important for LPAs to be able to sit on the other side of the desk and put themselves in their customers’ shoes. Communicating and advocating for these positions with their own colleagues is an underrated skill as it pertains to leadership and the roles of leaders.

Reflecting on the Promoter of Quality 1. Review one or more of the quality assurance frameworks referenced in Tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 in this chapter. Which aspects of the framework have direct relevance for your own language program’s focus on quality and the tasks for which you may have accountability? Which approach to measurement of quality do you like best? Why?

116

T. Kiddle and B. Wigglesworth

2. Map out the customer journey or end-to-end student experience for a learner in your language program. What are the key touchpoints in which the learner interacts with different language-program personnel? Identify the areas of existing quality or good practice and identify where there could be improvements.

Suggested Readings Rossner, R. (2017). Language course management. Language education management series. Eaquals & Oxford University Press. This book provides a valuable and systematic look at many of the issues addressed in this chapter; there is an excellent thread on quality management running throughout the work. In addition, there are useful chapters on Performance Management and Managing Quality, with reflective tasks and real-world examples. Eaquals. (2021). Academic management competency framework. Available at https://www.eaquals. org/resources/the-­eaquals-­academic-­management-­competency-­framework/ This framework adds to the Teacher Development and Language for Academic Purposes frameworks from Eaquals and gives a criterion-referenced structure to evaluating the roles and responsibilities and attendant competences that are needed by LPAs in language-education settings.

References AQUEDUTO. (2017). Aqueduto quality assurance framework version 3.0. Retrieved from https:// aqueduto.com/resources/our-­framework/ Bolitho, R. (2012). Projects and programmes: Contemporary experience in ELT change management. In C. Tribble (Ed.), Managing change in English language teaching: Lessons from experience (pp. 33–46). British Council. British Council. (2019). The accreditation UK handbook https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/ default/files/k062_uk_accreditation_handbook_2019_final_v2.pdf Cameron, W.  B. (1963). Informal sociology, a casual introduction to sociological thinking. Random House. De Stefani, M. (2019). Leadership and language teacher development. In S.  Walsh & S.  Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (pp.  596–610). Routledge. Douglas, S. (Ed.). (2019). Creating an inclusive school environment (British Council teaching English series). British Council. Eaquals. (2020). The Eaquals advisory guide to accreditation. https://www.eaquals.org/wp-­ content/uploads/The-­Eaquals-­Advisory-­Guide-­to-­Accreditation.pdf Eaquals. (2021). Academic management competency framework. https://www.eaquals.org/ resources/the-­eaquals-­academic-­management-­competency-­framework/ Feigenbaum, A. V. (1983). Total quality control (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. International House World Organisation. (2020). IH online promise. https://ihworld.com/about/ quality-­and-­inspections/ Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Random House.

7  The Promoter of Quality

117

Kiely, R. (2012). Designing evaluation into change management processes. In C. Tribble (Ed.), Managing change in English language teaching: Lessons from experience (British Council teaching English series) (pp. 75–90). British Council. Koch, R. (1999). The 80/20 principle: The secret to achieving more with less. Crown Publishing Group. Laughton, D. (2003). Why was the QAA approach to teaching quality assessment rejected by academics in UK HE? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(3), 309–321. McKinsey 7-S Framework. (n.d.). McKinsey 7-S Framework: Making every part of your organization work in harmony. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_91.htm Murray, D., & Christison, M. (2012). Understanding innovation in English language education: Contexts and issues. In C.  Tribble (Ed.), Managing change in English language teaching: Lessons from experience (pp. 61–74). British Council. Ofsted. (2018). An investigation into how to assess the quality of education through curriculum intent, implementation and impact. Office for Standards in Education no. 180035. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/curriculum-­ research-­assessing-­intent-­implementation-­and-­impact Peterson, M., & Spencer, M. (1991). Understanding academic culture and climate. In M. Peterson (Ed.), ASHE reader on organization and governance. Simon & Schuster. Rossner, R. (2017). Language course management (Language education management series). Eaquals & Oxford University Press. Yagoda, B. (2018, September). The cognitive biases tricking your brain. The Atlantic. https://www. theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/cognitive-­bias/565775/ Thom Kiddle is Director of Norwich Institute for Language Education (NILE). He is involved in teacher training, organizational management, and strategic development projects worldwide, including the NILE online teacher development programs. He is also Chair of Eaquals and founding director of AQUEDUTO (the Association for Quality Education and Training Online). He has published widely on assessment, online teacher education, and quality in language education, including a chapter on monitoring and evaluating quality of online TESOL teacher education courses in Quality in TESOL and Teacher Education in the Routledge ESL & Applied Linguistics Series.  

Beccy Wigglesworth is Director of Member Services for International House (IH) World Organization and is responsible for implementing the IH quality framework and a wide range of services available to IH schools around the world. Her view of quality, which places the customer at the center, was framed after analyzing the operations of private language schools across all continents. She is also a member of the board of AQUEDUTO (the Association for Quality Education and Training Online). She has spoken and advocated widely on the need for language institutions to focus on delighting their customers at every touchpoint.  

Chapter 8

Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence Kristin E. Hiller

Abstract  In this chapter, language programs are viewed as “contact zones” in which skilled language-program administrators (LPAs) leverage the advantages of diversity in their programs to deftly resolve conflicts. The key to achieving these two interrelated goals—leveraging diversity and resolving conflict—is intercultural competence (IC). The chapter summarizes three contemporary models of IC and introduces several strategies that LPAs can use to develop their own IC and foster IC in language-program personnel and students to create an inclusive organizational culture. Keywords  Contact zones · Critical intercultural incidents · Culture · Intercultural competence · Intercultural conflict

As intercultural dialogue is above all a dialogue between peoples, its main day-to-day challenges are to change mindsets to foster respect and openness and to provide men and women with the means to engage with each other. (Deardorff, 2020, p. x)

Language programs exist in different contexts (see Chap. 4 for more information on language programs), and within these contexts, programs face diverse challenges and are afforded unique opportunities. Learners’ language and cultural backgrounds may be the most obvious differences among language programs, but they are not the only differences. Even in programs where students and teachers share a first language, language-program personnel and students will embody a range of other differences, including gender, race, age, and roles, to name a few. A characteristic that language programs share is their status as contact zones (Pratt, 1991)—places where people from different cultural backgrounds come together. As contact zones, language programs face both conflict and opportunity to develop synergy; languageprogram administrators (LPAs) need intercultural competence (IC) to navigate the challenges that are associated with conflict and make the most of opportunities. K. E. Hiller (*) Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_8

119

120

K. E. Hiller

In their roles as leaders, managers, and advocates, LPAs have many responsibilities. Particularly important from the perspective of IC is an LPA’s ability to communicate effectively with different stakeholder groups, including students, parents (in some cases), teachers, and other language-program personnel, as well as educators and other professionals outside of the language program. To communicate effectively, LPAs need empathy and an awareness that individual perspectives, assumptions, and behaviors can vary across lines of cultural and individual differences. LPAs are not only responsible for the development of their own IC but also the continuing professional development (CPD) of language-program personnel and the intercultural learning of students. This chapter provides current and prospective LPAs with (a) an understanding of what IC is and the role it plays in language programs, (b) strategies for developing the IC needed to be an effective and inclusive leader, and (c) tools for assisting language-program personnel and students in developing their own IC. The chapter begins with a discussion of the underlying concept of culture.

What Is Culture? As an abstract concept, culture is notoriously slippery, with many definitions, models, and frameworks that are informed by different perspectives. What most views have in common is that culture is related to ways in which humans make sense of and interact with one another and the world around them; these ways are learned and negotiated in and through groups. At the risk of oversimplification, the views can be (more or less) divided into two categories: those views that emphasize (a) identifiable shared value patterns and (b) the social and political construction of culture. A brief summary of these views is provided here because it is essential for LPAs to understand the assumptions that underlie models of IC. Understanding these assumptions—as well as one’s own assumptions—can help LPAs make informed choices about which tools and approaches to IC best match the desired learning outcomes for themselves and their language programs.

Shared Values Many scholars view cultures as relatively stable systems of thought shared by identifiable groups of people. This view has produced large amounts of comparative research, such as work done by Geert Hofstede and his colleagues on national cultures. Hofstede’s often-quoted definition depicts culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 6). The work has resulted in taxonomies that describe patterns of values found within nations. Hofstede and his colleagues have posited six dimensions of culture that are presented as continua: Power Distance,

8  Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence

121

Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long/ Short Term Orientation, and Indulgence/Restraint (Hofstede et al., 2010). Countries are assigned a score, based on workplace-survey results, for each dimension; scores can be compared across countries to identify similarities and differences. The perspective on culture that Hofstede et al. offer has been criticized for being overly deterministic (i.e., a view in which events are determined by causes external to the individual) and for its emphasis on national cultures. Critics argue that such frameworks tend to reify culture—to view it as something that pre-exists its current members and plays a large and largely predictable role in determining behaviors. Another critique is that comparative models of culture are often used to highlight differences, potentially leading to othering—an “us and them” view that constructs the other in opposition to oneself. Determinism and othering are seen as potential negative outcomes of Hofstede et al.’s (2010) cultural dimensions that differentiate national groups by static patterns of value-based behaviors.

Dynamic Constructions In contrast to the mental programming interpretation of culture is the perspective that cultures are dynamic and contested sites of negotiation and even struggle. From this perspective, a nation can be considered a culture only as a social and political construction that normalizes the values and experiences of majority group members while minimizing differences (Sorrells, 2012). Holliday (1999) argues against the reification of culture in a nation with his notion of “small cultures.” For Holliday, culture is depicted as “the composite of cohesive behaviour within any social grouping … from a neighbourhood to a work group” (p. 247). Holliday’s position overlaps with the cultural studies perspective (Sorrells, 2013), which depicts culture as dynamically constructed and negotiated through interactions, practices, and institutions. Needless to say, the landscape is more nuanced than this brief summary of prevailing views of culture suggests. Indeed, many intercultural scholars see a middle ground, recognizing the dangers of deterministic notions of national cultures while still seeing frameworks such as Hofstede’s as useful foundations for building an awareness of differences while trying to understand the logic of other perspectives. Osland and Bird (2000) characterize the generalizations produced in Hofstede’s model of national culture (and similar models) as “sophisticated stereotypes.” While these stereotypes may be useful starting points for people seeking cultural awareness, they need to be followed by efforts to understand behaviors in specific situations. Sorrells’s (2012) conceptualization of culture includes not only the idea of shared meanings but also recognizes the contested nature of culture as a struggle that plays out among people. These struggles are embedded in systems of unequal power relations (see Chap. 12 for additional information on power dynamics). IC training that draws on both these traditions (Van Maele & Messelink, 2019) can be successful in language programs.

122

K. E. Hiller

Intercultural Competence In language education, learning about culture has traditionally been approached as learning about countries where the target language is spoken. Many English language textbooks, for example, incorporate stories about characters living in the United Kingdom or Canada and present objective elements of culture (e.g., food and holidays). This perspective is echoed in popular media about culture, including tourist guidebooks and websites offering advice for international travelers. These ways of approaching instructional materials, hallmarks of what Ryan (2012) calls a national paradigm of language teaching, are meant to contribute to the development of learners’ cultural competence or awareness (Dasli, 2011). But, as Ryan and others argue, cultural competence is not the same thing as IC. IC has been defined in many ways over several decades of scholarship. One reason for the vast number of definitions is the recognition that IC includes multiple components. This complexity has led to different approaches to conceptualizing IC and dozens of models that emphasize different aspects of it. Most models include some combination of knowledge, awareness, skills, attitudes, and/or behaviors (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Deardorff (2009) notes that common themes across models include empathy, perspective taking, and adaptability. Three models of IC, showcased in the section that follows, provide LPAs with complementary perspectives on IC learning, training, and development. As such, they are useful tools for LPAs who seek to develop their own IC as well as provide professional development and learning experiences for language-program personnel and the students they serve.

Models of Intercultural Competence Three models of IC have particularly important implications for LPAs and the programs they serve. The first model, Paige’s dimensions of intercultural learning (Paige et al., 2020; Paige & Goode, 2009), highlights concepts frequently referred to in the IC literature. Although this model has primarily been used to mentor students in study-abroad contexts, its relevance extends to other intercultural learning contexts such as language programs. The model comprises five dimensions of learning that are needed to develop IC: 1. Learning about the Self as a Cultural Being: Learning how cultures affect the development of identities, values, perceptions, and behaviors. 2. Learning about the Elements of Culture: Learning that culture encompasses “those patterns of everyday life that identify a group of people and organize their communication and interaction” (Paige & Goode, 2009, p. 337). 3. Culture-Specific Learning: Learning about a specific culture, such as a national or regional culture.

8  Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence

123

4. Culture-General Learning: Learning about processes common in intercultural experiences and strategies for navigating differences and difficulties. 5. Learning about Learning. Learning how to develop strategies that enable continued learning about culture and IC. Whereas Paige’s model details what students need to learn to develop IC, Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) conceptualizes IC in developmental stages with respect to understanding “that cultures differ fundamentally in the way they create and maintain world views” (Bennett, 1986, p. 181; see also Bennett, 2017). The DMIS is characterized by six stages, which are divided into two broad orientations—ethnocentric and ethnorelative: • Ethnocentric Stages –– Denial. Other cultures are not recognized, not experienced as real, or seen only as vague and undifferentiated. Attitudes towards “the other” range from indifference to hostility. –– Defense. Difference is recognized, but only one’s own culture is seen as legitimate. “The other” may be seen as a threat, leading to a perceived need to defend one’s own culture. Negative stereotyping is common. –– Minimization. Differences are trivialized as others are assumed to share one’s own cultural world view. The assumption of similarity blocks recognition of power and privilege. • Ethnorelative Stages –– Acceptance. There is a recognition that other cultures are as complex as one’s own, and there is a general interest in learning about other cultures. The abilities to identify culture-general categories and make comparisons are present. –– Adaptation. Perspective-taking ability (empathy), along with the capacity for culturally appropriate behavior and affect, are demonstrated. Bi/multiculturality is experienced as a shifting among identities, potentially accompanied by questioning about one’s “authentic self.” –– Integration. There is an expansion of self-identity that allows movement among worldviews (Hammer et al., 2003). An ability to “construe differences as processes, … adapt to those differences, and … additionally construe [oneself] in various cultural ways” (Bennett, 1986, p.  186) is characteristic of this stage. The original DMIS gave rise to the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI; Hammer et al., 2003), a commercially available validated measurement instrument. For the IDI, Bennett and colleagues define intercultural sensitivity as “the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences” and intercultural competence as “the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways” (Hammer et al., 2003, p. 422). The DMIS and associated IDI are useful diagnostics for determining the current IC orientation of language-program personnel in order for the LPA to plan and select maximally effective learning tools for the development of IC program wide. LPAs should recognize that individuals within the program will

124

K. E. Hiller

likely be at different stages and should plan accordingly. Effective LPAs watch for signs of ethnocentrism and, in response, provide CPD and curriculum interventions to promote IC. The third model is Deardorff’s (2006) process model of intercultural competence. Responding to a need for a clearer definition of IC, Deardorff enlisted experts—experienced international education administrators from 24 higher education institutions and 23 recognized intercultural scholars—to participate in a consensus-­ building study. Data generated from questionnaires and the Delphi method (see Williamson, 2002) included (a) a list of general definitions and specific components of IC agreed upon by at least 80% of the participating scholars and (b) accepted methods of assessing IC. The IC definition that garnered the highest level of agreement was “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (pp. 247–248). Deardorff used these data to create her model. The model is expressed visually both as a pyramid and a process. The process begins at the individual level, represented by the base of the pyramid, and moves up the pyramid to the interaction level: • Individual Level –– Attitudes: Respect, openness, curiosity, and discovery. –– Knowledge and comprehension: Cultural self-awareness, deep cultural knowledge, culture-specific information, and sociolinguistic awareness. –– Skills: Listening, observing, evaluating, analyzing, interpreting, and relating. • Interaction Level –– Desired internal outcome: Shift in one’s frame of reference resulting in adaptability, ethnorelativity, and empathy. –– Desired external outcome: Communication and behavior that are effective and appropriate for particular intercultural contexts. Deardorff’s model shows the interrelatedness of components at each level and emphasizes the development of IC as a process. Individual attitudes represent the starting point, at the individual level, and they interact directly with knowledge, comprehension, and skills. The greater the attainment is for components at the individual level, the greater the likelihood of achieving the desired outcomes at the interactional level. Ongoing research with this model has led Deardorff (2020) to reconceptualize the goal of IC broadly as “improving human interactions across difference, whether within a society (differences due to age, gender, religion, socio-­ economic status, political affiliation, ethnicity, and so on) or across borders” (p. 5). The three models just described reveal the complexity of IC, including (a) its  affective and cognitive elements and (b) the varied skills needed to achieve IC. The models also demonstrate that self-awareness and attitudes are fundamental starting points. In developing their own and facilitating others’ development of IC, LPAs and individuals who work with them need to begin with self-awareness and then focus on developing culture-general knowledge, which lays the groundwork for acquiring culture-specific knowledge.

8  Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence

125

Development of Intercultural Competence To be effective communicators in language-program contact zones, LPAs need to cultivate their own IC, and they also need to provide IC-related CPD opportunities for language-program personnel and IC learning opportunities for students (see Chap. 12 for additional information on communication strategies). It is important for LPAs to recognize that the benefits of IC extend beyond improved communication at the individual level to include the organizational level as well. Organizational effectiveness and employee well-being depend on a combination of management practices, organizational climate, and language-program values (Trimble et  al., 2009). A focus on IC can contribute to these factors in several positive ways, including employee professional development, conflict resolution, and the recognition of individual contributions. The activities and strategies offered here for developing IC and managing conflict can be adapted to suit the needs of language programs, LPAs, and the individuals with whom they engage.  upporting Continuing Professional Development S for Language-Program Personnel An LPA’s commitment to providing CPD centered on IC will be beneficial to everyone in the language program. LPAs who model IC and utilize clear messaging strategies with respect to intercultural sensitivity and learning outcomes are effective. Such LPA behaviors can have a considerable impact on language-program personnel, particularly on those who lack IC training. Like LPAs, teachers need IC to communicate effectively with others and scaffold the development of students’ IC. Language teachers are likely to benefit from CPD that helps them develop self-awareness and deep knowledge. Research on teachers’ understanding and classroom practices related to IC has found that teachers most often focus narrowly on cultural differences and simultaneously express a lack of confidence in teaching IC due to their limited knowledge of other national cultures (Amery 2021; Roiha & Sommier, 2021). In many studies, teachers report a lack of time or resources for incorporating IC into their courses; other studies have found that teachers limit their teaching to culture-specific knowledge (Amery, 2021; Roiha & Sommier, 2021; Sercu, 2006; Young & Sachdev, 2011). CPD options for teachers and other language-program personnel ideally include a mix of individual and group activities (see Chap. 4 for more information on CPD). Individual tasks can help language-program personnel develop cultural self-­ awareness when they identify their own cultural identities and assumptions and reflect on their own values, beliefs, and experiences. Group activities, conversely, provide opportunities for the development of knowledge and skills while building cohesiveness among program personnel. Two example IC-related activities for CPD are showcased in the sections that follow; they were selected because of their potential for impact and adaptability to various language-program contexts.

126

K. E. Hiller

Story Circles. Story Circles, a methodology based on IC research, has been piloted in seven countries by UNESCO (Deardorff, 2020). With no special set-up or resources required, Story Circles is easy to implement and applicable in a wide range of contexts. Capitalizing on the power of storytelling to connect people from diverse backgrounds, this methodology helps people develop IC through an activity that fosters key skills, attitudes, and knowledge components: “respect, listening, curiosity, self- and other awareness, reflection, sharing, empathy, and relationship building” (Deardorff, 2020, p.  13). Story Circles is based on the premises that everyone has stories to share, everyone has something to learn from others, and listening to other people’s stories and critically reflecting on the experience can be transformational. Deardorff (2020) recommends 75 to 120  minutes for the six-step activity. Scenario 1 illustrates one adaptation of Deardorff’s steps. Following the Scenario are more details about Deardorff’s six steps. Scenario 1. In my university, the Language and Culture Center (LCC) has used Story Circles with language-program personnel and students. The LCC comprises teachers of English for Academic Purposes and Chinese language, non-language-teaching personnel, and administrators. While planning for the new academic year, LCC personnel and the LPAs participated in a Story Circle and found it to be a good way to learn more about one another, find connecting threads and intriguing differences among us, and reflect on our orientations to intercultural interactions. The consensus was that it was a valuable activity that could benefit students. We then incorporated Story Circles into the Language and Culture Days component of the first-year student orientation (see Chiocca et al., 2022). We stressed the importance of listening for understanding and respect—both key aspects of IC in Deardorff’s model—and followed the general format outlined in Deardorff (2020). The following Story Circle prompts were used: 1. Self-introduction Prompt: State your name. Then provide three words or phrases to describe yourself/your background and explain why those words/phrases are meaningful to you. 2. Intercultural Storytelling Prompt: Tell us about one of the most positive interactions you have had with someone who is different from you. What made it a positive interaction?

Deardorff suggests that Story Circle participants sit in circles of four to six people. The activity includes storytelling rounds followed by what are called flashbacks, ending with discussion and reflection. The prompts (see Scenario 1) are distributed early in the activity and guide discussion and reflection. The routine essentially follows six steps.

8  Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence

127

1. Planning. The facilitator gives instructions, sets strict time limits, provides guidelines for effective and respectful participation, and distributes prompts. 2. Reflection. After receiving and reading distributed prompts, participants have two to three minutes to consider what they want to say. (This allows participants to listen to one another attentively later, without being distracted by planning their own responses.) 3. Self-introduction. Participants each have two minutes or less to introduce themselves according to the prompt while others listen silently. No interruptions, comments, or questions allowed. 4. Intercultural stories. In turn, participants each have three minutes or fewer to tell a story, in response to the intercultural storytelling prompt, while others silently listen for understanding. No interruptions, comments, or questions allowed. 5. Flashbacks. Beginning with the first participant’s intercultural story, each person (except the storyteller) has 15 seconds to share something memorable from the story. The process is repeated for the second storyteller and continues for each intercultural story. 6. Debriefing and Reflection. Participants reflect on and discuss their experiences and learning using questions such as these: What? (What did I learn about myself, about others, about IC differences?); So what? (Why is this learning important?); and Now what? (What will I do as a result?). Case Studies and Critical Incidents. Case studies are written accounts of real experiences together with analyses of the experiences. Reading case studies on intercultural experiences can help individuals learn how others have successfully— or unsuccessfully—navigated these encounters. The Università della Svizzera italiana has made a collection of intercultural case studies publicly available. These cases were created by graduate students in an intercultural communication program, who used “the most updated skills, tools, theories and best practices available” (MIC Case Studies website, https://www.mic.usi.ch/case-­studies-­intercultural-­ communication). LPAs can encourage their staff to select one or more case studies to read and reflect on. Alternatively, LPAs can ask groups to read and discuss a single case or create an “instant expert” activity whereby small groups or individuals read different cases and then summarize them for the whole group. Critical intercultural incidents (Wight, 1995), on the other hand, center on realistic scenarios that include an example of miscommunication or conflict. LPAs can devise group activities during which incidents are discussed at workshops, program retreats, or even lunch-hour breaks. The aim in using critical incidents is not to generate one correct explanation. Rather, the aim is for participants to engage in perspective-­taking and propose multiple explanations for the behaviors of the people in the incident. Critical incidents can be used effectively with staff and students (see Scenario 2 and Tran et al., 2019). Language programs can write their own critical incidents or use published sources (e.g., Apedaile & Schill, 2008; Snow, 2014).

128

K. E. Hiller

To maximize the benefits of case studies and critical incidents used in language programs, critical-reflection discussion prompts that help participants become aware of their interpretations of the incident (Van Maele & Messelink, 2019) should be used. Furthermore, time for an exploration of implications for those interpretations should be factored into planning. Scenario 2. Critical incidents were used with students during the Language and Culture Days orientation described in Scenario 1. Intercultural communication workshops were held with large numbers of students, who were divided into smaller groups to discuss critical intercultural incidents. The incident discussed during the first workshop was “Left out of the Conversation,” in which a Chinese student from a Chinese university struggles to feel included by his international classmates in the casual environment of a bar (Snow, 2014). Small groups of students brainstormed possible explanations for why this feeling of exclusion occurred, attempting to consider more and less charitable explanations for the behaviors and motivations of the Chinese student and his classmates. Representatives from each group reported their ideas in front of a whole-group debriefing session. Students then evaluated the likelihood of these explanations and discussed strategies for overcoming the issues. From these practical discussions, facilitators then generalized the points raised to a series of intercultural-interaction phenomena and shared their own experiences in confronting similar situations (Chiocca et al., 2022).

Supporting Students To support learners in their programs, LPAs need a keen understanding of the demographics and needs of their students. (See Chap. 7 for additional information on understanding language program demographics.) In most cases, LPAs recognize that their students are preparing for (if not already engaging in) intercultural communication. A more nuanced understanding requires that LPAs consider questions like these: Does the communication take place in students’ home country or in another country? With individuals who have greater or less diversity? In academic, professional, or social settings? Answers to such questions can have an impact on the curriculum in terms of both language learning and the development of IC. It is widely recognized that bringing diverse groups of students together is not sufficient to promote intercultural learning; interventions are needed (e.g., Jackson, 2018; Vande Berg et al., 2012). The nature of the contact needs to be considered, particularly opportunities for engagement and the degree of inclusiveness that students might experience beyond the language program, for example, within a university (Gregersen-Hermans, 2017). The activities described earlier for language-program personnel (i.e., Story Circles, Case Studies and Critical Incidents)

8  Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence

129

are appropriate for students, with adaptations for their ages and language levels. Additional activities, overseen by LPAs and language-program personnel, can aid students in the development of both their linguistic skills and IC. To the extent possible, involving learners in meaningful interactions with target-­ language speakers beyond the classroom should be a priority. Ideally, these interactions might take place in contexts that match learners’ goals and needs, for example, involving students who are pursuing degrees in business with opportunities to visit local businesses. In contexts where the target language is not widely spoken outside the classroom, LPAs and language-program personnel will need to use their ingenuity and creativity to craft these opportunities: (a) organize target-language speaking activities in the local area, (b) coordinate activities with international students at nearby schools, (c) devise experiential learning activities (e.g., Nilsson, 2003), (d) orchestrate online collaborations with other target-language users, or (e) plan a language-­ program event that brings students and language-program personnel together. Whatever the nature of the intercultural experiences, it is important to maximize the potential impact these experiences can have on the development of IC by including guided reflection activities (Hammer, 2012). Such activities include reflective writing, discussions, or one-on-one meetings with cultural informants. Hammer (2012) describes the careful framing that is needed: These activities must be framed to elicit inquiry into one’s own cultural assumptions, values, and practices vis-à-vis the assumptions, values, and practices of host country nationals or other international students. Cultural reflection is often best gained through in-depth analysis of critical incidents, in which cultural differences emerge through reflection on the students’ experiences that ‘make a difference.’ (p. 132)

To support learners in developing their IC, LPAs need to ensure that the following activities are incorporated into the language-program curriculum: • opportunities for student-student interactions within individual courses; the language program; and the larger institution, for example, the university; as well as interactions with others in the local community and virtual contexts; • collaborative problem-solving activities, in diverse teams if possible; • social activities around shared interests; • mentoring and guided reflections for awareness raising, knowledge creation, and skill-building; and • positive role models among language-program personnel. Activities such as these have been shown to work well with both adult and young learners. Two good sources for additional IC-development activities are Berardo and Deardorff (2012) and Paige et al. (2020). Free (and also vetted) resources can be found on websites for the World Council on Intercultural and Global Competence (https://iccglobal.org/resources/resources/) and the Council of Europe Language Policy Portal (https://www.coe.int/en/web/language-­policy/home). (See Chap. 11 for additional information on supporting students.)

130

K. E. Hiller

Dealing with Intercultural Conflict IC conflicts arise even in healthy relationships, and they are sure to arise in language programs. Hammer’s (2005) model of intercultural conflict style offers four intercultural conflict resolution styles formed by combinations of two cultural dimensions: (a) indirect and direct communication styles and (b) emotional restraint and expressiveness. The four conflict resolution styles are referred to as follows: • • • •

discussion (direct communication style + emotional restraint), engagement (direct communication style + emotional expressiveness), accommodation (indirect communication style + emotional restraint), and dynamic (indirect communication style + emotional expressiveness).

Language-program personnel might uncritically use Hammer’s model to point to the strengths of their own styles and provide a rationale for them. They may also misinterpret the behavior and intentions of someone else, particularly someone who has a different style and approaches conflict in a different way. Very often, others’ behaviors are misconstrued as negative personal traits rather than as culturally influenced patterns of responding to conflict. For example, as Hammer (2009) explains, individuals with the “say what you mean, and mean what you say” discussion style are likely to perceive their own directness as necessary to prevent misunderstandings and consider their ability to stay calm as a strength. Another individual may interpret the “say what you mean and mean what you say” discussion style as logical but uncaring, without regard for the emotional and relational aspects of the communication. Understanding the values underlying the four different conflict resolution styles can help language-program personnel mitigate intercultural conflict. Intercultural conflicts can be difficult to navigate, but Ting-Toomey (2012) offers useful strategies for developing intercultural conflict competence. The components of intercultural conflict competence should look familiar, as they overlap with the components of general IC: (a) culture-sensitive knowledge (e.g., knowledge of different IC conflict styles), (b) mindfulness (e.g., self- and other-awareness in the moment), and (c) constructive communication skills (e.g., deep listening, respect). One strategy that LPAs can use for mindfulness is to work through a series of critical questions about the specific conflict (adapted from Ting-Toomey, 2012, p. 289): 1. What are my cultural, linguistic, and personal assessments of the particular behavior, e.g., a “stony” facial expression? 2. Where do these assessments come from, and why do I form them? 3. What assumptions or values underlie my evaluative assessments? 4. How do I know if my assessments are valid in this intercultural and/or second language context? 5. What reasons might I have for maintaining or changing my assessments? 6. How can I shift my cultural, linguistic, or personal assessments so as to promote deeper intercultural understanding? 7. How can I adapt to different conflict styles and perform situationally appropriate behaviors to achieve an effective outcome that promotes common interests?

8  Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence

131

These questions can help LPAs and language-program personnel involved in a conflict situation focus on their own assumptions and reactions, reframe others’ behaviors, and adapt to different conflict resolution styles. LPAs can use these questions to develop their own intercultural conflict competence and mediate conflicts between others.

Development of an Inclusive Organizational Culture Emotional intelligence (EI)—the ability to identify, use, understand, and manage emotions in oneself and others—has been identified as an important skill for leaders (e.g., Kerr et al., 2006). Gardenswartz et al. (2010) note that intercultural interactions can elicit strong emotional reactions, requiring EI to deal with them. To the model of EI, they added a diversity component, yielding a model of emotional intelligence and diversity (EID): “the ability to feel, understand, articulate, manage, and apply the power of emotions to interactions across lines of difference” (p. 76). Their EID model contains four dynamic and interdependent elements, which can be applied (by LPAs) at individual, team, and organizational levels: • • • •

affirmative introspection (self-awareness and self-reflection), self-governance (managing emotional reactions), intercultural literacy, and social architecting (building relationships and social environments).

An overlap with IC is evident, not only in the inclusion of intercultural literacy, but throughout the model. For example, affirmative introspection emphasizes many of the attitudes and knowledge components named in both Deardorff’s and Paige’s models and called for in the ethnorelative stages of DMIS. The EID model emphasizes the potential for creating inclusive organizations, as well as the importance of a shared responsibility for doing so. As individuals, LPAs need to develop their own EID skills and help language-program personnel develop theirs as well. Models such as EID and IC are needed to help LPAs create an inclusive organizational culture. To create an inclusive organization culture, LPAs need to establish the language program as a safe space for a kind of communication that may be very different from what some (or even many) language-program personnel have been accustomed to. LPAs can minimize conflict by helping personnel and students recognize that the language program is an intercultural space and, therefore, clear communication, openness, respect for one another, a commitment to learning, careful listening, and other important intercultural skills should be shared goals. Both teaching and non-teaching language-program personnel and language students need to feel safe asking questions in a manner that is acceptable within the “small culture” of the team (Holliday, 1999). Language-program personnel need to become skilled at being explicit and avoid making assumptions (about, e.g., shared background knowledge, the meaning of behaviors, and intentions). LPAs need to exercise patience because leadership in intercultural organizations takes more time than it does in “monocultural” ones (Sutherland, 2009).

132

K. E. Hiller

Five strategies can assist LPAs in developing an inclusive culture: 1. Create a strong language-program group identity so that students and employees identify as being part of the language program. Having a group identity can bring people together and help overcome self-segregation if it is present. 2. Prioritize and reward intercultural learning. Provide opportunities for professional development and recognize growth in performance reviews. 3. Recognize linguacultural diversity and find ways for languages other than the target language to be represented in the program. 4. Allow for differences in work and communication styles. Create an environment in which all language-program personnel can contribute in ways that work for them, while also meeting program goals. Furthermore, ensure that everyone recognizes their own and others’ contributions. 5. Create pronunciation guides for names. For example, students and faculty can record the pronunciation of their own names online using the program’s learning management system (LMS) so that others can listen (and learn).

Conclusion To lead effectively in language-program contact zones and capitalize on the potential that contact zones present, LPAs benefit from placing a high premium on their own IC and on the development of IC among language-program personnel and students. Attitudes such as respect and openness; self-awareness; cultural knowledge; and skills in listening, observing, interpreting, and relating are key to developing intercultural competence. At the same time, an increased sensitivity, a heightened awareness of one’s environment, and enhanced communication and social skills are key to helping LPAs create an inclusive language-program environment and deal with or minimize conflict.

Reflecting on Leading With Intercultural Competence 1. Review the three models of IC presented in this chapter; select two or three specific components on which you want to work. Devise a plan to develop your skills in these areas and determine how you will reflect on your progress. Consider sharing your progress and challenges with a peer. 2. Consider your program’s students and answer the following questions as a means to better understand your program: Why are the students learning the target language? In what contexts do they use the target language now and/or in what contexts will they use it in the future? What is your program doing to help students develop the IC needed for success in these contexts? What could be added to or done differently in the program to assist students in developing IC?

8  Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence

133

Suggested Reading Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. SAGE. This handbook includes chapters by recognized experts on conceptualizations, applications, research, and assessment of intercultural competence. In addition to chapters with Anglo/ Western perspectives, it includes chapters by scholars in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

References Amery, E. (2021). Challenges in fostering intercultural competencies from the perspectives of stakeholders in a Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada program. Interchange, 52, 57–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-­020-­09409-­x Apedaile, S., & Schill, L. (2008). Critical incidents for intercultural communication: An interactive tool for developing awareness, knowledge, and skills. NorQuest College. Bennett, M. (1986). A developmental approach to training intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–186. Bennett, M.  J. (2017). Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In Y.  Y. Kim (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication. Wiley. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0182 Berardo, K., & Deardorff, D. K. (2012). Building cultural competence: Innovative activities and models. Stylus. Chiocca, E. S., Davies, J. A., Davies, L. J., Hiller, K. E., Naghib, S. L., Sprague, K. M., & Zhang, X. (2022). Rethinking orientation: Innovation and collaboration in a language and culture camp at a Sino–U.S. university. In M. Allen, E. Ene, & K. McIntosh (Eds.), Building internationalized spaces: Second language perspectives on developing language and cultural exchange programs in higher education (pp. 21–43). University of Michigan Press. Dasli, M. (2011). Reviving the ‘moments’: From cultural awareness and cross-cultural mediation to critical intercultural language pedagogy. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(1), 21–39. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.527118 Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002 Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Synthesizing conceptualizations of intercultural competence: A summary and emerging themes. In D. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 264–269). SAGE. Deardorff, D.  K. (2020). Manual for developing intercultural competencies: Story circles. UNESCO; Routledge. Gardenswartz, L., Cherbosque, J., & Rowe, A. (2010). Emotional intelligence and diversity: A model for differences in the workplace. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 1(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpoc.20002 Gregersen-Hermans, J. (2017). Intercultural competence development in higher education. In D. K. Deardorff & L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith (Eds.), Intercultural competence in higher education: International approaches, assessment and application (pp. 67–82). Routledge. Hammer, M. R. (2005). The Intercultural Conflict Style inventory: A conceptual framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 675–695. Hammer, M. R. (2009). Solving problems and resolving conflict using the Intercultural Conflict Style model and inventory. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp. 219–232). SAGE.

134

K. E. Hiller

Hammer, M. R. (2012). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad (pp. 115–136). Stylus. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-­1767(03)00032-­4 Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill. Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237–264. Jackson, J. (2018). Interculturality in international education. Routledge. Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 265–279. https://doi. org/10.1108/01437730610666028 Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmö. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 27–40. https://doi. org/10.1177/1028315302250178 Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 65–77. Paige, R. M., & Goode, M. L. (2009). Intercultural competence in international education administration—Cultural mentoring: International education professionals and the development of intercultural competence. In D. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 333–349). SAGE. Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2020). Maximizing study abroad: A students’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use (2nd ed.). University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Pratt, M.  L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33–40. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/25595469 Roiha, A., & Sommier, M. (2021). Exploring teachers’ perceptions and practices of intercultural education in an international school. Intercultural Education, 32(4), 446–463. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/14675986.2021.1893986 Ryan, P. (2012). The English as a foreign or international language classroom. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural education (pp. 101–115). Routledge. Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The acquisition of a new professional identity. Intercultural Education, 17(1), 55–72. https://doi. org/10.1080/14675980500502321 Snow, D. (2014). Encounters with westerners: Improving skills in English and intercultural communication (Rev. ed.). Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Sorrells, K. (2012). Intercultural training in the global context. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural education (pp. 372–389). Routledge. Sorrells, K. (2013). Re-imagining intercultural communication in the context of globalization. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 171–189). Wiley-Blackwell. Spitzberg, B.  H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–52). SAGE. Sutherland, K. (2009). Intercultural leadership in an Australian bicultural setting. In A. H. Normore & J. Collard (Eds.), Leadership and intercultural dynamics (pp. 189–208). Information Age Publishing. Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Understanding intercultural conflict competence: Multiple theoretical insights. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural education (pp. 279–295). Routledge. Tran, T. T., Admiraal, W., & Saab, N. (2019). Effects of critical incident tasks on the intercultural competence of English non-majors. Intercultural Education, 30(6), 618–633. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14675986.2019.1664728

8  Leading Language Programs with Intercultural Competence

135

Trimble, J. E., Pedersen, P. B., & Rodela, E. S. (2009). The real cost of intercultural incompetence: An epilogue. In D. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 492–503). SAGE. Van Maele, J., & Messelink, A. (2019). Mobilizing essentialist frameworks in non-essentialist intercultural training. In P. Romanowski & E. Bandura (Eds.), Intercultural foreign language teaching and learning in higher education contexts (pp. 141–161). IGI Global. Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (Eds.). (2012). Students learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Stylus. Wight, A. R. (1995). The critical incident as a training tool. In S. M. Fowler (Ed.), Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods (Vol. 1, pp. 127–140). Intercultural Press. Williamson, K. (2002). The Delphi method. In K.  Williamson, A.  Bow, F.  Burstein, P.  Darke, R. Harvey, G. Johanson, S. McKemmish, M. Oosthuizen, S. Saule, D. Schauder, G. Shanks, & K.  Tanner (Eds.), Research methods for students, academics and professionals (2nd ed., pp. 209–220). Chandos Publishing. Young, T. J., & Sachdev, I. (2011). Intercultural communicative competence: Exploring English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Awareness, 20(2), 81–98. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09658416.2010.540328 Kristin E. Hiller is an assistant professor in the Language and Culture Center at Duke Kunshan University, where she is the founding director of the Writing and Language Studio and serves as coordinator of Writing Across the Curriculum. She has extensive experience working in start-up transnational programs and institutions, including past administrative roles directing English language programs in Korea and China for University of California Riverside and the first non-credit program at New York University Shanghai. Her research interests concern language policy and writing pedagogy in transnational higher education contexts.  

Chapter 9

Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises J. Alexandra Rowe and Eric Scott

Abstract  Effective decision making is an integral part of successful language-­ program administration. In this chapter, a framework for making decisions is presented, followed by discussions of major challenges that language-program administrators face in decision making. These challenges center on the constraints of being part of a larger institution, the broad scope and diversity of expertise needed for making informed language-program decisions, the determination of whom to involve in the process, the difficulties associated with maintaining objectivity and avoiding bias, and the limitations related to time and availability of technology in decision making. Furthermore, the intricacies of managing through a crisis are explored and practical suggestions for decision making during crises provided. Throughout the chapter, examples are shared from the authors’ combined experiences in leading English language programs. In closing, the chapter recommends skills that should be fine-tuned by administrators to enhance their decision-making effectiveness.

Keywords  Bias · Challenges · Consensus · Crisis management · Decision making · Proactivity Decisions are the most powerful tool managers have for getting things done. While a tool like setting goals is aspirational, making decisions actually drives action. People usually do what they decide to do. (Larson, 2020, p. 46)

J. A. Rowe (*) University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Scott Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_9

137

138

J. A. Rowe and E. Scott

Language-program administrators (LPAs) face numerous administrative challenges that require skills in decision making and crisis management. Both in times of calm and times of crises, the decisions made by LPAs have a major impact on the success of language programs. To be an effective decision maker, administrators must have expertise in a wide range of academic and nonacademic areas, including curriculum and instruction, recruitment, research, budgets and finances, human resources, inter-departmental and inter-program politics, and global events. LPAs who have learned how to make decisions effectively, using their knowledge of these many different areas, can help maintain stability that is essential to language-program quality and success. The need for effective decision making became especially evident in 2020 when the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic began. During this crisis, language programs faced a myriad of new challenges to their mission, and administrators were required to respond rapidly by making decisions to preserve their teaching mission. Administrators needed to consider what to do, how to act, with whom to share information, where to gather reliable information, what options or solutions were possible, how this crisis would impact personnel and students, and much more. A principled process for making solid decisions was needed to keep administrators from getting lost in the crisis or making decisions that would be regretted later.

A Process for Making Decisions Decision making effectiveness is 95% correlated with business performance. If you look at how a company makes decisions now, you see how the company is going to perform in the future. (Boyd, 2017, p. 12) Generally, LPAs, as with most administrators in education, have learned to make

decisions by trial and error. Christison and Murray (2009) assert that very few educators receive formal training in leadership development before they take on leadership roles. Most of us are left to our own devices to acquire the information and skills [needed] to … be successful in our roles as leaders. Traditionally in English language education, it has been the ‘school of hard knocks’ that has helped us acquire the information [and skills we need]. (p. 8)

LPAs, who are often promoted to administrative positions as a result of their exemplary performance as teachers, can benefit from more formal attention to and guidance in decision making within the internal and external contexts of the language program. Whether it is a high stakes decision or a smaller, less significant decision, working through a process can help administrators make better, more consistent decisions with better outcomes. Business researcher Erik Larson (2020) finds that managers who use good practices in decision making (a) have a 90% success rate in achieving their expectations and a 40% rate in exceeding their expectations and (b) make decisions more efficiently. Decision making can be distilled into the following steps:

9  Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises

139

1. Clarify. Start by clearly specifying what needs to be decided by identifying the real problem, the goal, the individual(s) who should be involved, and the necessary timeline. 2. Collect. Take the time needed to gather relevant information and brainstorm possible solutions. Obtain input from relevant stakeholders and seek diverse perspectives. 3. Weigh. Assess options and relevant data in an objective manner, as each course of action has advantages and disadvantages. Strive to identify and overcome any biases in the process, and utilize tools that help with objectivity, for example, a SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) analysis, decision matrix, or pro/con chart. 4. Implement. Make a choice and follow through with specific actions and documentation. As a part of the implementation process, record the decision, list action items with target due dates and the people or teams responsible for each, and communicate. “The way you communicate the decision to others will to some degree determine your success. Explain the thinking behind your decision and notify everyone who may be affected by your choice” (Harvard Business Review, 2020, p.145). 5. Evaluate. After implementation, evaluate the decision, both in the short and long term. If the decision is not helping the program meet identified goals, or is negatively impacting stakeholders, revisit the decision and consider taking a different course of action. Making corrections and learning from experience are good practices in decision making. Going through this multi-step process can bring clarity and confidence to administrators as they lead their language programs. Even with quick decisions (e.g., a response to a teacher requesting an exception to a policy), taking a bit of time to run through the process can be helpful. Many times, sharing a decision and its rationale with a trusted colleague or mentor either confirms the right decision or prevents a wrong decision. Moreover, larger, important decisions, such as deciding to overhaul the curriculum, benefit from an in-depth dive into this multi-step approach. Now that common steps in making decisions have been described, the navigation of several challenges specific to language-program administration is explored.

The First Challenge: Functioning Under External Constraints Language programs are often both a part of and apart from the educational contexts in which they operate. Typically, language programs—whether they are intensive language programs (IEPs), K–12 language programs, adult education language programs, international schools, binational centers, or private language schools—exist within a larger structure that creates tension between instructional needs and administrative exigencies. Generally, language programs are required to be financially

140

J. A. Rowe and E. Scott

self-supporting as well as fully accountable to their institution or corporation. While professional organizations and accrediting bodies have helped to raise awareness of the standards necessary for quality language-program instruction, instances still occur in which upper-level administrators unfamiliar with language education do not see the importance of these standards. As a result of being a part of a broader structure, some decisions that directly impact a language program (e.g., salary scales, official titles, hiring approvals, space allocations) are often made by individuals outside the language program. Such situations reflect the constraints imposed by the institutional or corporate culture within which the language program operates and not decisions made by the LPA. How LPAs respond and relate to these entities can help or hurt the language program. LPAs must work to build solid relationships with these external entities to advocate for language programs more effectively. If the broader institutions or corporations have vastly differing priorities from language programs, often commonalities exist that can be used as footholds to build upon. For example, in U.S. universities, the retention and success of international students are important goals. In addition to offering preparatory intensive English courses, the LPA can demonstrate an IEP’s value to an institution by offering additional courses to support non-IEP students’ language needs, thus helping to promote retention and success in the broader institution. Moreover, IEPs can look beyond university-bound students to discover and support English-language needs within their communities, whether by supporting immigrant communities, global businesses, or children and youth learning English. However, even as administrators build this rapport, they must still be willing to fight for important issues, such as advocating for improved contracts or salaries for effective instructors. Surviving and flourishing within a bureaucracy that does not share the language program’s values often means that there are more battles to be fought than there are resources and energy to pursue them. Thus, LPAs need to choose their battles wisely (White et al., 2008).

 he Second Challenge: Maneuvering Through the Diverse T Scope of Decisions The second challenge that LPAs face in decision making is in navigating the broad scope of decisions that need to be made. Each operation for which the administrator has responsibility requires that an action be decided or negotiated. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, recruiting, marketing (externally and internally), providing student services, hiring and managing personnel, and purchasing and managing resources. The administrator’s decisions facilitate all these operations, along with other functions such as securing and maintaining classroom and office space, providing immigration services, or recommending health and wellness services, when needed. Within any single working day, an LPA may sign 10–20

9  Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises

141

documents, have four or five meetings, teach a class or two, and write a proposal to bring in a special group of students. All these activities require decisions. Ultimately, LPAs can potentially be involved in deciding everything—from recruitment trips to paper clips. LPAs can feel overwhelmed with the number, complexity, and types of decisions that they need to make. Two areas of particular concern that are very different from teaching entail making budgetary and strategic decisions.

Budgetary Considerations The fact that many language programs must be financially self-supporting often guides, if not mandates, budgetary decisions. Because “financial management is one aspect of overall management, financial outcomes are also one aspect of informed decision-making” (White et al., 2008, p. 152). Two goals of an LPA must be programmatic stability and budgetary solvency, both of which are interdependent and essential to the success of the language program. Without stability, program quality and productivity on all levels will decline, resulting in lower enrollments and revenue. In fact, without solvency, the language program may cease to exist. Additionally, an LPA is wise to work with a skilled fiscal operations or business manager when making decisions. A budget expert can help an LPA navigate the complexities of budgets and the various regulations associated with finances. Also, having a second set of eyes on a budget helps to identify potential inconsistencies or areas of high expense that negatively impact the program. Some questions that need to be asked concerning a program’s budget are listed in Table 9.1. (See Chap. 15 for more details on how to manage finances in language-program contexts.)

Table 9.1  Questions that impact budgetary decision making Areas of budgetary concern Instruction

Staffing Recruitment Professional Development Resources

Sample questions How many courses does the program need to offer? How many teachers are needed to support the curriculum? How will the program cover instructional expenses? How many support staff does the program need? How will the program cover support-staff operations? How many students are needed to support the budget? How much recruitment is needed to maintain or grow enrollment? What professional development activities are needed and within the budget? What resources (human/non-human) are needed to help faculty and staff do their jobs? What new resources will help the program improve its services?

142

J. A. Rowe and E. Scott

Strategic Considerations LPAs should have a programmatic strategic plan that informs decision making. Strategic decisions that are based on adequate data and feedback guide the program in its ongoing operations and provide for continual improvement. To gather pertinent information, LPAs should engage the whole program—including faculty and staff—in strategic planning. Strategic planning begins with a needs assessment, moves into a self-study that is externally reviewed and evaluated by accrediting agencies or external quality experts in the field, and ends with establishing long-­ term program goals. This strategic process can lead to meaningful program improvements as the process can bring with it fresh insights and recommendations. (See Chaps. 5 and 7 for more on strategic planning and quality assurance, respectively.) Strategic decisions are best made consensually within a language program. Some questions that lead to strategic decisions include the following: 1 . How can we determine the quality of our language program? 2. How can we improve the quality of our language program? 3. What do we value most in our language program? 4. What type of curriculum best meets our students’ needs? 5. What do we need to do to support our curriculum? 6. What kind of language proficiency testing is needed for accurate placement of students? 7. What qualities, credentials, and experiences are required for faculty? 8. What program policies are in need of revision or are no longer relevant or productive?

 he Third Challenge: Involving the Right People T in the Process In determining who is involved in the decision-making process, LPAs have three basic options: They may decide by themselves; they may involve others in the decision-­making process through participatory, consensual governance; or they may delegate.

Independent Decision Making Often an LPA must make decisions independently, without consulting language-­ program staff and faculty. In these situations, LPAs may be the only individuals, by virtue of their position, who have a view of the entire program, who have contact with external stakeholders, and who have access to critical information. In addition,

9  Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises

143

decisions that involve confidential matters (e.g., disciplinary actions or salaries) are often confined to the administrator’s desk. Also, the time constraints characteristic of decisions that require an immediate response prevent administrators from bringing personnel together for participatory decision making. When time is not a factor, however, administrators face the challenge of determining which decisions should be solitary endeavors. Even when a decision must be made alone, administrators need not work in total isolation. In such situations, an administrator can consult with mentors, trusted institutional colleagues, colleagues outside the program, or other LPAs who can objectively help the administrator sift through the details and potential consequences that relate to the issue at hand. Making decisions on one’s own is often very stressful. In such situations, remember that an LPA has been entrusted with making the hard calls. As long-time LPA Kelly Franklin (personal communication, February 12, 2010) points out, “We must be willing not to be loved,” a difficult concession to make for administrators who are keenly aware of the affective domain and demands of the language-program culture.

Consensual Decision Making In developing a participatory process for decision making, administrators must rely on language-program personnel. Typically, language teachers are committed to helping others. They tend to function best as a team, as seen when they are collaborating on tasks and projects. The administrator is wise to use this culture-specific behavior to support internal decision-making processes. A crucial behavior on the administrator’s part is active listening, which ensures that a range of viewpoints is expressed and understood, especially when administrative adjudication is needed to finalize a shared decision that supports the entire program (White et al., 2008). Shared decision making has advantages and disadvantages. Group decision making strengthens an overall program. It leads to decisions informed by multiple perspectives and sources of input, similar to the conclusions of research supported by diverse triangulated data. Business researcher Larson (2020) finds that involving a small diverse group in decision making creates both greater buy-in and helps reduce bias in decision making. This shared decision making leads to empowerment, thereby countering the feelings of disempowerment and marginalization sometimes present among language-program personnel. Empowering personnel strengthens a program’s team orientation, which, in turn, empowers the overall program. (See Chap. 10 for more on faculty empowerment.) For shared decision making to be effective, the participatory process must be perceived as fair and transparent. According to White et al. (2008), “it is clear that as an arbitrator and as a manager you must act fairly and without prejudice” (p. 76). Additionally, LPAs contribute to the decision-making process by not only sharing their own perspectives but also sharing information to which only they may have access and which is vital to the process. These factors are important for consensual decision making and the eventual successful implementation of decisions made.

144

J. A. Rowe and E. Scott

Although shared decision making has positive features, it also has limitations. Shared decision making complicates language-program administration because the more people involved in making decisions, the longer the process takes. Sometimes, even though participatory management is preferable, an LPA will opt to make an independent decision because of insufficient time to bring key personnel together to consider the issues at hand.

Delegation of Tasks Delegation of tasks is necessary and healthy in a language program. An administrator cannot make every decision. With the pressure that would accompany such responsibility, one could maintain neither the rationality nor the sanity needed to manage the program effectively. Making all operational decisions and engaging in all negotiations characterize inefficient micromanagement and set a negative and unproductive example for program personnel. Micromanagement from above slows down program operations and can result in lost program opportunities and frustration among faculty and staff. This overcentralized process also undermines the language program’s ability to be responsive to program opportunities and threats that require immediate action. For instance, in the same week, an administrator might receive (a) a request for a proposal, with a tight deadline, for a potentially profitable program (an opportunity) and (b) an urgent phone call about a student conflict that involves local police and perhaps immigration officials (a threat). An excessive amount of centralized decision making robs LPAs of the time and ability they need to address these types of critical and unexpected opportunities and threats. Delegating certain types of decisions and developing a system for doing so are crucial for the efficient management of a language program and the development of future program leadership. Developing and training departmental colleagues to share the decision-making load can be invaluable. For example, often an administrator appoints coordinators with specific areas of expertise to lead a curricular area, such as writing instruction or program assessment. However, even when LPAs delegate decision-making responsibilities to others, they need to be aware of all decisions made and under way. A reporting system that keeps the administrator abreast of these activities must be established and understood by language-program personnel.

 he Fourth Challenge: Maintaining Objectivity T in Decision Making LPAs who are cognizant of all levels of program operations have access to the information needed to make wise decisions, but even with good information, unknown biases can derail the process. Administrators must work to overcome these biases

9  Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises

145

and establish practices that promote objectivity. “By knowing which biases tend to trip us up and using certain tricks and tools to outsmart them, we can broaden our thinking and make better choices” (Soll et al., 2015, p. 67). Research into how humans think has shown that people regularly use heuristics, or mental short cuts, to complete complex tasks like decision making. These short cuts, in turn, can unknowingly lead to biased decisions. “When it comes to business decisions, there’s rarely such a thing as a no-brainer. Our brains are always at work, sometimes, unfortunately, in ways that hinder rather than help us” (Hammond et al., 2020, p. 39). In the paragraphs that follow, we identify four cognitive biases that can derail administrators from making the best decisions. The first bias that can keep an administrator from making a wise decision is the status quo bias. Naturally, people prefer and are more comfortable with the status quo. Within language programs, the emergence of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) has brought new approaches for building curricula and assessing proficiency. However, CEFR was not initially embraced because accepting new ideas involves risk and action, and people generally prefer the safety of what is known. To determine whether or not maintaining the status quo is the best decision, it is necessary to evaluate new options carefully in terms of program goals and objectives (Hammond et al., 2020). Related to the status quo bias is the anchoring bias, which occurs when a decision maker puts undue weight on an initial impression, and thus more easily dismisses other options. The anchoring bias can occur in the hiring process when, for example, a first impression leads to hiring one individual and overlooking a more highly qualified candidate or one who is a better fit for the program. Unfortunately, in the language-teaching context, such hiring decisions have occurred when a highly qualified and fluent non-native English-speaking teacher is passed over for a less qualified native speaker. A third common bias is the confirmation bias, which occurs when evidence that supports the administrator’s viewpoint is given more weight or, conversely, when evidence for other viewpoints is minimized. This bias may manifest itself in the case of administrators who prefer a certain approach to teaching or assessment. They may steer their program to utilize their preferred approach when other approaches may be more suitable. Fourth is the excessive optimism bias, that is, being overly optimistic about outcomes of administrative decisions. While optimism is helpful when leading an organization and encountering crises, it can also lead to problems when possible negative outcomes of a decision are diminished and not properly considered. This over-­ optimism could occur when forecasting enrollments for upcoming terms. Although all administrators hope that enrollments will be strong, they need to look carefully at data and enrollment trends to make realistic decisions. The solution to these biases is to ensure that diverse perspectives are sought out and evaluated equally. When making a decision, leaders need to seek out diverse viewpoints and “find trusted advisors who are willing to give honest advice rather than wholesale agreement” (Likierman, 2020, p. 106). Additionally, administrators must look carefully and honestly at their own preferences and evaluate critically

146

J. A. Rowe and E. Scott

their sources of information. Equal rigor in evaluating each option and piece of evidence must be applied in decision making.

 he Fifth Challenge: Taking into Account Time T and Technology Considering the multitude of decisions that LPAs must make daily and the individual needs that often accompany requests for decisions, it is tempting for LPAs to rely on their own sense of equity and rationality to make swift decisions in order to get on to the next pressing administrative task. Acting decisively and making decisions quickly are frequently regarded as highly valued managerial characteristics. When managers are slow to make decisions, they may be perceived as indecisive, certainly a negative image for an administrator. Conversely, the administrator who makes quick decisions without carefully weighing options may be considered rash and potentially detrimental to a program. Seldom is time the major determining factor in making a language-program decision. Therefore, making decisions too quickly is generally inadvisable, except when there is no choice, as in a crisis. To act swiftly may be to act precipitously because to do so ignores the chief strength of effective decision making in language programs—the power of group decision making. During times of high stress for the program, especially at the beginning or end of a term, it is not unusual for someone within the program to demand that a decision be made on the spot. Usually these demands are not made in response to crises, and thus do not require quick decisions. Unless the decision relates to a medical emergency or another major crisis, the most appropriate response at such a time would be “Let me think about it and talk with (whoever may be affected) and get back with you as soon as possible.” Such a response enables the LPA to gather the data needed to make an informed decision. (See Chap. 16 for more on time management.) The ever-increasing speed of data collection enabled by current technology can accelerate decision making when data are crucial for making a fair decision. Both standard office software products and learning management systems are widely available to assist an administrator in collecting and analyzing data to help with decision making. Consequently, administrators (or someone on the administrative team) should become adept at using these tools. Increasingly, online video tutorials and professional development mini-courses are available to help an administrator learn how to use these tools efficiently. Whether these software programs or databases are developed internally or externally, documentation that clearly explains how to use and access program information is of utmost importance to LPAs in the event of personnel turnover. Nevertheless, a robust and reliable data repository is essential, whether for making hiring decisions, deciding on language-level placements, or projecting budgets. (See Chaps. 14 and 15 for more on managing technology and financial planning, respectively.)

9  Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises

147

The Sixth Challenge: Managing During Crises Crises occur in language programs for both internal and external reasons. A common and challenging internal crisis is connected to the process of language learning. Lacking the linguistic and cultural skills necessary to express their needs and problems, students sometimes panic in a situation that would have caused minimal difficulties in their first languages and home cultures. Second-language learners often find themselves in high-stress situations, thus creating the potential for crises to develop. Program crises may also result from external forces over which neither students nor language-program personnel have control. For example, global and national economic, political, and health issues can affect language-program enrollments, the chief source of revenue. Other serious crises can accrue from the inherent vulnerability of language programs within their institutional or corporate structures. Programs are vulnerable to crises imposed externally by their institutional or corporate contexts, such as the sudden and wholesale elimination of program personnel or facilities. Additionally, a much more serious threat is that LPAs are themselves vulnerable because they often lack job security. Administrators in academic settings often do not have access to tenure. Unless program directors own their programs, they may be dismissed by those within the corporate structures. In both instances, LPAs may not have access to grievance procedures. This instability can constrain an LPA’s capacity to manage program crises effectively.

Proactivity in Crisis Management To overcome a crisis, whether it involves a single student or a program-wide dilemma and whether it is caused by internal or external forces, LPAs need to consider the ideal strategy: Be proactive rather than reactive. Many language programs, however, operate by perpetual reactive crisis management. Administrators simply react to situations with no plan or process in place for taking steps to mitigate crises and conflicts. In such programs, administrators spend their time “putting out fires” and dealing with negative situations that arise. The predictable result of a reactive management style is program instability and personnel burnout, both of which lead to declines in program quality and productivity. For example, if a program does not have a transparent policy for student promotion to a higher proficiency level that is followed by all instructors and understood by all students, the LPA will constantly be dealing with students who feel that they have been unfairly treated regarding grades and progression. With a proactive approach, adequate policies and procedures, formulated and communicated in writing, allow the LPA to be ready for a crisis rather than react to it. Ultimately, LPAs must be prepared to operate from a position of strength rather than from a position of weakness.

148

J. A. Rowe and E. Scott

Stoller and Christison (1994) articulated two effective strategies for managerial proactivity that remain true today. Both strategies are useful when crises arise due to external forces. The first strategy is accurate record keeping, which “facilitates the smooth operation of a [language program], aids in critical decision-making processes, and facilitates reasonably accurate projections” (p.  18). Up-to-date and secure storage technology in addition to a well-trained technology staff member are crucial for language-program record keeping. Accurate and extensive program data contribute to an administrator’s total understanding of the program culture, providing views of the “little pictures” and the “big picture.” These data also enable LPAs to have rapid access to pertinent information in times of program crises, thus informing decisions that must be made in situations requiring a response to the crisis. Another proactive strategy involves creating consciousness-raising documents (Stoller & Christison, 1994). Producing documents that present and analyze program information keeps all stakeholders aware of the state of the program. Maintaining and regularly updating a short, graphic-rich, reader-friendly, program-­ wide document that highlights the program’s accomplishments, skills, services, and institutional or corporate contributions is very handy when conflicts or crises arise that are precipitated by external sources. Additionally, policy documents that give specific direction in the midst of a crisis can be extremely helpful. NAFSA (Albrecht, 2015) has published a series of checklists for a variety of potential crises that a language program may face. These checklists guide LPAs in preparing for crises and give direction on what to do in response to them (see Suggested Readings for a web link). Accreditation by a certified accrediting agency can also help a language program to overcome external conflicts and manage crises because it bestows academic credibility upon the language program, which is often different from the rest of the home institution. In the United States, several state legislatures have passed laws requiring that all post-secondary instructional personnel demonstrate English language fluency. Assessing this fluency often becomes the responsibility of a university’s English-language program. Many academic departments support non-native English-speaking graduate students by providing them graduate teaching assistantships; if these students fail their English-language fluency assessments, their faculty advisors might claim that the language program lacks the expertise to assess their students. Being accredited gives further credibility to the English-language program in a case like this one. A third proactive managerial strategy for mitigating crises is anticipating the future. In planning for future program needs, LPAs need to be aware of institutional or corporate plans and international trends. For example, an LPA who is aware of possible enrollment growth prepares to meet future program needs by creating a pool of available adjunct faculty to hire should enrollment exceed expectations. The same planning would be necessary for enrollment declines or budget cutbacks. An LPA monitors these trends and makes plans to handle the effects accordingly, thereby avoiding crises. Today many organizations (e.g., Open Doors – opendoorsdata.org) and government agencies track and report on this type of data, which can help an administrator make better decisions. For additional insights, administrators

9  Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises

149

must read pertinent articles in trade publications and network with colleagues in other language programs. Building healthy networks with colleagues, inside and outside the program, is an effective strategy for creating resiliency in the face of crises. Talking with other LPAs at regional, national, international, and virtual conferences is vital. Seasoned administrators know very well the power of information and the means to obtain it. Networking can include chats over lunch or during informal Zoom meetings, casual office conversations, interchanges during committee meetings, and side conversations after a presentation. Also, sharing resources like program promotional literature, strategic plans, and organizational charts can provide support for LPAs in need. Being a subscriber to relevant electronic listservs or posting and following discussion boards can provide LPAs with information concerning social, political, and economic trends that could potentially affect language programs. By means of these tools, an LPA can pose questions and share concerns with colleagues around the world. When an LPA is in the midst of a crisis, big or small, other program administrators provide perhaps the greatest source of support and strategies for program leadership. Indeed, when crises occur, as they inevitably will, “we remain students of each other” (Burak & Hoffa, 2001, p. xxiv). Some useful networks include University and College Intensive English Programs (UCIEP) and EnglishUSA for U.S.-based LPAs, the Association of Binational Centers in Latin America (ABLA) for Latin America-based LPAs, and International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL) and its Leadership and Management Special Interest Group (LAMSIG) for LPAs worldwide. Other useful global networks include the various Interest Sections within international Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), especially the Program Administration Interest Section (PAIS). To establish and build these important networks, an LPA ideally (a) attends pertinent webinars, workshops, and conferences and (b) participates actively by giving presentations, workshops, or webinars in professional venues. Most beneficial for establishing relationships with other administrators is actively serving within professional organizations so that mutual trust can be established with colleagues in similar positions. Finally, in addition to building networks within the field of language education, building a strong network with appropriate institutional departments, local governments, and non-governmental agencies is vital. Such networks are crucial when responding to a crisis. If a language program is part of a larger institution, the administrator must be familiar with the various offices, units, and individuals who are available to help during a crisis. Often larger institutions have legal departments, or counseling resources that are available for students and staff. Alternatively, if a program is not a part of a larger institution, frequently a local community or region will have resources for those in crisis. For example, in the case of a health crisis, working closely with local health officials is essential, or in the case of an active shooter in a community, being aware of local police and victim recovery resources is invaluable. In all these cases, a strong network will connect the LPA with the resources needed to respond to a crisis.

150

J. A. Rowe and E. Scott

Thoughtful Management of Crises Here we provide 10 tips that will assist LPAs in thoughtfully managing crises: 1. Follow the stages of the decision-making process. Clarify the nature of the crisis, gather and weigh the information necessary to understand the crisis fully, involve stakeholders, develop a clear action plan, and evaluate and adjust the plan as the situation evolves and changes. 2. Consider time. If time is important, act swiftly. If time is not critical, be systematic in gathering information and evaluating the crisis. 3. Involve external players when appropriate. Discretely inform relevant individuals of the crisis, solicit their counsel, and involve them in a resolution. Be sure to follow applicable regulations when sharing information. 4. Keep the program’s mission and strategic plan in mind. It is important to serve students well, maintain stability in program operations during crises, and remember the program’s vision for the future. 5. Regularly consult other LPAs. If confidentiality is an issue, private telephone calls are the most secure. 6. Document action taken. Record what happens during the crisis, including who does what and when, and keep a copy of all communications. This documentation may be needed later. 7. Be prepared to negotiate. Determine what you will be willing and able to negotiate; listen before making a decision. 8. Ensure communications are clear and only sent to pertinent parties. Appropriate levels of transparency with students, staff, faculty, and even the public help build confidence and stability during a crisis. Be sure to acknowledge and thank all individuals who helped bring about crisis resolution. 9. Maintain current, accurate files. Make sure to have emergency contacts and signed releases for each individual in the program (students, faculty and staff). 10. Debrief and evaluate the crisis response. Learn from crises and create policies and procedures that can help prepare for future crises. Going through a crisis of any scale is exhausting. Afterward, we may be eager to return to normal, or ‘the new normal,’ such as it is. It is important . . . to pause and reflect, in order to ensure that any lessons learned are folded back into the office crisis management plan. Often, lessons from one type of crisis can be extrapolated to another. (Young, 2015, p. 49)

Conclusion It is helpful to remember . . . that in the real world, perfect options are a myth. . . . The purpose of a decision is not to find the perfect option. The purpose of a decision is to get you to the next decision. (Tasler, 2020, p. 180) Becoming an effective decision maker takes time. This is not a skill one learns in a few

months or years. In fact, the learning never stops; it is an ongoing process that

9  Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises

151

continues throughout one’s administrative career. Our final suggestions can guide LPAs in fine-tuning the skills needed for confident decision making: 1. Communicate effectively, carefully considering your audience, within the institutional or corporate culture in which the language program operates. 2. Maintain a strong repository of language-program data (mission, strategic plan, organizational structure, policies, and procedures). 3. Develop active listening skills and then focus on asking the right questions. LPAs should listen more than they speak. Listening and questioning help LPAs develop an understanding of critical issues and different points of view. 4. Seek mentors within the institution and within the profession. Always have a mentor. When ready, consider the possibility of becoming a mentor yourself. 5. Continue learning and expanding skills in statistics, finances, and technology, all of which are critical for budgeting, data collection and analysis, and other administrative tasks. 6. Delegate responsibilities. LPAs cannot be effective if they are overextended or on the verge of burnout. 7. Take sensible risks. Establish and maintain a program environment supportive of innovation and professionalism. 8. Create a cohesive, positive, and nurturing environment for faculty and staff. Group solidarity allows a program to operate from a position of strength. In sum, LPAs can simultaneously lead and serve colleagues collaboratively and effectively if they are skilled in decision making. Whenever possible, language programs are strengthened by group solidarity, accruing from consensual, rather than hierarchical, decision making. Thoughtful, strategic, and bias-free decision making, driven by hard facts and relevant data, characterizes a program of coherence, purpose, and strength. As the English-language teaching profession continues to evolve and develop in response to new global realities, LPAs have the opportunity to lead their programs through effective decision making. The resilience of LPAs and their programs is in part due to stellar decision making. This resilience continues.

Reflecting on Making Decisions 1. Which of the four cognitive biases (status quo, anchoring, confirmation, excessive optimism) can have the most detrimental impact on a language program? Provide an example in which you witnessed one of the biases negatively impact a decision. 2. Imagine a situation in which your language program is facing a steep decline in enrollment that will result in much less revenue in the coming year. What steps would you take as an LPA to involve program faculty and staff in a consensual decision-making process when planning for the future?

152

J. A. Rowe and E. Scott

Suggested Readings Albrecht, T. J. (Ed.). (2015). Crisis management in a cross-cultural setting. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. This edited volume presents practical step-by-step responses to crises. Complementary printable checklists from the book are available: https://www.nafsa.org/professional-­resources/ publications/crisis-­management-­cross-­cultural-­setting-­international-­student-­and-­scholar-­ services-­checklists Harvard Business Review. (2020). HBR guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business Review Press. This concise collection of articles written by experts in the field of decision making contains practical research-based suggestions for making better decisions.

References Albrecht, T.  J. (Ed.). (2015). Crisis management in a cross-cultural setting. Association of International Educators. Boyd, S. (2017). Decision making, not decision faking: The big lie underlying business and how to untell it [White Paper]. Cloverpop. https://www.cloverpop.com/ untelling-­the-­lie-­at-­the-­heart-­of-­business-­whitepaper Burak, P.  A., & Hoffa, W.  W. (Eds.). (2001). Crisis management in a cross-cultural setting. Association of International Educators. Christison, M.  A., & Murray, D.  E. (2009). Introduction. In M.  A. Christison & D.  E. Murray (Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (pp. 1–10). Routledge. Hammond, J., Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (2020). The hidden traps in decision making. In Harvard Business Review (Ed.), HBR guide to making better decisions (pp. 22–39). Harvard Business Review Press. Harvard Business Review. (2020). HBR guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business Review Press. Larson, E. (2020). A checklist for making faster, better decisions. In Harvard Business Review (Ed.), HBR guide to making better decisions (pp. 46–51). Harvard Business Review Press. Likierman, S.  A. (2020). The elements of good judgement. Harvard Business Review, 98(1), 102–111. Soll, J. B., Milkman, K. L., & Payne, J. W. (2015). Outsmart your own biases. Harvard Business Review, 93(5), 64–71. Stoller, F. L., & Christison, M. A. (1994). Challenges for IEP administrators: Liaisons with senior-­ level administrators and faculty development. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 16–20. Tasler, N. (2020). Make good decisions, even when you are short on time. In Harvard Business Review (Ed.), HBR guide to making better decisions (pp.  177–180). Harvard Business Review Press. White, R., Hockley, A., van der Horst Jansen, J., & Laughner, M. S. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations. Cambridge University Press. Young, N. (2015). An all-encompassing crisis. In T.  J. Albrecht (Ed.), Crisis management in a cross-cultural setting (pp. 39–52). Association of International Educators. J.  Alexandra Rowe,  now retired, devoted 35  years to ESL teaching and administration. She served as director of the English Programs for Internationals at the University of South Carolina for 27  years as well as a TESOL professor in the Linguistics Program. She trained language

9  Making Decisions: Navigating Challenges and Managing Crises

153

teachers from around the world in U.S.- and foreign-government funded programs (1984–2016). Throughout her career, she was involved in maintaining professional standards and serving in leadership positions: VP for Standards for the American Association of Intensive English Programs (now English USA), president of University and College Intensive English Programs, and chair of the Commission on English Language Program Accreditation. Eric Scott  served as instructor, lecturer, and director of the Program in Intensive English at Northern Arizona University (NAU) in Flagstaff, Arizona (2013–2021). Before coming to NAU, he taught English as a foreign language and served in various administrative roles in Turkish universities and private language schools. His professional interests have included curriculum development; English for Specific Purposes in the fields of science and engineering; teacher training and development; and innovation in leadership.

Chapter 10

Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering Faculty Mackenzie Bristow and Elizabeth F. Soppelsa

Abstract  This chapter urges language-program administrators (LPAs) to be proactive in engaging, energizing, and empowering language-program faculty to improve program operations, enhance professional development among faculty, and support faculty well-being. LPAs are encouraged to implement governance structures, such as consultative management, that empower faculty and take faculty input into consideration as part of daily and long-term language-program operations. To facilitate an understanding of such an administrative approach, the theory, benefits, and process of participatory decision making are introduced. In addition, strategies for supporting faculty productivity, preventing faculty burnout, and improving working conditions are discussed. Ultimately, LPAs are encouraged to nurture a language-­ program environment that strengthens faculty members’ professional interests and builds a greater sense of connection among faculty to their program and community. Keywords  Consultative management · Language-program administration · Language-program faculty · Participatory decision making · Professional development · Wellness

Teachers . . . are positioned as active participants in professional development and school reform, not as passive variable entities. (Imants & Van der Wal, 2020, p. 5)

Language-program administrators (LPAs) should engage, energize, and empower faculty across multiple domains: in the classroom, at program and institutional levels, and beyond. Such efforts entail creating a safe and transparent work environment, trusting faculty’s pedagogical choices, and allotting time for faculty’s

M. Bristow (*) Home Depot, Atlanta, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. F. Soppelsa NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_10

155

156

M. Bristow and E. F. Soppelsa

professional development. Equally valuable is the LPA who shares decision-making powers with (and/or cedes decision-making powers to) faculty so that educational policies and the language-program curriculum are co-created or driven by the faculty rather than implemented from the top. In the discussion that follows, the term faculty refers to those who teach or conduct research in the language program regardless of their specific titles, type of institution, or the staffing configuration of the program. Language-program administrator (LPA) refers to principals, program directors, or department heads. LPAs who embrace the role of faculty advocate, as one of their many responsibilities, can create a supportive work environment, enhance job satisfaction, and build a greater sense of community among faculty, all the while meeting students’ needs and creating opportunities for innovation. Most of us are aware of the importance of student advocacy and its benefits to students; faculty too desire and benefit from leaders who understand the diversity of their needs and advocate for their professional growth and engagement (Mathews, 2018). It is no surprise that if LPAs treat faculty as active, contributing agents, language programs will thrive, resulting in improved program performance and student support (Imants & Van der Wal, 2020; Pennington & Hoekje, 2010). LPAs may find that the institutional context, the country in which the language program is situated, and norms of leadership may shape the ways that they can advocate for faculty (Raza et al., 2021). However, even in a strictly top-down organization, LPAs can find opportunities to empower faculty at collective and individual levels. Whether collectively (for a group of faculty) or individually (for individual teachers), empowerment results from granting decision-making authority to faculty so that the effect of that power transfers to their professional lives, the program, host institution, larger community, and teaching profession. When empowered collectively, LPAs will witness a faculty group that is encouraged and energized to help determine and effect changes in the educational environment; such a group has a greater sense of empowerment than a group that simply executes the leader’s ideas. In parallel, empowered and fully resourced individuals are more effective than those who do not get to participate or who are ignored, as often reported by contingent faculty (Ott & Dippold, 2018). A variety of governance models places faculty roles along a continuum of responsibility in the decision-making process and ultimate operations of a given academic program. (See Mai et al., 2020; Nabaho, 2018; Trakman, 2008; Xiao & Chan, 2020; for descriptions and analyses of governance models.) Many academic programs rely solely on faculty to create and implement policies and curricula while others leverage faculty expertise and advice when making decisions. This latter approach, referred to as consultative management or consultative governance, has been effective for decades and is characterized, in the language-program context, by an LPA actively taking employees’ views into account during the decision-making process (Hornickel, 2012; Kiplangat, 2017; White et al., 2008). Although consultative management retains LPA final responsibility and authority, the expectation is that many or all faculty members will participate in making decisions and initiating change, hence the terms participatory decision making and shared decision making (e.g., Kaner, 2014; White et al., 2008). The consultative model asserts that success

10  Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering Faculty

157

can be achieved when skilled, engaged faculty members are permitted to delve into areas in which they have a keen interest and when they are assisted and encouraged by a skilled, trusting manager. In a sense, distributing decision-making power to faculty in this way entails engaging, energizing, and enabling faculty to contribute to the language program in which they work and the profession.

 mbracing Consultative Management and Participatory E Decision Making There are many advantages to consultative management and participatory decision making. First, involving faculty in decision making enhances their ownership in the language program, thereby strengthening their bonds with the program and their sense of responsibility for its successes and failures (Imants & Van der Wal, 2020). Involving faculty in decision making also promotes teamwork by building group solidarity and a sense of camaraderie. Thus, faculty members view their peers as colleagues, rather than competitors, because the focus is on the choices and initiatives of the group, rather than the status of individuals. Finally, these approaches encourage faculty members as a group to sort through solutions carefully and stand behind their decisions because their own well-being is at stake. Engagement in decision-making processes allows faculty members to play a role in controlling their own fate; this involvement is central to job satisfaction and morale (Prilleltensky et al., 2016). Enhanced job satisfaction and positive morale, in turn, contribute to a willingness to cooperate and a long-term commitment to the program. Moreover, involving faculty in decision making brings a greater number of ideas into consideration, enlarges the range of alternatives that the program can consider, and makes innovation more likely. Finally, faculty who are involved in decision making are more understanding of the administrative challenges facing a program, the policies coming down from above, and innovation when change is required (Raza et al., 2021). When consultative management is embraced, some barriers need to be overcome. LPAs, on one hand, may need to manage their own concerns about the inefficiency of democracy, the pace of group decision making, and the complexity and lack of clarity in discussions and decisions. On the other hand, faculty may be concerned that their participation will take too much time or that results of discussions will not be acted upon (Fullan, 2016; Imants & Van der Wal, 2020). For everyone involved, the fear of agonizing through difficult decisions and taking criticism for the unpopular ones could be the utmost obstacle to participatory decision making. Despite these challenges, the actions that result from the process tend to be more fully developed and sustainable (Hornickel, 2012). When embracing the involvement of faculty in the development of policies and procedures, several important elements need to be considered: (a) the importance of coalition building to ensure support for decisions that are arrived at collectively;

158

M. Bristow and E. F. Soppelsa

(b) the movement of power from a single, central authority into the hands of the group; and (c) the need for an exchange of information so that all parties understand the issues, consider alternatives, and have the opportunity to present their views (Kaner, 2014).

Building Consensus and Coalitions Consensus decision making is a process through which a group examines options and makes choices through negotiation and a realignment of priorities. Rule by consensus does not require that unanimity be achieved; rather ideas from the group are reviewed thoroughly and compromises are considered so that a majority can accept the choices made. Building consensus requires an investment of time, especially if opinions vary widely or if the task under discussion is complex; time is needed to consider a range of perspectives and forge an agreement. At times, consensus can be difficult to achieve; in such an environment, the LPA might initiate discussions about the benefits of adopting a participatory model and the requisites for its success. Providing concrete examples of actions taken by consultative groups and specifying participants’ roles may (a) help reluctant faculty members develop an interest in participatory decision making and (b) moderate individuals with strong personalities who tend to dominate discussions. Moreover, concrete examples help the group focus on the task at hand as well as advance the process of decision making. LPAs should encourage faculty to work as a group to achieve a common purpose, using clearly articulated goals (Christison & Murray, 2009). The time investment in this process pays off in important ways because reaching consensus heightens the collective sense of ownership and promotes support for and cooperation in the new undertaking (Crookston, 2012; Doten-Snitker et al., 2021). In working towards a collegial exchange of ideas and group decision making, LPAs may begin consideration of a new project or a perceived problem through informal conversations, as a means to gather a deeper understanding of faculty thoughts on the issue. By gathering perspectives before a whole-group meeting, the LPA may discover misunderstandings as well as areas of agreement, which could be used to forge coalitions and uncover the roots of potential resistance. This preliminary information gathering may help lessen resistance, which can surface at meetings during which new initiatives are sprung on the group with no warning. When creating the agenda for subsequent faculty meetings, the leader should address the opinions, misunderstandings, and underlying concerns that have surfaced in earlier conversations. For example, in planning for a faculty-designed performance appraisal process, the LPA may need to place on the table examples of apprehensions expressed by faculty (no names attached) who have had unhappy experiences in the past or who worry about peer review of teaching portfolios or

10  Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering Faculty

159

student evaluations. In preparation for group discussions, the LPA may also ask small groups of interested faculty to study the issues and report to the whole group. Such study groups (or task forces) may become the nucleus of consensus on a new undertaking and help persuade others to cooperate.

Redistributing Power Consultative decision making also requires a redistribution of power. Faculty empowerment requires that the LPA accept the role of facilitator and assume responsibility for planning, organizing, and motivating, rather than just deciding and doing. The LPA’s responsibility is to set processes and procedures in motion through which faculty members can exercise their creativity, help build program quality (see Chap. 7 for details on achieving program quality), and enhance their skills in teaching, research, and service. In organizations with high employee involvement, the leader is a facilitator who encourages full participation, promotes mutual understanding, fosters comprehensive solutions, and cultivates shared responsibility (Kaner, 2014). To accomplish these aims, some LPAs will need to work on moving from autocrat to facilitator. It is well acknowledged that many LPAs do not receive sufficient training in this area (Aydin & Hockley, 2019; Eaton, 2017) and may fear losing control, or they may simply not know how to share power and authority. The success of participatory decision making depends on the willingness of the LPA and the faculty to debate issues, accept others’ ideas, and reach consensus.

Exchanging Information Sharing power requires information sharing. While engaging faculty in the decision-­ making process, the LPA must allow open access to information pertinent to the issue under consideration. It is recommended that LPAs share the relevant information that they have access to (unless it is confidential or particularly sensitive) and allow faculty members to introduce ideas that they feel are relevant to the discussion. This open exchange of ideas is a requisite for participatory decision making because it allows for (a) maximum participation among discussants, (b) a review of opinions and facts related to the issue, and (c) consideration of the widest possible range of alternatives. (See Chap. 13 for commentary on the value of honest and open information sharing in language-program contexts.) These elements—building consensus, redistributing power, and sharing information—are the cornerstones of participatory decision making. In many language programs, both the LPA and faculty must learn the process of consultative governance and agree as a group to adopt it.

160

M. Bristow and E. F. Soppelsa

Identifying Skills for Successful Consultative Governance Consultative governance requires skilled leadership as well as energetic faculty participation. LPAs who facilitate discussions and meetings that center on participatory decision making can benefit from honing a few skills. For instance, LPAs need to establish a work-place environment in which (a) new ideas can be shared freely, (b) different communication styles are tolerated, and (c) multiple perspectives are accepted. For this process to be empowering, some LPAs may find that they need additional training in moderating discussions, engaging in active listening, delegating, and administering for inclusivity, diversity, and equity. Finally, LPAs need to be able to guide the group in reaching a consensus and be accountable for upholding decisions made (see Kaner, 2014, for additional guidance). Effective communication skills are also crucial. Engaged LPAs attend to their faculty through both symbolic gestures, as in making sure to greet faculty members and inquire about their work, and actual consultation on matters of import to the program. Through careful listening, LPAs can learn a great deal about their programs and the skills that language-program personnel already possess. These professional relationships and resulting mutual understandings between the LPA and faculty can promote a sense of ease, even when parties may disagree. The role of an orchestra leader provides an apt metaphor for the LPA who empowers. Like a conductor, the LPA who empowers faculty must appreciate the skills and abilities of all faculty and understand the roles of individual group members and the standards of quality to which they aspire. Skilled LPAs must believe in the faculty’s abilities to effect positive change, recognize faculty potential for creativity, and be willing to accept proposals advanced by others (Kaner, 2014). The effective leader helps each faculty member to perfect his or her “technique” and guides the group in working together in harmony, despite differences in talent and focus. The leader has a vision of the future and the potential quality of the collective effort. Like a good conductor, the leader is skilled in motivating individuals to contribute their finest effort to the group undertaking. And, like a conductor, the administrator must earn the respect of participants through repeated demonstrations of the leader’s vision, support, and skill. The desired outcome is a harmonious, powerful performance, which educates and uplifts the community. Such an accomplishment most often results in job satisfaction and a willingness to cooperate (Caruso, 2019; Larrivee, 2012). Following the metaphor of the LPA as conductor, faculty members are like orchestra members. They must be skilled professionals. They must study and practice their roles, including that of decision maker. They must respect their colleagues and be committed to their colleagues’ successful performance, as well as their own. They must be dedicated to the task at hand and trust the leader to bring their efforts together to accomplish the group goal. Although individual members should be skilled performers when they join the group, they are expected to continue to develop throughout their careers and achieve higher levels of skill and involvement as they grow.

10  Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering Faculty

161

To participate actively in consultative governance, faculty need to be skilled in presenting their own views effectively, participating in group discussions, building consensus, working with others, solving problems, resolving conflicts, and so forth. In addition, faculty members may need to become better informed about the topic(s) under consideration and may need guidance from the LPA. Many faculty members begin their teaching careers without any training in the skills central to consultativegovernance models; such skills are rarely taught or even mentioned in teacher education programs. Sponsoring a workshop or other professional-­ development opportunities (face-to-face or virtual) for faculty to develop these skills is a wise language-program investment.

Supporting Participatory Decision Making In settings with skilled leadership and committed faculty, participatory decision making and consensus building require an exploration of the question at hand, a discussion of alternatives, and negotiation. The exploration of the topic begins when a problem is revealed or a desire for change arises. The impetus for change may come from any faculty member or the LPA, or it may originate with a student or other member of the larger institution or community. (See Chap. 6 on language-­ program change and innovation.) Although some dilemmas are easily solved with a review of the situation, other language-program challenges require greater skill to generate the solution. In such circumstances, the administrator may (a) provide a timeline for the study of the issues and resolution of the problem and (b) ask for volunteers or assign specific individuals to look into the issues on behalf of the larger group. Alternatively, the administrator might conduct the study by himself or herself. When forming a faculty study group, it is important for members to have ample information and communication procedures in place. It is critical that sufficient information be disclosed so that the range of possible answers to the question can be considered. Thus, the LPA may need to share (contextualized) information not normally accessible to faculty members (e.g., financial information or policies imposed by the institution). It is also important for LPAs to be honest with faculty about what programmatic areas are fixed (academic calendars or parts of the budget) and in which areas faculty can innovate (Raza et al., 2021). Another element that might support a study group is the freedom to engage in informal conversations with their colleagues about the dilemma. Such informal interchanges can enable the group to reflect on and refine the more formal conversations that will take place later. After sufficient information has been gathered and the deadline to conclude the study has arrived, a whole-group meeting is scheduled for formal discussion. During this time, everyone involved should be given an opportunity to present his or her views, and everyone’s questions should be answered. Group members must be willing to consider all sides of an issue and suspend personal self-interest to work toward a solution that is in the best interests of the program and its students. When

162

M. Bristow and E. F. Soppelsa

a large group has trouble reaching a decision, smaller groups can be asked to try to reach a consensus. At times, individuals simply cannot (or will not) agree with the group when general consensus has been reached. In this case, the LPA can provide time for dissenters to express their views during the meeting, but the decision will go forward. After the process, the LPA can express appreciation for the group’s willingness to work together toward a common solution and its success in doing so. When a decision has been made, the LPA may need to carry the proposal forward to higher authorities for final approval. The LPA may also propose a process and timetable for implementation or may ask the faculty to do so. In addition, the LPA must provide the necessary resources for undertaking the new endeavor. As implementation begins, the leader should ask for periodic progress reports and offer assistance to facilitate the process. After full implementation, it is appropriate for an evaluation of outcomes. Faculty members can participate in the design of the evaluation process, including data collection and data analysis. The findings of the review process may lead to further discussion, consensus building, and decision making regarding continuation of the project. Table 10.1 summarizes the process of participatory decision making. Involving faculty in participatory decision making benefits not only the program but also potentially the professional development of faculty. Although faculty may not see themselves as decision-makers, they make choices daily about the language(s) spoken in class, student-student interactions, teacher-student roles, Table 10.1  Participatory decision making Initiation of decision making Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Alternative 1: Quick fix Immediate solution and Step 4 implementation Step 5 Alternative 2: Study and discussion Study and negotiation Step 4, Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Consensus and implementation

Evaluation

Step 10, Step 11 Step 12

Step 13

Problem or desire for change is identified. Information about the issue is provided. Discussion begins. An immediate solution is found; consensus is reached. The solution is implemented. No immediate solution is found; plans are made to address the issue. The LPA sets a timeline for study of the problem. A task force is appointed to gather information, if necessary. New information is shared. Discussion begins again.Consideration of alternatives and negotiation take place. Consensus is reached; teamwork is acknowledged. The decision is taken to higher authority for approval, if needed. Implementation plans are drawn up and begun. Evaluation of the new solution follows.

10  Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering Faculty

163

lesson planning, and formative and summative assessments. These decisions reflect their own pedagogical practices but also represent the program and policies in place (Menken & Garcia, 2010). It is advantageous for LPAs to engage faculty in policy creation through participatory decision making to enhance the relationship between the program as a whole and the pedagogical choices that they may make (Hult, 2018). These connections can result in meaningful discussions and subsequent policies that are central (e.g., the type(s) of English to be taught or the role of multilingualism) and ultimately strengthen the language-program mission.

Encouraging Professional Growth The dedication of LPAs to supporting professional development is a clear sign of their commitment to faculty and the program; it indicates an eagerness to give faculty access to new knowledge and a willingness to allow faculty to pursue new pathways that could affect the program’s future. LPAs have significant authority to facilitate professional development by granting faculty members time to set professional-­development goals, cultivate new skills, evaluate outcomes, and revise or expand their goals. LPAs can further signal support by backing short- and long-­ term faculty plans that facilitate incremental development in teaching skills and their identities as teachers (Herrera, 2018; White et al., 2008). Ideally, rewards for professional development (in the form of, e.g., raises or advances up the career ladder) could be built into the performance appraisal system, although this is not possible in every context. At a minimum, administrators should endeavor to provide financial support for faculty members to attend conferences, workshops, and webinars. However, if funding is not available, LPAs should connect faculty with regional institutions for local opportunities and encourage faculty to attend conferences (virtually or in person) without a loss of pay. LPAs should also stay abreast of professional-­development grants (to cover, for example, registration and travel) for faculty. Incentives can also encourage faculty to engage in presenting or publishing. A monetary prize or a grant for professional supplies, books, and equipment may motivate some faculty. Engaged faculty should also be formally recognized for their excellence in teaching, research, and/or service publicly. Whenever possible, faculty should be involved in defining incentives for professional development and deciding what rewards are allocated to which people on the basis of what achievement(s).

Energizing Faculty Professional Development Individuals are the strongest determiners of the direction of their own growth. Faculty members benefit from playing an active role in planning for their own professional development. They are most likely to invest time and energy in areas that

164

M. Bristow and E. F. Soppelsa

interest them, rather than in areas of inquiry chosen for them by others. Allowing faculty members to map out their own courses of study is cost-effective, in terms of both time and resulting growth. Faculty who take advantage of professional-development resources (from their programs, institutions, or professional organizations) can further their own professional growth. By attending professional meetings, conferences, and webinars, faculty can learn about current research and innovative instructional practices, develop brand new skills, and expand their network to include colleagues from other programs. Conferring with others and exchanging ideas about teaching, research, and service (inside and outside of the program) will energize them to expand their horizons and sharpen their thinking. From those connections, faculty may establish study groups that explore topics of shared interest and/or undertake joint action-­ research projects with the goal of enhancing instruction (Burns, 2010; Farrell & Macapinlac, 2021; Richards & Farrell, 2005). Such forms of professional engagement will support them in developing areas of expertise as well as expand their professional network. It should be noted that all these professional-development measures take time and energy, and faculty members who are overworked may have little desire (or energy) to take on activities beyond their immediate teaching responsibilities. For professional growth to occur, workloads must be reasonable, and rewards for professional development must be worthwhile. Successful professional-development plans require partnerships between LPAs and faculty. When faculty are committed to working toward professional development, both individual and collective benefits accrue. In programs where curiosity, study, and exchange of ideas are valued, everyone, including students, benefits.

Supporting Faculty Productivity and Avoiding Burnout All administrators face the challenge of helping faculty (a) maintain their productivity, (b) strengthen their commitment to growth over the course of their careers, and (c) avoid burnout, an all-too-common phenomenon across teaching contexts (Caruso, 2019; Harris, 2020; Jennings, 2020). Burnout is a threat in all teaching fields because of the wear and tear imposed by the intellectual and emotional challenges of teaching and the pressures of academic bureaucracy. This risk is particularly true as more language programs have had to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances (e.g., with new types of class offerings, the COVID pandemic, travel restrictions) and modes of delivery (in-person, remote, hybrid) (Bhowmik & Kim, 2018), stretching faculty and administrators’ pedagogical skills and time. Finally, English-language faculty whose students are newcomers to the community (e.g., international students, immigrants, refugees) experience additional stress stemming from a desire to support students who are navigating cultural adjustments, geopolitical forces, challenges to social justice, and, most recently, huge disruptions in global mobility due to COVID-19.

10  Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering Faculty

165

Some language teachers must endure working conditions that take a large toll on their energy and commitment to the field. Language faculty often find themselves underpaid and in the undesirable position of needing to seek additional work (usually part-time), which results in larger numbers of students and greater responsibilities. Burnout is nearly inevitable under such conditions; faculty can suffer from discouragement and experience a sense of defeat, apathy, or disaffection toward their programs. In the worst case, such faculty become uncaring, unproductive, and uncooperative members of the language-program community. The causes of burnout are often complex and rarely linked to a singular source, but they can be categorized into three areas: disillusionment, boredom, and stress (Larrivee, 2012; Prilleltensky et  al., 2016; Sproles, 2018). Disillusionment often contributes to physical or emotional exhaustion, low self-esteem, low morale, or depression. Boredom often results in a loss of vitality in addition to the mechanical and uncritical accomplishment of required responsibilities. Finally, work-related stress can stem from such stressors as job instability, work overload, bureaucracy, unrealized goals and expectations, job insecurity, and a perceived lack of acceptance from students, colleagues, or administrators. These factors, common in some educational settings, reveal a need for improved working conditions and faculty advocacy as keys to preventing burnout.

Preventing Burnout through Improved Working Conditions LPAs recognize that teachers who view their pay and working conditions as at least adequate are more satisfied and more productive. However, many LPAs face challenges advocating for fair pay, adequate fringe benefits, decent workloads, high-­ quality working conditions, and institutional support for the members of their faculty (Bhowmik & Kim, 2018; English & Varghese, 2010; Lueg, 2015; Winkle, 2013). Although these challenges exist, it is the ethical responsibility of LPAs to work for adequate compensation and working conditions for their faculty. Fair working conditions are not only ethical, but they also deter burnout and rapid turnover among faculty. Data of many types can serve as important tools for advocating for better working conditions. LPAs must first have systems in place to gather pertinent data that permit the tracking of program enrollments, evidence of student satisfaction, program achievements, and program outcomes over time as well as data from peer language programs that can serve as benchmarks. Once collected, LPAs need easy access to that data for meaningful communication with relevant stakeholders. Along with a compelling story, the data can support LPAs in clearly articulating the effectiveness of program instruction, language students’ success, language-program contributions to the institution, and the roles that language-program faculty play in achieving programmatic goals. Through the process of actively sharing language-­ program and language-program faculty achievements, in both qualitative and quantitative terms, with those outside the language program, LPAs can

166

M. Bristow and E. F. Soppelsa

communicate the value of their programs and advocate for improved working conditions for faculty.

Focusing on Wellness and Engagement All individuals within a language program need to work actively against burnout. Preventing burnout can be accomplished through active-engagement experiences that build self-confidence and promote wellness while reinforcing good teaching practices. LPAs should create non-judgmental opportunities for faculty to discuss burnout directly with supervisors, school counselors, or amongst their peers (Sproles, 2018). LPAs can regularly share resources that support health and wellness as well as motivate faculty to develop new skills through expanding their teaching repertoire, engaging students in self-directed learning, and action research (Herrera, 2018). Overall, individual faculty members remain intellectually alive and interested when empowered to provide input regarding their own teaching, administrative responsibilities, or research assignments while also finding ways to maintain a healthy work–life balance. LPAs can strategically reduce burnout by considering the proper balance of faculty assignments and administrative projects. Faculty engagement across a variety of activities (e.g., curriculum development, materials design, program evaluation) can prevent burnout. Involving faculty in the heart of program management can promote sustained energy and interest. This approach requires observing who works well together as a means to promote participation. Some language programs can afford to fund individual or group research projects; research creates opportunities for faculty members to explore new topics, broaden their expertise, and build self-­confidence. Some research opens new frontiers for the field at large, which brings faculty members recognition and enhanced status. LPAs can also assign faculty administrative tasks in lieu of teaching, which could include analyzing proficiency test items, determining student success rates in various courses, or developing program handbooks, policy statements, websites, or teaching materials. Sometimes, regardless of the commitment of the LPA to support faculty enrichment opportunities, an individual may become discouraged, alienated, or unproductive. Often, the situation is a result of personal as well as professional hardships. Unknowingly, a program may hire an individual who has had a difficult career and who arrives with a lack of interest in professional development or a disinclination to participate in the full life of the program. In some cases, efforts to revive an individual’s interest in his or her career are unsuccessful, and the individual may choose to leave the program or profession or may be asked to leave.

10  Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering Faculty

167

In the unfortunate event that a faculty member has grown stale, uninterested, or uncooperative, and does not choose to leave the program, the LPA has a responsibility to try to re-energize them, introduce them to resources for health and wellness, and limit the potential negative impact on colleagues and the life of the program (Caruso, 2019; Harris, 2020). LPAs might consider contacting a human-resource professional or ombudsmen (ensuring the faculty member remains anonymous) to identify strategies for faculty support. (See Chap. 13 for more on managing personnel.) While continuing to communicate clear expectations, LPAs must not disengage from individuals who are dissatisfied. LPAs should encourage them (Caruso, 2019), feed them new ideas, invite them to participate, give them avenues for renewal, and listen to their ideas and concerns. At the same time, LPAs must maintain a fair, even-handed, and trustworthy stance on implementing policies and giving praise; in this way, the entire faculty feel acknowledged, and confrontation is addressed professionally.

Empowering Faculty Outside the Classroom LPAs can aspire to make it possible for faculty to embrace roles outside the classroom as a way to empower them. Taking into consideration status (full time vs. contingent) and institutional opportunities, language-program faculty can contribute meaningfully on internal (i.e., language program) and external (i.e., institutional) committees and in professional organizations. When LPAs themselves stay actively involved (e.g., on institutional committees, on taskforces, and in professional associations), they not only serve as role models, but they can also be on the lookout for professional opportunities for faculty in their programs. LPAs understand that their language programs are not isolated entities. By encouraging faculty to engage in outside organizations, opportunities may arise that empower faculty to guide policy, create language curricula, formalize standards, or influence stakeholders on state, regional, or national boards and in professional associations. This external engagement not only has the potential to deepen faculty interest in their profession but also build a greater sense of responsibility for their community and program (Pennington & Hoekje, 2010). Faculty may benefit from directly engaging with their communities around topics of international education and culture. Some faculty may find it energizing to spend time working with local organizations or directly with local government with the aim of building acceptance of and appreciation for students in the language program. Faculty could serve as mediators between students and the host community and as supporters of newcomers’ rights in their new society. In so doing, faculty can help the host community learn about a diverse range of norms and customs to encourage openness and tolerance.

168

M. Bristow and E. F. Soppelsa

Conclusion Language programs benefit from LPAs who engage, energize, and empower language program faculty through consultative management, participatory decision making, and ongoing professional development. Such commitments (a) promote effective program management, (b) encourage and facilitate both individual and collective commitments to the program, (c) lead to a shared sense of mission, (d) allow for cooperation and collaboration, and (e) ward off burnout. The importance of these elements in the ultimate success of a language program reveals the need for teacher-education programs to include training in interpersonal and leadership skills, collaboration, and consensus building. The incorporation of these topics into training programs prepares language teachers and future LPAs to become engaged, energetic, and effective contributors to the language programs in which they work and to the larger field of language teaching.

Reflecting on Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering 1. List the ways in which you could engage, energize, and empower faculty. From your list, identify three items that seem most important for both individual faculty and the program. Use these three items to create an implementation plan that addresses program impact and needed resources. 2. Imagine that you are the director of a mid-sized language program. Two of your instructors are showing signs of burnout. Describe the steps that you would take to support them either directly or with the assistance of others.

Suggested Readings Harris, B. (2020). 17 things resilient teachers do: (And 4 things they hardly ever do). Eye on Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003058649. A practical hands-on book addressing solutions to teacher burnout and stress. Although written for faculty, LPAs can use the case studies in the book to help faculty reframe what they can control, identify nurturing relationships, and advocate for better working conditions. Raza, K., Manasreh, M., King, M., & Eslami, Z. (2021, July 5). Context specific leadership in English language program administration: What can we learn from the autoethnographies of leaders? International Journal of Leadership in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312 4.2021.1944672. This article explores three English language programs in Qatar and the leaders that oversee them. Autoethnographies are used to illustrate how these LPAs navigate challenges—ranging from cultural diversity, program creation, power relations, and recruitment. Ultimately, this study highlights the importance of LPAs knowing the macro and micro cultures of their educational landscapes.

10  Engaging, Energizing, and Empowering Faculty

169

References Aydin, B., & Hockley, A. (2019). The role of the directors in language schools. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 15(4), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.525813 Bhowmik, S. K., & Kim, M. (2018). Preparing diverse learners for university: A strategy for teaching EAP students. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 498–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.340 Burns, A. (2010). Action research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 80–97). Continuum. Caruso, G. (2019). Facing EL teachers’ burnout through motivation. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2019.0 Christison, M.  A., & Murray, D.  E. (2009). Building effective teams. In M.  A. Christison & D. E. Murray (Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (pp. 200–218). Routledge. Crookston, R. K. (2012). Working with problem faculty: A six-step guide for department chairs. John Wiley & Sons. Doten-Snitker, K., Margherio, C., Litzler, E., Ingram, E., & Williams, J. (2021). Developing a shared vision for change: Moving toward inclusive empowerment. Research in Higher Education, 62(2), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-­020-­09594-­9 Eaton, S. E. (2017). Perceptions of ESL program management in Canadian higher education: A qualitative case study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(9), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.9.2 English, B., & Varghese, M. (2010). Enacting language policy through the facilitator model in a monolingual policy context in the United States. In K. Menken & O. Garcia (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Taylor & Francis. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203855874 Farrell, T. S. C., & Macapinlac, M. (2021). Professional development through reflective practice: A framework for TESOL teachers. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–25. https:// doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.28999 Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Routledge. Harris, B. (2020). 17 things resilient teachers do: (And 4 things they hardly ever do). Eye on Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003058649 Herrera, L. J. P. (2018). Action research as a tool for professional development in the K–12 ELT classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 35(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v35i2.1293 Hornickel, J. (2012, May 29). Soapbox: Consultative leadership. Training. https://trainingmag. com/soapbox-consultativeleadership/ Hult, F.  M. (2018). Engaging pre-service English teachers with language policy. ELT Journal, 72(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx072 Imants, J., & Van der Wal, M.  M. (2020). A model of teacher agency in professional development and school reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00220272.2019.1604809 Jennings, P.  A. (2020). Teacher burnout turnaround: Strategies for empowered educators. W. W. Norton & Company. Kaner, S. (2014). Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. John Wiley & Sons. Kiplangat, H. K. (2017). The relationship between leadership styles and lecturers’ job satisfaction in institutions of higher learning in Kenya. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 435–446. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050315 Larrivee, B. (2012). Cultivating teacher renewal: Guarding against stress and burnout. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lueg, K. (2015). English as a medium of instruction and internationalization at Danish universities: Status, perspectives, and implications for higher education executives. Communication & Language at Work, 4(4), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.7146/claw.v1i4.20772

170

M. Bristow and E. F. Soppelsa

Mai, A. N., Do, H. T. H., Mai, C. N., & Nguyen, N. D. (2020, March 10). Models of university autonomy and their relevance to Vietnam. Journal of Asian Public Policy. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/17516234.2020.1742412 Mathews, K. (2018). Growing our own: Cultivating faculty leadership. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(3–4), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509617 Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855874 Nabaho, L. (2018). Shared governance in public universities in Uganda: Current concerns and directions for reform. International Journal of African Higher Education, 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.6017/ijahe.v5i1.10962 Ott, M., & Dippold, L. (2018). Part-time faculty involvement in decision-making. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(6), 452–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066892 6.2017.1321057 Pennington, M.  C., & Hoekje, B.  J. (2010). Language program leadership in a changing world: An ecological model. BRILL. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/emory/detail. action?docID=554818 Prilleltensky, I., Neff, M., & Bessell, A. (2016). Teacher stress: What it is, why it’s important, how it can be alleviated. Theory Into Practice, 55(2), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0040584 1.2016.1148986 Raza, K., Manasreh, M., King, M., & Eslami, Z. (2021, July 5). Context specific leadership in English language program administration: What can we learn from the autoethnographies of leaders? International Journal of Leadership in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312 4.2021.1944672 Richards, J.  C., & Farrell, T.  S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge University Press. Sproles, K.  Z. (2018). The emotional balancing act of teaching: A burnout recovery plan. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2018(153), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20285 Trakman, L. (2008). Modelling university governance. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(1–2), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2273.2008.00384.x White, R., Hockley, A., der Horst Jansen, J., & Laughner, M. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations. Cambridge University Press. Winkle, C. (2013). University partnerships with the corporate sector: Faculty experiences with for-profit matriculation pathway programs. BRILL. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ emory/detail.action?docID=1582238 Xiao, H. Y., & Chan, T. C. (2020). An analysis of governance models of research universities in selected countries: Lessons learned. Educational Planning, 27(1), 17–29. Mackenzie Bristow is a user experience (UX) instructor and researcher at Home Depot, where she also engages in instructor- and staff-development projects. Earlier in her career, she directed English as a Second Language programs: the English Language Support Program and Global Engagement at Laney Graduate School, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; the ELS Language Center at the University of La Verne, California; and English Language Programs at Elmira College in New  York. She continues to serve as an English Language Specialist for the U.S. Department of State. Her research interests include education management, language policy and planning, and global engagement.  

Elizabeth F.  Soppelsa retired from the field after serving as Deputy Executive Director of NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Her introduction to English teaching was in volunteer service with the U.S. Peace Corps in West Africa. She continued in the field for 40 years, including 20 years as Director of the Applied English Center at the University of Kansas and as a consultant to English language and teacher-education programs in the United States and abroad.  

Chapter 11

Advocating for Students and Language Programs MaryAnn Christison

Abstract  A primary role for language-program administrators (LPAs) is to advocate for their language programs and the students they serve. In this chapter, advocacy is introduced through an advocacy matrix to help LPAs understand the basic tenets of advocacy. Three distinct concepts that must underpin advocacy efforts— equity, diversity, and inclusion—are then explained, followed by five primary domains for advocacy: (a) instructional, (b), cultural, (c) language, (d) academic, and (e) political. Suggestions are given for how to organize advocacy efforts for students and the language program in each of the domains. Keywords  Advocacy · Diversity · Domains of advocacy · Equity · Inclusion · Language-program administration

An idea is like a play. It needs a good producer and a good promoter even if it’s a masterpiece. Otherwise, the play may never open; or it may open but, for lack of an audience, close after a week. (Bornstein, 2007, p. 91)

In a broad sense, advocacy refers to efforts that are made by individuals to promote and argue in favor of causes, policies, and interests. A primary role for language-­ program administrators (LPAs) is to advocate for their language programs and the students that they serve. In some cases, when a language program is part of a larger system, such as a department within a university or a school within a public education system, LPAs must also advocate for former students and other students beyond the language program. LPAs function in many contexts—tertiary education, K-12/ public education, private language schools, adult and vocational education—and in many different countries around the world. (See Chap. 4 for details on diverse language-­program contexts.) Regardless of the context in which LPAs function, advocacy is a necessary component of their work, even though the ways in which LPAs advocate for students and their programs may differ. The examples of M.A. Christison (*) University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_11

171

172

M.A. Christison

advocacy in this chapter are varied and have been intentionally chosen to reflect the diversity of contexts in which LPAs serve as advocates, including contexts where advocacy often takes on a sense of urgency, such as in contexts where the target language is widely spoken outside of the classroom and where the cultural context may be unfamiliar to learners. Advocacy is a complex endeavor that is made even more complex by societal and technological changes in the twenty-first century. Because the number of English learners worldwide continues to increase and human migration is now at an all-time high, LPAs and language-program personnel may find themselves in situations in which they are unfamiliar with the cultural and language backgrounds of their learners. In such contexts, it is not unusual for miscommunications to arise. To address miscommunications effectively when they arise, LPAs need skills for promoting intercultural understanding and communication. (See Chap. 8 for more information on intercultural competence and what LPAs can do to promote it.) While the development of intercultural competence has been important in English language teaching for many years, increasing uses of digital technologies and changing demographics have made intercultural competence even more important for LPAs. In addition, English language teaching professionals have also begun to reevaluate the role that English can ethically play in shaping local and global education programs; as a result, in many contexts, English language teaching serves as a vehicle for advocacy and for promoting social justice and understanding. In multilingual contexts, English language classrooms have also become the “discursive terrain for teachers and learners to negotiate conflicts and engage in justice-oriented dialogue” (Awayed-Bishara, 2021, p. 744). As suggested in the opening quote to this chapter, advocacy essentially comprises an idea and the effort that is made to promote it. The ideas that LPAs choose to advocate for can be either poor or good, and the effort that is put forth in advocating for an idea can be either effective or ineffective. When a poor idea and ineffective efforts intersect, we breathe a sigh of relief because the poor idea is not likely to come to fruition. When a good idea intersects with ineffective effort, we view this occurrence as a lost opportunity and bemoan the fact that nothing will come of a great idea. When a poor idea combines with effective effort, we see it as a waste of both time and effort. However, when a good idea and effective effort intersect, we will likely view the outcome as successful. The intersection of an idea and the amount of effort put forth to promote the idea forms a type of matrix which Daly (2012) refers to as the advocacy matrix. This matrix serves as an important tool in helping LPAs conceptualize advocacy at a very basic level. In other words, if the ideas that LPAs want to promote are to receive the support of decisions makers and gain traction, it is necessary for LPAs to evaluate both the worthiness of ideas that underpin advocacy and the effort and planning that will be needed to promote the ideas adequately.

11  Advocating for Students and Language Programs

173

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion In language programs, advocacy efforts are closely tied to three distinct concepts: (a) equity, (b) diversity, and (c) inclusion. Equity is about promoting social justice, impartiality, and fairness as it relates to internal policies, processes, and the distribution of resources. If a language program is housed within a larger unit, such as a university, there may also be equity issues external to the language program that an LPA will need to address. In working on issues of equity, LPAs should remember to tackle the root causes of inequities in addition to making changes in policies, processes, and the distribution or redistribution of resources. To create workplaces in which equity is the cornerstone of daily practices and policies, LPAs and language-program personnel must understand the difference between the concepts of equality and equity. For example, if the language program has a policy that gives all students full access to the computer lab regardless of their levels of language proficiency or their knowledge of and experience with computers, it is a policy that has suitably applied the principle of equality. In terms of access, it considers all students equally. However, all students are not equal or the same; they have at least different levels of language proficiency, different language and cultural backgrounds, and different experiences in using computers. These differences are not taken into account in the computer-lab policy. While the policy supports the concept of equality, it is not equitable. To create equitable policies, LPAs must identify differences among learners and determine how to support and provide scaffolding for learners so that policies that promote equality can also be equitable. Diversity is defined as the presence of differences. Within a language program, these differences may include age, ethnicity, gender, language, nationality, political perspectives, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. To address diversity issues that are internal to a language program, LPAs must first understand diversity as it relates to their students and language program. Diversity in terms of ethnicity, language, nationality, and race are to be expected within a language program because students often come from many different language and cultural backgrounds, but there are other ways in which diversity may be present. The ways in which students and language-program personnel are diverse may not be easily recognizable. If LPAs are to advocate for populations internal to the language program that have been and remain underrepresented and marginalized within the broad society, accurate and complete information about language-program diversity is essential. It is the responsibility of LPAs to determine how to obtain this information and do so in an inclusive and safe manner. The concept of inclusion in a language program is focused on making certain that individuals who are diverse feel welcomed and included. Language-program personnel, including the LPA, must establish a working environment wherein diversity is appreciated, welcomed, and embraced. When a language program is an

174

M.A. Christison

inviting place for everyone, it has met the inclusion outcome. Language programs that are situated within a larger unit should also ask if the inclusion outcome has been met for that unit and then advocate for change if it is not the case. To determine if the inclusion outcome has been met for students and language-­ program personnel, important questions for LPAs to ask are whether diverse students are able to participate fully in the language program, and if they do, how do they do so? To determine if the inclusion outcome has been met for language-­ program personnel, the questions should be focused on if and how language-­program personnel participate in decision-making processes because it is through the decision-­making process that change is enacted. To determine if the inclusion outcome has been met for language programs that do not stand alone but rather are integrated into larger units such as a secondary school, a School of Education, or an English Department, an important question to ask is whether the policies and practices governing the language program are the same as those governing other units. These policies and practices may include reporting structures, advancement for instructors, and budgeting. (See Chap. 4 for a discussion of how LPAs, in diverse contexts, can support equity, diversity, and inclusion.)

Primary Domains for Advocacy It is helpful for LPAs to conceptualize advocacy for students and their language programs in five primary domains: (a) instructional, (b) cultural, (c) language, (d) academic, and (e) political. In these varied, yet often overlapping, advocacy domains, LPAs must continue to focus on issues related to equity, diversity, and inclusion and on the challenges that their language programs face as they try to support language learners and help them succeed academically and socially.

Instructional Advocacy LPAs serve as instructional advocates for individual students, for language-program personnel, and on behalf of the language program. Because LPAs are considered to be experts on how to structure learning to address the needs of learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, they are often called on to offer advice to instructors beyond the language program. In tertiary contexts, individuals from both instructional and administrative units (e.g., professors, academic advisors, librarians, head of student-support services) often call on LPAs to plan and develop policies and programs for students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds because LPAs are viewed as experts on how to address classroom issues that students may have across campus. In K-12/public education contexts, LPAs may be called on to mediate student/teacher and student/student misunderstandings in classroom contexts. When groups of individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural

11  Advocating for Students and Language Programs

175

backgrounds experience the same classroom events or behaviors together, diverse interpretations can result (Deplit, 2006). LPAs are oftentimes drawn into discussions that result from these diverse interpretations. The job of an LPA as instructional advocate is to handle different interpretations of classroom events that are likely to emerge and then work with students and/or teachers to recognize what these different interpretations might be. For example, some learners may be perceived as rude and uncooperative because they say nothing in class and are reluctant to answer questions or make eye contact. It is important to note that these behaviors may be interpreted in other ways. In some cultures, silence is a sign of respect; when the teacher speaks, students listen. Students may not see themselves as sources of knowledge and, therefore, do not believe that they can contribute to class discussions. It is also possible that some students do not want to speak in class because this type of behavior separates them from the group. For other students, it may be considered impolite and disrespectful to look directly at the person to whom one is speaking. There might also be students inside and outside of the language program who copy word-for-word from written sources without citing these sources appropriately. These practices occur even if learners have been taught appropriate sourcing strategies. In academic circles, such a practice is viewed by many instructors as intentional plagiarism; however, for a number of language students, relying on a knowledgeable expert for clarity of the written word is a much better alternative than choosing to write something poorly in one’s own words (Mott-Smith et  al., 2020; Tomaš, 2010). As another illustration of divergent interpretations, there are cultures in which individual success is seen as being less important than group success. Knowing the answers and not helping others is viewed as selfish, self-centered, and lacking in collegiality. These different examples represent just a sampling of instructional events that can lead to misunderstandings in diverse contexts. Language-program personnel and students, as well as instructors beyond the language program, often reach out to LPAs for assistance in bridging these misunderstandings. In such circumstances, LPAs function as instructional advocates, helping students, language-program personnel, and other instructors develop an awareness of cultural differences and improve communication in the classroom (Abrahamson & Moran, 2017; Clarke & Edge, 2009). It is through this process that LPAs can facilitate mutual understandings and diffuse miscommunications and potential frustration, thereby creating a learning environment that is more equitable and inclusive.

Cultural Advocacy Many LPAs work in contexts where students come from diverse language and cultural backgrounds, for example in intensive English programs (IEPs) in higher education in the United States or K-12/public education in other contexts like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Even in the age of globalization,

176

M.A. Christison

cultural practices are slow to change, which means that developing an understanding and awareness of cultural differences remains a key component of successful intercultural interactions (Peterson, 2018; Thomas & Inkson, 2017). It goes without saying that it is advantageous for LPAs to learn as much as possible about other cultures, but this approach may not always be practical. The best way for LPAs to serve as cultural advocates is to develop sensitivity to cultural differences and the types of cultural adjustments that students may face. In this way, they can help others develop sensitivity to cultural differences as well. (See Chap. 8 for a discussion of the development of intercultural competence as a way to foster an inclusive organizational culture.) One danger of being a cultural advocate is the possibility of oversimplifying an extremely complex phenomenon. The classification of behavior as desirable or taboo endows it with misleading objectivity. Behavior is ambiguous: the same action may have different meanings in different situations so that it is necessary to identify the context of behavior and the contingencies of action before the [sojourner] can be armed with prescriptions for specific acts. (Stewart & Bennett, 2005, pp. 20–21)

To avoid oversimplification, LPAs can benefit from focusing on key processes rather than on a list of cultural “do and don’ts.” Two important processes that underpin cultural advocacy in language programs entail helping language-program personnel (a) develop sensitivity to the different types of cultural adjustments that language learners may need to make and (b) understand culture shock and support language learners as they adjust. Developing Sensitivity to Types of Cultural Adjustments To be effective cultural advocates, LPAs need strategies for supporting learners in managing cultural adjustments (Ting-Toomey & Dorjee, 2018). Not all teaching and non-teaching personnel in language programs have experienced living in a different culture, so they may not be aware of the difficulties that some learners experience in adjusting to a new context. As Storti (2021) explains, “The old proverb notwithstanding, we cannot put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. Or, rather, we can, but it’s still our own feet we will feel” (p. 84). LPAs therefore, play a critical role in helping language-program personnel (a) develop sensitivity to the different types of adjustments that students may need to make and (b) guide students in dealing with these different types of adjustments. Three types of adjustments that are difficult for most learners—adjustments to the classroom environment, the community, and climate—are highlighted here. Adjusting to new classroom environments is critical for student success. Language-program students must cope with different routines such as interactions with instructors, whole-class and small-group interactions with peers, and unfamiliar grading policies, to name just a few. Students who study in the more sheltered environment of a language program often have histories of academic success;

11  Advocating for Students and Language Programs

177

however, in new classroom contexts (e.g., mainstream courses, a new school), they may not experience the same level of success because classroom expectations are different. Many language programs are situated in communities where the target language is widely spoken outside of the language classroom, requiring students to make almost immediate adjustments to a new community. Students must learn to meet their basic needs while using the target language. For example, they must learn where to buy food and shop for things they need, how to take public transportation, and how to make the digital technologies with which they are familiar work in a new context such as accessing the Internet or finding the right SIM card for a mobile phone. It may take time to find the foods that they are accustomed to, clothes and shoes that are comfortable, or the common medicines that they are used to. No matter where students go, things are different. In today’s ever expanding and global economy, it is usually possible to find most items eventually, but initially and when adjustment is the most difficult, locating familiar food, setting up Wi-Fi, and establishing relationships with medical and dental providers are challenging. Establishing personal relationships with individuals in the community can also be difficult, especially if students’ language communication skills are minimal, but developing friendships and establishing support groups within the community are essential components of cultural adjustment. Another type of adjustment that some students may have to make is to climate. Changes in weather and climate can cause havoc in the body. In cold climates, skin can dry and crack. In tropical climates, skin can break out in a rash or other irritations. In addition, students may experience a loss of energy initially and may need more sleep. Low-grade fevers and headaches are also symptoms of climatic adjustment, and these changes may result in the need to modify physical activity, which can also affect how students feel in the long term. Understanding Culture Shock and Supporting Language Learners Helping language learners adjust to a new environment is one of the most important roles for LPAs as cultural advocates. Understanding culture shock is critical for LPAs who lead and manage language programs with students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The term culture shock is used to describe the dynamics of adjustment and entry into a new culture (Storti, 2007). Because culture shock proceeds in stages, it is important for LPAs (and language-program personnel) to learn how to recognize the behaviors associated with each stage so they can help students adjust and advocate for them with teachers external to the language program, members of the local community, and, in some cases, even potential employers. According to Storti (2007), there are three recognizable stages related to culture shock for most students. In the honeymoon stage, many adolescent, young adult, and adult students see almost everything about the new culture as positive. They are

178

M.A. Christison

excited, happy, and even euphoric at times. Gradually their perceptions change, as do their behaviors. They might begin to experience fatigue, sleeplessness, anxiety, negativity, depression, anger, malaise, and homesickness. When LPAs (and other language-program personnel) recognize some of these behaviors in a particular student, it is clear that the student has moved to the hostility stage. It is during this stage that students need the most support and help. With support, students eventually emerge from this stage into the adjustment stage (Storti, 2007) and begin to feel more comfortable with new people, food, language, and ways of doing things. Navigating within a new environment becomes easier, and friends and communities of support are eventually established. Culture shock is not unique to adolescents, young adults, and adults. Children may also experience culture shock. The degree to which young children experience culture shock is dependent on the support that they get from their core family members and from their teachers and the school. For LPAs in some contexts, the re-entry stage of culture shock is also an important consideration. For example, in institutions of higher education, international students often return to their home countries after earning their degrees. Universities may look to LPAs and language programs to provide workshops to prepare students for re-entry into their home cultures. LPAs who impart a sympathetic but not defensive view of the target culture are the most effective cultural advocates. Such LPAs are able to establish empathy with students and gain their confidence. The changes that students experience during culture shock are internal ones and are most often unrelated to changes in their external environment. It is important for LPAs to remember that given time and support, students will emerge into the adjustment stage with increased abilities and competence, as well as a greater knowledge and an expanded understanding of not only the new culture but also their home and other familiar cultures (Ward et al., 2001). Developing a sensitivity to and a knowledge of the common types of adjustments that students may face as a result of moving to and living in a new culture is invaluable for LPAs as they serve as cultural advocates for students. LPAs who are able to see their role as cultural advocates from the perspective of serving as mediators and ambassadors of cultural understanding, and not as purveyors or imposers of a specific culture, are likely to be the most successful.

Language Advocacy LPAs often find themselves serving as language advocates. The ways in which LPAs serve as language advocates are likely to differ relative to context. In K-12/ public education contexts, LPAs may serve as language advocates when they receive complaints from content-area (e.g., math, science, health) teachers who believe that English learners (ELs) should be performing in their classes similar to students who are home-language speakers of English. Those same teachers may also be frustrated

11  Advocating for Students and Language Programs

179

because they cannot seem to help ELs effectively. If content-area teachers have not been language learners themselves or if they do not have high degrees of language awareness, they may not have the necessary skills to support ELs. To become effective teachers in this context and develop skills related to language awareness, teachers may need long-term support and guidance, which could be provided by the LPA and other language-program personnel who have expertise in this area. Language advocacy is also necessary in higher-education contexts, especially in countries where English is widely spoken outside of the language classroom. LPAs often find themselves in the position of trying to explain to professors, administrators, and non-teaching office personnel outside of the language program about the challenges students face in learning English. Mother-tongue speakers of any language take the knowledge that they have of their language for granted because the knowledge they have is tacit. In addition, non-language program personnel may have had little experience themselves in using additional languages for the purpose of completing academic studies. LPAs can function as language advocates by raising language awareness among non-language program personnel in a number of different ways. One way to raise language awareness is to focus on how demanding it is to learn a second or foreign language at a level of language proficiency required for success in discipline-­specific classes, such as engineering or English literature. LPAs might have samples of difficult disciplinary language on hand and point out a few examples of difficult grammatical structures, vocabulary, and content. Another way of raising language awareness is to focus attention on the differences between explicit and tacit knowledge of language and on the role that conscious learning plays for many language learners. LPAs might collect a few essays in which grammatical errors are obviously present and point out that identifying the errors may seem easy but correcting the errors based on having conscious knowledge of the rules is quite difficult. Another way to raise language awareness is to ask instructors to look beyond superficial language errors (e.g., grammatical errors, spelling, and punctuation problems) and try to evaluate students’ understandings of disciplinary concepts. It is often difficult to determine whether difficulties stem from lower levels of language proficiency, lack of disciplinary knowledge, or both. Another way to raise language awareness is to introduce non-language program instructors to potential areas of language difficulty for language learners on an academic track. The list that follows—of language difficulties and at least one possible equitable solution for each area of difficulty that could be used to address the difficulty—is not an exhaustive one; rather, the list offers examples of what LPAs might share to raise language awareness. 1. In both secondary and tertiary educational contexts, language learners often find it difficult to handle the volume of reading assigned in mainstream or disciplinary classes. Equitable solutions: Post a reading list for the course well in advance. Offer summaries of readings that could be used to build background knowledge and make the content comprehensible.

180

M.A. Christison

2. Adolescent and young adult language learners may not fully understand how they learn because they may have had insufficient educational experiences and have not yet developed skills in learning how to study. Equitable solution: Provide learners with online opportunities to explore their learning styles and develop an understanding of how they learn best. 3. L2 learners in academic environments often find it difficult to respond in writing to the wide range of question types on exams. Short essay answers that require stating a main idea and supporting it with facts are particularly problematic, especially with rigidly enforced time constraints. Equitable solutions: Introduce students to question types in advance and create mock tests online to help them work with question types. Provide examples of short essay type questions and offer examples of appropriate answers online. 4. Language learners may be unaware of standard academic writing conventions and expectations. Equitable solutions: Clearly delineate the academic writing conventions expected for the specific assignment and provide access to online resources that students can work through on their own and within their own time limits. 5. Language learners may have difficulty grasping new materials that are only presented orally (i.e., in a lecture format) in English. They often rely on multiple language skills to comprehend new information. Equitable solution: Provide written materials that students can read in advance of lectures. 6. Language learners may not contribute to class discussions or may not do so with ease. If they answer questions or contribute to discussions by reciting prepared answers, they may not be directly contributing to the discussion. Equitable solution: Structure some parts of discussion so that students are able to rely on answers that they have prepared in advance. 7. Language learners often have difficulty giving formal presentations in class. Equitable solutions: Prepare specific protocols and rubrics outlining what is to be included in the presentation. Provide a model presentation online so that students can access it easily and multiple times, if needed.

Academic Advocacy As academic advocates, LPAs wear more than one hat. In postsecondary contexts, former and current language-program students often approach LPAs to talk about the difficulties that they may be experiencing in their disciplinary or mainstream courses. Instructors outside of the language program often contact LPAs to talk about former language-program students and the other non-native speakers of English in their classes because they want to find ways to help language learners be successful in the academic context. In recent years, demographic changes have profoundly affected the profiles of students entering tertiary institutions so that there is a growing and noticeable incompatibility between the traditional teaching practices that might have worked for a certain type of student in the past and those that are

11  Advocating for Students and Language Programs

181

needed to engage students from linguistic and culturally diverse backgrounds. Instructors need assistance in meeting the academic needs of this rapidly growing student population. As academic advocates, LPAs provide support for both students and teaching faculty. For students, suggestions offered by LPAs are most helpful when they focus on the steps that students might take to improve their academic performance. Figure 11.1 offers a checklist for students that can be adapted for different instructional contexts. For instructors seeking support from LPAs, suggestions are likely to emphasize modifications to teaching that permit instructors to reach as many students as possible in their courses and to enable students to meet the conceptual and linguistic demands of their courses. To assist faculty, LPAs can create and distribute checklists that address faculty concerns and answer regular faculty queries. The goal of the checklists should be to introduce faculty to strategies that enhance classroom teaching and improve conditions for learning. Figure  11.2 highlights strategies for improving lectures.

__ 1. Record lectures so that you can listen to them at home. __ 2. Edit and review your class lecture notes as soon as possible. The task is much easier when the material is fresh in your mind. __ 3. Prepare for lectures by studying the assigned readings, completing the homework assignments before class, and reviewing your notes. You will understand more of the material if you follow these suggestions. __ 4. Find a study partner. Make sure your partner is committed. Agree on how you will study together. Exchange phone numbers and email addresses and agree to notify one another of any change in plans. You might want to share notes with each other before exams. __ 5. Sit near the front of the class so that you can see the board and/or screen and see and hear the teacher and other class presentations. __ 6. When you do not understand something in class, ask for clarification from either your teacher or a peer. If you feel embarrassed to ask your questions in class, visit your professors during their office hours. You should remember the following: If you don’t understand a concept in the course material, it is likely that there are other students who do not understand it as well. __ 7. If you still feel unsuccessful in your classes and do not notice any improvement in your performance, hire a tutor, enroll in an additional language course, or visit the institution’s learning assistance center, if available, to improve your language abilities.

Fig. 11.1  Student checklist for academic success (✓)

182

M.A. Christison

__ 1. Begin the day’s lecture with a brief review of the main ideas covered in the previous class. Including a review gives students an additional chance to check for understanding. You might also have the entire class work in pairs to quickly summarize the lesson from the previous class and work as a unified class to clarify the main points. __ 2. Clarify the topic of the lecture before you begin, state the key concepts, and communicate the objectives in writing. Follow an outline and an orderly progression of ideas. __ 3. Identify key vocabulary and new technical terms (on the board or on slides). Use illustrations, charts, graphic organizers, and demonstrations throughout the lecture to make certain that essential information is identified. __ 4. Summarize and use anticipatory strategies to clarify difficult concepts. Review guidelines for note taking, offer some strategies that will work well for your lectures, and share examples of notes that you consider effective. __ 5. Provide a partially completed lecture outline. During the lecture, students can fill in the outline, or after the lecture, students can be asked to complete the outline using their notes. __ 6. Encourage students who take good notes to share a sample of their notes with other classmates. This can be done formally as a tutorial or informally in partnerships. __ 7. Reinforce the importance of note taking by allowing students to use their notes on some exams. This strategy works well when exam questions ask students to demonstrate an understanding of important concepts, rather than memorized facts. __ 8. Give concrete examples to illustrate important concepts. Conceptualize these main ideas within familiar contexts. Build in redundancy with anecdotes and examples that students can relate to. __ 9. For longer, more complicated lectures, use slides (e.g., in a PowerPoint presentation).

__ 10. Write legibly on the board, if not using slides prepared in advance. __ 11. Record your lectures and post them online. After class, students can listen to the lecture as many times as they need to in order to understand the content of the lecture. __ 12. Relate your lecture material to reading assignments. Refer to page numbers in the readings so there is an alternative source of information to which students can refer.

Fig. 11.2 (continued)

11  Advocating for Students and Language Programs

183

__ 13. Modify your normal conversational speech for lectures; make your speech as comprehensible as possible. For example, slow down your speech by pausing between thought groups, emphasizing key words, and enunciating clearly. __ 14. Use body language to aid comprehension. Make eye contact with all students, emphasize main points through gestures and facial expressions, and highlight major transitions with broad gestures. __ 15. Reserve time at the end of the lecture to clarify main points by having students compare notes in teams or asking them to prepare questions about the lecture. Fig. 11.2  Strategies for improving lectures (✓)

Other topics lend themselves well to checklists, including suggestions for designing daily lessons, creating positive classroom affect, making textbooks accessible, preparing students for exams, writing exams and quizzes, structuring syllabi, involving students actively in learning, providing online resources, and modeling the research process. (See Menken, 2009; Rance-Roney, 2009; Vogt & Echevarria, 2022; as well as www.tesol.org and www.ascd.org for materials designed to assist content-area faculty in meeting the needs of growing numbers of English learners in their classes.) Checklists can be posted online in response to queries from teaching faculty, deans, or principals; published in newsletters; or distributed to all new faculty. In addition to the checklists themselves, it is also important to include a document explaining how to use them. Language programs may also have instructors who can offer interesting and informative workshops that are based on the checklists. LPAs might also consider sponsoring an informal brown bag lunch, an after-­ school event, or a Zoom meeting based on the checklists to reinforce different strategies for meeting students’ needs.

Political Advocacy Teaching language learners in most contexts is complicated by numerous societal factors. Many of these factors are related to language planning and policy issues; consequently, they often become political issues. Some of these issues stem from uninformed media coverage, misguided educational reforms, high stakes testing, attacks on specific methodologies, such as structured English immersion or online teaching, and resistance to civil rights laws. LPAs are frequently placed in positions where responses to these politically motivated issues are required. When LPAs respond, they are engaged in a form of political activism, thereby becoming political advocates.

184

M.A. Christison

The political activities in which LPAs choose to participate vary depending on the context. For example, in the United States, political activism for both K ­ -12/ public education and adult education administrators may include providing expert testimony, writing editorials in newspapers and other publications, speaking at local business group meetings, or writing letters to elected public officials. In foreign-­ language contexts, political activism takes on other forms, for example, educating parents regarding decisions about the appropriate age to begin English instruction, developing a model curriculum appropriate for young learners, or agreeing to serve on a committee for the Ministry of Education to write curricula or select textbooks. Activities in foreign-language contexts vary depending on whether LPAs are host-­ country nationals or expatriates. Because political activism is context specific, it is difficult to offer guidelines and strategies for political advocacy that work for LPAs in all contexts. Nevertheless, there is a way in which political advocacy can transcend contextual boundaries: To provide informed leadership, LPAs must have a strong knowledge base and academic background to be able to share a sophisticated understanding of the issues that surround language learning and learning across cultures with language-­program teachers and others outside of the language program. When LPAs speak publicly about language policy, they do not speak as individuals but as representatives of the language programs they serve. Political activism “by individuals, however inspired, has little chance to prevail on its own” (Crawford, 2008, p. 7). As a result of the position, LPAs have the capacity to mobilize individuals, teachers, parents, and community members to support political agendas that further the educational goals of L2 learners or to speak out against political agendas that do not. A well-organized and well-conceived response from an LPA has the capacity to influence others and can be a powerful tool for influencing language policy. LPAs must, therefore, not only be language experts who stay abreast of the research and issues in the field but also stay informed about local, national, and international events—via e-news services, other types of news programs, listservs, and streaming options—as these events have the potential to affect the language programs and the students that they serve.

Conclusion A primary role for LPAs is to advocate for their language programs and the students that they serve. In this chapter, the basic tenets of advocacy were introduced through an advocacy matrix, which presents advocacy in terms of the relationship between quality of ideas and the amount of effort one puts into promoting those ideas. Effective advocacy requires an understanding of issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion, which must be carefully considered as they relate to both policies and practices. The chapter also offers an overview of the different ways in which the LPA can be an advocate for language learners. As instructional advocates, LPAs can offer advice on how students and faculty might deal with frustrations in the

11  Advocating for Students and Language Programs

185

classroom, providing clear and practical examples of multiple interpretations of classroom behaviors. As cultural advocates, LPAs help students and those with whom they communicate to understand the complexities of cultural adjustment and intercultural communication. LPAs also function as language advocates, helping faculty understand possible areas of language difficulty for students in their classes. In the role of academic advocate, LPAs assist students by focusing on the steps that students can take to improve academic achievement. LPAs can also assist instructors by suggesting adjustments that can be made in their teaching to reach as many students as possible. As political advocates, LPAs use their positions of leadership to further political agendas that support language learners and language-program personnel. By functioning as instructional, cultural, language, academic, and political advocates, LPAs play an important role in promoting a successful intercultural dialog, breaking down intercultural barriers, minimizing miscommunication, facilitating more successful interactions between language-program students and the individuals with whom they communicate, and providing educational support for learners regardless of the educational context.

Reflecting on Student and Language Program Advocacy 1. Of the five advocacy roles outlined in this chapter (instructional, cultural, language, academic, and political), which role do you think is most challenging? Why? What can LPAs do to minimize the challenges? 2. Imagine that you are an LPA in a university setting in an English-speaking country. The university has a diverse student body. A faculty member from the Department of History calls you to complain about some of the students in his class, stating that they cannot speak or write English. You know that English learners in the class have to score at a benchmark level on TOEFL or IELTS before they are admitted to the university. You also know that the faculty member is new to teaching at the university. What techniques and strategies would you employ in this situation to help the faculty member and also advocate for the students and the language program?

Suggested Readings Storti, C. (2021). The art of crossing cultures (3rd ed.). Nicholas Brealey. The author focuses on the basic psychological processes involved in cross-cultural interactions and adaptation. Storti presents models that illustrate the process of crossing cultures, which LPAs will find useful. He uses a sampling of excerpts from the literature to make his points. Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2017). Cultural intelligence: Surviving and thriving in the global village (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler. In today’s global economy, the ability to interact effectively across cultures is a fundamental job requirement for just about everyone. Because it is impossible to learn the customs and traits

186

M.A. Christison of every culture, Thomas and Inkson present a universal set of techniques and people skills for adapting quickly to and thriving in diverse cultural environments. The authors show how to apply cultural intelligence in a series of specific situations, for example making decisions, negotiating with others, resolving conflicts, and contributing to multicultural groups and teams.

References Abrahamson, N.  R., & Moran, R.  T. (2017). Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for the twenty-first century (10th ed.). Routledge. Awayed-Bishara, M. (2021). Linguistic citizenship in the classroom: Granting the local voice through English. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 743–765. Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas (updated version). Oxford University Press. Clarke, M.  A., & Edge, J. (2009). Building a communicative toolkit for leadership. In M. A. Christison & D. E. Murray (Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing time (pp. 187–199). Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Crawford, J. (2008). Advocating for English learners. Multilingual Matters. Daly, J. A. (2012). Advocacy: Championing ideas and influencing others. Yale University Press. Deplit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New Press. Menken, K. (2009). The difficult road for English language learners. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 26–29. Mott-Smith, J. A., Tomaš, Z., & Kostka, I. (2020). Teaching writing, revised. TESOL Press. Peterson, B. (2018). Cultural intelligence: A guide to working with people from other cultures (2nd ed.). Intercultural Press. Rance-Roney, J. (2009). Best practices for adolescent ELLs. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 32–37. Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (2005). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective (Rev. ed.). Intercultural Press. Storti, C. (2007). The art of crossing cultures (2nd ed.) Nicholas Brealey. Storti, C. (2021). The art of crossing cultures (3rd ed.) Nicholas Brealey. Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2017). Cultural intelligence: Surviving and thriving in the global village (3rd ed.) Berrett-Koehler. Ting-Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2018). Communicating across cultures (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Tomaš, Z. (2010). Addressing pedagogy on textual borrowing: Focus on instructional resources. Writing and pedagogy, 2(2), 223–249. Vogt, M. E., & Echevarria, J. (2022). 99 ideas and activities for teaching English learners with the SIOP model (2nd ed.). Pearson. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Taylor and Francis. MaryAnn Christison is a professor at the University of Utah in the Department of Linguistics and was founding Director of the International Program and English Training Center at Snow College for 20 years prior to her appointment at the University. She has authored, co-authored, and coedited over 22 books and written 160 articles and chapters on applied linguistics and English language teaching. Two of her co-edited books were specifically on language program administration (with F. L. Stoller), and one was on leadership (with D. E. Murray). Christison has also served as President of TESOL International.  

Part III

Management in Language Programs

Chapter 12

Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration Cheryl A. Ernst and Jodi L. Nelms

Abstract  Communication within a language program is a multidimensional concept that can be explored through several different lenses. This chapter uses seven scenarios to explore features of effective communication within a language program. The chapter places an emphasis on the use of communication strategies for managing up, planning and facilitating effective meetings, making difficult decisions, maintaining connections with students, setting up processes for effective communication during program reviews, and engaging in annual performance reviews. The scenarios are intended to provide distinct snapshots of communication within a language program. They provide contexts that permit readers to examine the nuances of language-program administrators’ leadership and management roles. Keywords  Communication strategies · Decision making · Language-program administration · Performance review · Program review · Running meetings

The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails. (William Arthur Ward, cited in Little, 2007, p. 72)

Effective communication is vital to the success of any language program, and a language-program administrator (LPA) plays a pivotal role in creating a positive and supportive workplace environment. Effective communication relies on context-­specific strategies and practices (Reza et al., 2021). Thus, the communication strategies that We thank Ira Fischler, University of Florida, and Anna Gates-Tapia, Lane Community College, for their feedback on the manuscript. C. A. Ernst (*) University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. L. Nelms University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_12

189

190

C. A. Ernst and J. L. Nelms

might work in a binational center may not be entirely appropriate in a proprietary program or a university-based intensive English program (and vice versa). Many LPAs enter leadership roles in these varied contexts by progressing through the ranks, starting as instructors and growing into future leaders. (See Chap. 2 for more on transitioning from teacher to administrator.) These prior experiences can influence the communication strategies that LPAs choose to use and ultimately their communication styles. In this chapter, we introduce seven scenarios that allow us to delve into various aspects of effective communication for LPAs as they engage in the work of language-­ program administration, including running meetings, making difficult decisions, maintaining connections with students, setting up processes for effective communication during program reviews, and engaging in annual performance reviews. The seven scenarios highlight some of the challenges that LPAs are likely to encounter relative to communication. Within each of these scenarios, general and specific communication strategies are considered. Because the titles, duties, and reporting relationships of personnel associated with language programs differ across contexts and within programs, we use the following terminology for consistency in this chapter. The term language-program administrator (LPA) refers to individuals who have leadership (i.e., envisioning the language program in the future and thinking strategically) and management (i.e., overseeing and implementing tasks) duties. These duties span all aspects of the language program, including creating vision and mission statements, setting goals, planning strategically, overseeing the curriculum, marketing, advocating for students, managing financial resources, and establishing policies and procedures. LPAs supervise teachers and other language-program personnel (e.g., office staff, student advisors). Most LPAs report directly to another individual. This person could be a senior-level administrator such as a dean, a school principal, or a governing board member who monitors the LPA’s performance. LPAs collaborate with many different stakeholders, including students, professional partners (e.g., student-recruitment agents, textbook publishers), sponsors, and sometimes parents. LPAs often find themselves in a middle-management role, balancing the conflicting expectations from the individuals to whom they report as well as teachers and other language-­program personnel.

Developing a Communication Toolbox Scenario 1. Marie has just finished Day 1 in her new leadership role as the language-program administrator (LPA). She acquired the knowledge and skills to assume this position from her previous experiences— coordinating programs, advising students, making contacts across campus, and gaining a general understanding of the projects that the former LPA had begun. She met with her dean, the person to whom she directly reports; resolved several issues with teachers and other language-program personnel; spoke with three stu(continued)

12  Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration

191

dents (two disciplinary actions, one request); responded to routine emails; and attended a meeting where she listened to teachers and other language-­program personnel talk about projects that had been placed on hold until she assumed her role as LPA. During her first day as LPA, she noticed that everyone was eager to share their thoughts with her. She listened and asked questions. Marie recognized that first impressions were critical, so she focused on setting realistic expectations for how she would communicate in the workplace from her first day as LPA. She finished her first day both energized and exhausted.

In Scenario 1, Marie used two strategies from her “communication toolbox.” First, she recognized the value of learning about the program from multiple vantage points by setting out on a “listening tour.” She interacted with different individuals who were in some way associated with the language program. She listened carefully so that she could learn about their expectations, the program’s strengths and weaknesses, and potential opportunities. Information gathering was the second important communication strategy. This strategy entailed asking what, why, and open-ended questions and then providing ample time for individuals to respond, candidly if they felt comfortable doing so. Combining communication tools, such as a listening tour and information gathering, contributed to the development of transparency, trust, and an appreciation for others’ viewpoints. In addition to active listening and information gathering, the LPA encouraged an honest sharing of perspectives, during which she learned important details about the program, the teachers, and other language-program personnel. These strategies would become useful when soliciting buy-in later on, and they contributed to furthering a shared vision. Other effective communication strategies include the use of weekly communiques; short, individual meetings with teachers and other language-­ program personnel; and informal channels of communication (e.g., chatting with teachers outside their classrooms) that encourage transparency, trust, and openness, and, importantly, contribute to positive perceptions of the LPA’s availability and accessibility. To use communication strategies effectively, LPAs must be aware of power dynamics, which are inherent in interpersonal communications. Power is a person’s ability to exert influence and control in communication, and power dynamics describes how power affects a relationship between two or more people, particularly when power is unequal and not balanced (e.g., dean/LPA, LPA/teachers, LPA/students). Communication is intrinsically complex because of power dynamics, and LPAs need to acknowledge how deeply intertwined power dynamics are in interpersonal communication. Furthermore, LPAs need to recognize that it may be difficult for some employees to share their true feelings with the LPA. The use of communication strategies can help an LPA cultivate safe spaces for open communication and build trusting relationships with language-program personnel. For trust to develop and for language-program personnel to feel empowered to speak openly without

192

C. A. Ernst and J. L. Nelms

fear of retaliation, effective communication strategies must be consistently used over a sustained period of time (Hurt & Dye, 2020). When trust develops, languageprogram personnel may feel safe enough to communicate unpleasant and difficult information, which the LPA must be prepared to listen to. Not only must LPAs be prepared to listen to unpleasant messages but they must also be willing to express disagreement or say no to deans, principals, language-­ program personnel, students, and other stakeholders. LPAs who deliver news candidly, while following program and institutional protocols, build trust and are perceived by others as being fair and transparent. Even when a particular message may not be a welcomed one, sincerity and honesty will be respected. Depersonalizing communiques, when appropriate, allows for neutrality and fairness. To accomplish neutrality and fairness, LPAs should take a step back, evaluate the severity or complexity of the situation, and give themselves permission not to communicate immediately. To protect themselves, program personnel, and the program itself, it behooves LPAs to be deliberate in determining what program information to share and when to share it. They must also recognize that some information can never be shared (e.g., confidential information). Compliance with institutional policies, laws, and best practices regarding human resources and confidentiality is crucial. Examples of information that should be protected include employee files, personnel reviews, and personal information shared in confidence. (See Chap. 13 on human-resource management.) LPAs may also be privy to program gossip. While work-related gossip is often used by employees to develop rapport with each other (and sometimes with the LPA), an LPA should not perpetuate gossip because the result is a divisive workplace environment that erodes trust. By carefully considering what information can be shared and how the message is delivered, an environment of trust between the LPA and language-program personnel can be cultivated.

Learning How to Manage Up Scenario 2. A teacher in Marie’s language program retired, and circumstances were such that she would need to assume the retired teacher’s role as conversation partner program coordinator to keep the program running. Duties require recruiting, hiring, training, and supervising a large pool of student employees as well as soliciting participation from among language-program students and then matching them with conversation partners. As Marie read over the retired coordinator’s notes, she realized that there was a lot more to the coordinator position than she had anticipated. She decided to register for a workshop on student-employee supervision and an additional technical training session to learn how to use the employee management software offered by her host institution. (continued)

12  Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration

193

When Marie discussed these new responsibilities and her need for additional professional-development training with her dean, she heard concerns about the time commitment and was discouraged from taking on these additional duties. In fact, her dean asked her to disband the conversation partner program because of her heavy administrative workload. After considering her dean’s concerns (and reactions), she decided to change her approach to addressing the issue. She documented (and then shared with her dean) the past successes of the conversation partner program and its value with data (e.g., number of participants, participant satisfaction, positive conversation-­partner feedback, and an explanation of the alignment of the conversation partner program with the language program’s mission).

Scenario 2 introduces the concept of managing up. Managing up, as defined by Gabarro and Kotter (2005), involves “the process of consciously working with your superior to obtain the best possible results for you, your boss, and the company” (p. 92). Other ways to think about managing up include (a) focusing on managing your relationship with your boss, not managing your boss and (b) educating the individual to whom you report (i.e., your boss) about the language program and its pressing issues. In Scenario 2, the LPA found it necessary to assume duties that required new skill sets. To get the results that she thought were best for her, the language program, and her boss, she had to manage up to sell the value of the conversation partner program. In Scenario 2, the LPA was advocating for continuing professional development (CPD) for herself. LPAs routinely advocate for CPD opportunities for teachers and other language-program personnel. Scenario 2 makes it clear that LPAs must also learn to advocate for their own CPD as well. Because LPAs are often expected to step into additional roles, seeking formal training in new areas may be needed. Informal professional-development opportunities exist through job shadowing, cochairing, and assisting with new projects; LPAs need to be on the lookout for these types of CPD as well. Knowledge is never stagnant, and LPAs need to grow professionally as their governing roles evolve. Being committed to CPD is critical because LPAs’ positions and responsibilities naturally morph to meet changing program and institutional needs. The concept of authority in language-program administration makes managing up complex. LPAs oversee language programs and are often simultaneously overseen by someone else, such as a dean, a vice-president, vice chancellor, or a president of a board of directors. Internally, LPAs are viewed as being fully responsible for the language program, often with the mistaken notion that the LPA holds complete authority. Actual control is often determined by external forces. Leaders outside the language program (e.g., boards of directors, deans) view the LPA as fully

194

C. A. Ernst and J. L. Nelms

responsible, but without complete authority. With few exceptions, the LPA actually serves in a middle-management capacity. Thus, for decisions about institutional policy, budgets, and branding, as examples, it is often the case that LPAs provide background information, share expertise, and make suggestions, but ultimately the institution or board of directors make final decisions. LPAs who serve in middle-management positions must not only manage language-­program personnel but also relationships with others to whom they report. LPAs rely on multiple resources to gain information for and about their programs, and this is the same for individuals to whom LPAs report. When LPAs manage up, they deliberately share timely information with their “bosses.” In addition, LPAs work hard to ensure that those individuals have a conscious awareness of pressing issues, are informed about language-program accomplishments, and can be advocates for the language program. In managing up, it becomes the responsibility of LPAs to regularly share timely, relevant, and updated information. The act of sharing information is best when it is bi-directional. Information provided at meetings attended by the dean (i.e., the person to whom the LPA reports), but not the LPA, might seem unrelated to the language program from the dean’s perspective. Because the LPA is the most knowledgeable person about the language program and would be better able to determine how potentially valuable or damaging certain pieces of information might be, bi-directional information sharing is critical. Managing up represents a strategy that can be used to remedy this gap as the LPA informs the dean about the importance of regular meetings, which can be focused on connecting information presented in different forums.

Planning and Facilitating Meetings Scenario 3. In preparation for a meeting with language-program teachers and before Marie crafted her agenda, she synthesized the feedback that she had received from the dean and the insights that she had gained on her listening tour, including concerns that were raised by the teachers themselves. She determined that a face-to-face meeting would be useful for the purposes of disseminating information and introducing some proposed changes. Marie opened the meeting with a note of gratitude for the quality and usefulness of the feedback that she had received from everyone on the listening tour. After a few announcements, she transitioned to the main goal of the meeting, which was to introduce programmatic changes that she wanted to make—changes based on what she had learned during her listening tour. Reactions from meeting attendees centered on why the proposed changes would not work. Of the 21 teachers present, three dominated the conversation and appeared to be representing the cadre of teachers in the program. Marie is (continued)

12  Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration

195

perplexed. During the listening tour, several teachers reported that they wanted certain changes, but during the meeting, the message seemed to be that they did not want change at all. Scenario 3 focuses on planning for and running effective and purposeful meetings. In this scenario, the LPA sorts through an abundance of information as a means to identify common views, divergent opinions, and recommendations for program improvement. This information becomes the basis for the meeting’s agenda. Meetings serve several key functions, three of which include a public forum for (a) facilitating program-wide communication and opportunities for all attendees to contribute their views; (b) forming committees and subcommittees; and (c) dedicating focused time to revising, updating, and adding to a pool of common knowledge. Agenda items generally fall into one of four categories (as described by Jay, 2009): • • • •

sharing information and progress reports; gathering information and discussing topics with contributions by attendees; planning the implementation of action items, such as policy development; and defining the boundaries, policies, rules, and procedures surrounding any planned implementations.

Often meeting agenda items are determined by the LPA and distributed ahead of time with a request for additional items or feedback. Responses are then vetted by the LPA who modifies the agenda as needed prior to the meeting. Cloud-sharing technologies have made the collaborative process of agenda building transparent and efficient; even when using such technologies, the LPA can still vet topics prior to the meeting. When agendas are distributed ahead of time, attendees have time to prepare thoughtful responses in a deliberate manner prior to the meeting, thus allowing for a more efficient use of time. Such approaches to meeting agendas are examples of effective program-communication strategies. Items such as meeting modality and technologies are important aspects of this planning process. Table 12.1 summarizes considerations for three meeting modalities: in-person, hybrid, and remote/virtual. The LPA (or a delegate) should arrive early to the meeting to ensure that the technology works, those attending remotely have access, and the agenda is available. The LPA should greet participants as they enter the meeting to make them feel welcome and connected. Starting the meeting punctually signals respect for attendees, which is vital for a productive and healthy workplace. In some meetings, regardless of the format, participants are already acquainted, while in other meetings, attendees may not know one another. A meeting often begins with introductions (if needed), an announcement of roles (e.g., facilitator, notetaker, and co-host), and a statement about the meeting’s purpose. These routines focus everyone on the agenda. Meetings that begin with expressions of gratitude, good news, and celebratory announcements result in more productive and upbeat meetings.

196

C. A. Ernst and J. L. Nelms

Table 12.1  Meeting modality considerationsa Considerations Meeting modality Meeting space

Technology & equipment to be used during meeting

Functionality of equipment & digital tools

Audio options

Modality In-person Hybrid For in-person attendees For in-person & remote attendees Select location (e.g., conference room, classroom, auditorium)

Remote/Virtual For online attendees Consider space within camera range; consider using a digital background

Determine equipment needed (e.g., screen, projector, whiteboard, wall charts)

Select parallel technologies that function equally well for in-person and virtual sessions (e.g., whiteboards, breakout rooms) Decide which meeting-software tools to use (e.g., chat, calendar, screenshare, pointers, recording, breakout rooms, live captions) Select collaborative software tools to augment meeting software (e.g., an online whiteboard) Ensure functionality of Ensure functionality of Ensure functionality of equipment and tools to technology for both technology (e.g., be used (e.g., document in-person and remote waiting room, breakout camera, presentation participants rooms, digital tools) software) for host & participants Prepare to use Test connectivity with one or two attendees microphone(s) in large Provide dial-in options to accommodate meeting spaces connectivity issues

Information drawn from Fraidenburg (2020) and Frisch and Green (2021)

a

The LPA plays various roles during meetings. It makes sense for other relevant personnel (i.e., committee chairs, lead teachers, the program accountant) to present general reports and updates rather than the LPA. For information-gathering agenda items, the LPA needs to refrain from doing all the talking. Rather, LPAs should be prepared to ask leading questions and give attendees time to process questions and plan responses. For discussion and planning agenda items, effective facilitators encourage attendees to share their opinions and allow time for discussion. Discussion represents an important strategy for engaging participants and for giving attendees the opportunity to share their expertise and viewpoints, particularly about consequential topics. Consistently building ways for attendees to provide input sets a tone of openness and the expectation of attendee participation. Well-run meetings, in whatever modality, are most successful when the LPA acts as a facilitator and follows the tips shown in Table 12.2. As a facilitator, the LPA should track individuals who wish to speak and the order in which they express an interest in contributing. Periodically announcing the order is helpful.

12  Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration

197

Table 12.2  Meeting facilitation tipsa Tips Designate co-host Manage speakers

Encourage active participation

Use small groups Document meetings

Modality In-person

Hybrid Remote/Virtual Assign a co-host to monitor participation (e.g., joining, asking questions, adding comments to the chat) from those in remote locations Decide if attendees can Monitor for raised hands, both real and digital speak spontaneously or if they will be called upon Track attendees who wish to contribute; give everyone a chance to participate Incorporate open-­ Select parallel Incorporate breakout ended questions technologies rooms, polling software, and cloud documents to stimulate collaboration Provide note cards for Use strategies to ensure anonymous feedback that remote attendees feel included Form small groups in Ask attendees to join Use virtual breakout the meeting location hybrid groups via digital rooms to create groups devices Assign a notetaker Use recording features Use screen captures

a

Information drawn from Fraidenburg (2020) and Frisch and Green (2021)

Scenario 3 also highlights the influence of a vocal minority—three teachers who steered the discussion so that their ideas appeared to be given more weight. The three teachers confidently represented themselves as spokespersons for the group. In such circumstances, the LPA facilitator must consider whether the vocal minority truly represents the group’s ideas or whether they are serving their own interests. The LPA must also determine how to manage whole-group interactions so that others have a chance to speak. Individuals can be outspoken for many reasons. It may be that the three teachers in Scenario 3 are vocal by nature, or they may feel that they have power and stature in the program and thus feel emboldened to share their opinions publicly and confidently. They may be resistant to change and wish to remain in their comfort zones with the status quo. Some individuals prefer to share their opinions anonymously. A strategy commonly employed by meeting facilitators to encourage the participation of those who prefer anonymity is to distribute index cards that attendees can use to note their own opinions in a confidential manner. In remote/virtual meetings, participants may send private chat messages to the facilitator. These methods provide private-communication options for those uncomfortable sharing publicly.

198

C. A. Ernst and J. L. Nelms

To summarize, when planning and facilitating meetings, LPAs should be mindful of purpose, format, content, and delivery. When properly planned and facilitated, a productive meeting can be the foundation for smooth operations and a safe space where trust and transparency can be nurtured. Meetings that are documented—by notetakers or recordings—result in records of what transpired. Those records can be easily disseminated after meetings and/or consulted in the future.

Making Difficult Decisions Scenario 4. On the listening tour, Marie’s dean expressed concerns about the high operational costs of the language program, which were based on a review of the program’s budget and low enrollments. The dean asserted that significant changes had to be made. Together Marie and the dean brainstorm possible solutions, including changes in language-program operations, student services, and staffing. It is urgent that changes be implemented as soon as possible because the survival of the program depends on it. Marie’s job, ultimately, is to ensure that the program’s mission is fulfilled by engaging in careful and strategic decision-making. Scenario 4 exemplifies a range of difficult decisions that LPAs may need to make. Decisions are typically not made unilaterally, so effective communication is vital. When communicating within a private or proprietary language school, major finance decisions may be top down, for example, with little to no input from language-­program personnel. In other language program settings (e.g., K–12 schools and university-based language programs), instructors may have the authority to design the curriculum as well as align student assessment tools with curricular goals and objectives, with input and guidance from the LPA. Operations and student services are typically overseen by the LPA and other language-program personnel, even though some aspects of program management (e.g., language-program infrastructure and conditions of employment) are often defined by external entities such as unions, faculty senate, or boards of directors. Decision making and communication can be relatively straightforward when operations are running smoothly. However, when disruptions occur, decision making and communication become far more difficult and complex. Responding to change can be tricky for LPAs, so communicating calmly, rationally, and respectfully is essential. Sometimes LPAs are required to implement changes that they oppose, and they are given little time to prepare. Difficult decisions that require, for example, staff reductions or budget cuts sometimes become necessary. Because these decisions can have serious ramifications, effective communication is essential. When resolving these challenges, the integrity of the program must be maintained; ultimately, the students expect to receive the program that was advertised.

12  Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration

199

Reducing staff is the nadir of an LPA’s experience as a leader. When going down this path, it is critical that LPAs openly communicate the severity of the financial situation with their entire team and begin notifying personnel of layoffs early. Before eliminating any language-program positions, LPAs should develop contingency plans for operating with fewer individuals by objectively identifying which individuals are critical to program operations, evaluating operational roles, determining where redundancy lies, and considering how positions can be logically combined. Reducing staff causes a great deal of stress for everyone—for the LPA who has to make difficult decisions and take relevant actions, for those losing their familiar and secure positions, and for remaining employees who often experience survivor’s guilt or wonder about the viability of the program. Especially during painful times like these, communication strategies should focus on acknowledging the discomfort felt by everyone, including the LPA, and creating safe spaces for self-care. Focusing on self-care is critical for LPAs so that they can govern their programs with confidence. Decision making that involves more positive changes (e.g., a new elective course requested by students) can also be challenging for LPAs because of the need to (re) allocate resources. Even simple and rewarding language-program changes can equate to increased duties for language-program personnel and must be considered carefully when exploring new opportunities. LPAs may feel the need to immediately acknowledge contributions and concerns, even if an immediate solution or appropriate response is not ready. Pausing to thoughtfully consider an appropriate response is a reliable strategy. Effective communication strategies allow LPAs to communicate change openly, develop contingency plans, review roles and responsibilities, create safe spaces for self-care, and engage relevant parties in decision-­making efforts. (See Chap. 9 for more on decision making and crisis management.)

Maintaining Connections with Students Scenario 5. Marie’s first few months have been full of meetings—in her office, across campus, and virtually. The program’s mission is to serve students, yet she finds limited time to engage directly with them. She has always made time for student events, such as beginning-of-term welcomes and end-of-term congratulations. The only other times that she has interacted with students were in formal encounters, such as when students had problems, were not making adequate progress in the program, or were violating language-program policies. Indirectly, she has learned that students in the language program view her solely as an enforcer of language-program policies. This was not the role that she envisioned for herself and not the kind of LPA that she wanted to be. This realization underscored her need to prioritize interactions with students throughout her day.

200

C. A. Ernst and J. L. Nelms

Scenario 5 highlights the need for LPAs to prioritize their communication and engagement with students. Managing a heavy workload and juggling competing priorities often cause LPAs to miss informal yet impactful opportunities to connect with students. Effective LPAs realize that the longer they are disconnected from students, the greater the risk is that their perspectives on students’ experiences become more detached, unrealistic, and abstract. LPAs who regularly connect with students have the opportunity to interact with the full range of enrolled students: from highly engaged and productive students to those students who are not meeting their academic goals. Making connections with students begins with deliberate LPA–student interactions. LPAs who are not in regular contact with students depend on secondhand reports. Teachers and advisors enjoy sharing highlights from their own engagement with students and thus become the conduit between students and LPAs by conveying stories, successes, and failures. It is not uncommon for advisors and teachers to forward complaints and concerns about student behaviors to the LPA for arbitration. If LPAs only interact with problematic students, their perspectives become misaligned. Ultimately, students are at the core of a language program; therefore, LPAs need to prioritize interactions with students to gain a full appreciation of the wide range of student experiences and expectations. Spending time in the student common area to engage informally with students, stepping into faculty offices to ask about student progress, and allocating time on meeting agendas to celebrate student successes build connections between LPAs and students. It behooves LPAs to remember that satisfied students become the most reliable program ambassadors and unofficial recruiters. Furthermore, it is important for LPAs to recognize that most students want to get to know language-program leadership. LPAs who have no opportunities to engage regularly with students risk being viewed only as enforcers of language-program policies. In fact, students from some cultures view engagement with the LPA as an honor and appreciate the time that the LPA dedicates to student interactions. Another positive outcome of connecting with students is gaining the perspectives necessary to balance student needs with operational needs (e.g., class schedules, immigration requirements). Operational protocols may not always align comfortably with student expectations, yet policies and procedures should be developed to provide the best educational experiences for students. To ensure that students’ needs are at the heart of program decision making, LPAs should include students in focus groups, which can generate ideas and/or reveal concerns about how major decisions have impacted students’ experiences. Achieving a balance between student and operational needs can be a challenge, particularly when issues between students and teachers or other language-program personnel arise. LPAs must advocate fairly, not based solely on their own biases (see Chap. 9 for more on biases). LPAs inherently want to support language-program personnel, making it difficult to adjudicate problematic situations with neutrality. Both teachers and students need to be heard, thereby allowing both parties to recognize the LPA’s commitment to equitable resolutions.

12  Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration

201

 etting Up Processes for Effective Communication S During Program Reviews Scenario 6. Over the past few months, Marie has periodically discovered inaccurate information in the student handbook. She wished that she had more time for the maintenance and oversight of the many different aspects of the program. At a meeting one afternoon with two LPA colleagues from another institution, her colleagues shared insights about their program’s self-study for language-program accreditation. Marie had heard of specialized accreditation, which intrigued her, so she inquired further. She learned that her colleagues’ accreditation team had spent a significant amount of time aligning the details and intricacies of their programs to meet the standards for language-­ program best practices. Marie is interested in applying for program accreditation, but the application process sounds daunting, and right now she does not have sufficient staff to accomplish this task. However, she began reviewing accreditation standards to decide if her program might pursue accreditation. One standard emphasized the need for a written plan that outlined dedicated time for a comprehensive analysis of (a) faculty and staff performance, (b) program curricula and assessment, (c) finances, (d) student services, (e) marketing and recruitment, and (f) operations. When she communicated again with her colleagues, Marie learned about the benefits of dedicating time to systematic and thorough program review.

Scenario 6 showcases the value of dedicating time for a systematic program review. Program reviews cannot be accomplished in an ad hoc manner. The LPA is responsible for setting up processes that promote effective communication during the program review. The processes include developing planning documents that outline a regular review schedule of core programmatic areas; conducting regular reviews of mission statements, the curriculum, assessments and assessment practices, and student services; and reviewing materials used for marketing. These processes represent not only important tools for ensuring a quality program (see Chap. 7 for more on promoting quality) but they also lay the foundation for effective communication during the review process. To ensure effective communication, LPAs must appoint committees of instructors and non-instructional personnel who have specific areas of expertise. For example, those who manage language-program finances should serve on a budget-review committee and an instructor with expertise in educational measurement should serve on a committee to review the accuracy of assessment measures. LPAs are

202

C. A. Ernst and J. L. Nelms

responsible for clearly communicating the specific charges to each review committee—gathering information, determining desired outcomes, setting timelines, identifying individuals to oversee and document achieved outcomes, and deciding how success will be measured. The LPA provides general oversight by monitoring progress and supporting committees as necessary with time and resources. These processes ensure that effective communication takes place. LPAs are also responsible for making certain that there are opportunities for review committees to communicate their progress to all program personnel. A written program-review report is the document that communicates the outcome of the review, and it becomes the foundation of a dynamic plan that guides the program. A blueprint for modifications and the evaluation of success are best co-­ created by language-program personnel in consultation with partner units, professional contacts, peers in other language programs, and students. As a result of including different perspectives from internal and external stakeholders throughout the review process, new relationships are built and existing relationships are expanded.

Communicating during Annual Performance Reviews Scenario 7. Marie’s dean asked her to reflect on the past year as part of her annual performance review (i.e., an evaluation of her performance as LPA). Marie knows that she has learned so much. She recalls her wins and a few ego-bruising losses. The language program has been gradually moving forward, and the students are progressing. The performance review consisted of feedback from the dean and language-­ program personnel, in addition to a self-reflection. The self-reflection showcased Marie’s accomplishments, highlighted the challenges that she faced, and listed her goals for the upcoming year. As she reflected on her time as LPA, Marie recognized several accomplishments: she gained a broad skill set, learned to be flexible and adaptable, and fostered an environment of transparency and trust. The feedback that she received was constructive: generally positive and complimentary, with several requests for improved clarity in communication and increased accessibility. Marie used her review to set goals for the language program and herself. Programmatically, she explored the possibility of accreditation, but the decision to move forward or not would need more time. For personal growth, she attended a webinar on project management to acquire skills useful for (continued)

12  Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration

203

overseeing accreditation and other projects. She will continue to promote transparency and truthful communication. Overall, she is proud of all she has accomplished and is eager to start her second year with her goals reaffirmed and in place. Scenario 7 highlights the value of an annual performance review as a useful tool for communication between the LPA and her dean and between the LPA and language-­program personnel. The feedback that the LPA received assisted her in engaging in reflective practice, as a means to self-improvement. Performance reviews allow for candid and constructive feedback, and effective LPAs are receptive to this type of communication because it is the LPA who decides how to use the feedback provided (i.e., to continue with certain practices/behaviors or not). During the annual performance-review process, LPAs receive highly personal and contextualized feedback, requiring reflection and consideration. To promote effective communication within the language program and in the interests of transparency, LPAs may choose to share the feedback received with language-program personnel, thereby demonstrating an openness and a commitment to transparency in communication that benefits the LPA and the language program. The explicit acknowledgement of feedback received also doubles as an expression of appreciation for the time, thought, and honesty that individuals put into the LPA’s evaluation.

Conclusion No chapter on communication strategies in the context of language-program administration would be complete without addressing the relationship between trust and the inherent diversity found in language programs. While the focus on diversity traditionally centers on language-student populations, it is important to recognize that language-program personnel also embrace a myriad of identities. To this end, LPAs should be cognizant of their own preconceived notions about groups of people: family composition, ethnicity, nationality, sex, religion, and how this diversity affects the ways in which they communicate. It is necessary to be aware of the dangers of perpetuating stereotypes about employees and students because both populations deserve and expect fair and equitable treatment. When LPAs model an appreciation for diversity and inclusion in their communication with others, they cultivate a culture of desired behaviors and an expectation for positive interactions and trust. The seven scenarios presented in this chapter highlight different ways in which LPAs communicate in language-program contexts. LPAs are viewed as successful in their role as communicators when they use effective strategies for communication, remain calm and thoughtful when making difficult decisions, engage with language-program students, dedicate themselves to program reviews, and are appreciative of the feedback that they receive from the annual-review process. Practicing

204

C. A. Ernst and J. L. Nelms

and experienced LPAs will likely recognize elements of the scenarios featured in this chapter, as well as the strategies for effective communication that are discussed. Aspiring LPAs, on the other hand, may recognize some of the key elements of leadership in these scenarios. Hopefully, both new and aspiring LPAs will gain an appreciation for the scope, breadth, and depth of effective communication within a language program.

Reflecting on Communication Strategies 1. Reflect on your own talents and experiences. Identify one communication strategy covered in this chapter that you believe you need to develop further for effective language-program administration. Explain why you believe you need further development in that communication strategy and locate two continuing professional development opportunities that would allow you to build your skills relative to the strategy. 2. Identify three steps that an LPA can take to ensure that effective communication becomes the hallmark of participation in a language-program review and/or meeting.

Suggested Readings Rossner, R. (2017). Language course management. Oxford University Press. A practical book (part of a larger Language Education Management series) with specific tools for managing aspects of a language program mentioned in this chapter. With an emphasis on quality throughout, topics include instructional support, professional development, personnel evaluation, feedback, and institutional management. Spritzer, G., & Cameron, K. (Eds.). (2013). Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0042. A multi-disciplinary handbook, with authors from numerous countries, that synthesizes knowledge from positive organizational scholarship. Areas such as self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency are explored.

References Fraidenburg, M. (2020). Mastering online meetings. CCPress. Frisch, B., & Green, C. (2021, June 3). What it takes to run a great hybrid meeting. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/06/what-­it-­takes-­to-­run-­a-­great-­hybrid-­meeting Gabarro, J., & Kotter, J. (2005). Managing your boss. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 92–99. Hurt, K., & Dye, D. (2020). Courageous cultures: How to build teams of microinnovators, problem solvers, and customer advocates. Harper Collins. Jay, A. (2009). How to run a meeting. Harvard Business Press.

12  Communication Strategies for Effective Language-Program Administration

205

Little, B. J. (2007). What are we learning? Who are we serving? Publicly funded historical archeological and public scholarship. Historical Archeology, 41(2), 72–79. Reza, K., Manasreh, M., King, M., & Eslami, Z. (2021). Context specific leadership in English language program administration: What can we learn from the autoethnographies of leaders? International Journal of Leadership in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312 4.2021.1944672 Cheryl A. Ernst is the Executive Director of the American English Institute at the University of Oregon, with over 25  years in the field. She has held leadership roles in the consortium for University and College Intensive English Programs (UCIEP), TESOL International Association, and Study Oregon. Cheryl has served as a university senator and participated in several leadershiptraining workshops.  

Jodi L.  Nelms is Director of the English language program at the University of Houston. A 30-year international educator, Jodi has held leadership roles in professional organizations such as the Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA), Study Texas, TESOL International Association, and University and College Intensive English Programs (UCIEP).  

Chapter 13

Personnel Matters: Revisited Hannaliisa Savolainen, Joann M. Geddes, and Doris R. Marks

Abstract  Human-resource management (HRM) represents one of a language-­ program administrator’s primary daily responsibilities. Creating and maintaining a professional work environment for effective and engaged teams requires systematic steps on the part of the language-program administrator (LPA). While collaborative efforts are crucial for creating such workplaces, ultimately the LPA is responsible for staffing issues—from job analysis and description through the staffing process. The staffing process entails recruitment and screening, interviewing and hiring, supervision, evaluation (for the purposes of retention, promotion, remediation, or dismissal), and documentation. Health and wellness initiatives, including sustained professional-development activities for language-program personnel, are key to creating and maintaining positive and engaging work environments. Although these aspects of HRM are presented as distinct topics in the chapter, most personnel functions are interrelated and interdependent and may occur simultaneously. Establishing and following sound practices in human-resource management provides programs with a strategic advantage.

H. Savolainen (*) Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. M. Geddes Lewis & Clark College, Portland, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. R. Marks Beaverton School District, Beaverton, OR, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_13

207

208

H. Savolainen et al.

Keywords  Human-resource management · Interviewing and hiring · Language-­ program administration · Language-program personnel · Supervision · Wellness

We must acknowledge the great contributions of faculty and staff and the importance we place on them not only as our employees, but as colleagues who are balancing personal priorities and challenges that go far beyond their work responsibilities. (Adapted from Brantley & Shomaker, 2021)

Effective leadership and management of human resources are central to language-­ program success. By dedicating time and effort to researching, creating, and implementing sound human-resource policies and procedures, language-program administrators (LPAs) greatly increase a program’s ability to not only attract and retain quality core language-program personnel, but also make the program an attractive option for part-time employment. These employees, in turn, provide the instructional and support services that fulfill a program’s mission. This chapter, building upon Geddes and Marks (2012/2017), explores human-resource management (HRM) from three perspectives: (a) staffing, (b) supervision and evaluation, and (c) health and wellness. The staffing section presents steps for job analysis and description, recruitment and screening, and hiring. The supervision and evaluation section describes the basic components of supervisory and evaluative processes. The final section on health and wellness focuses on factors that affect employee performance, well-being, satisfaction, and retention. Checklists, provided throughout the chapter, are intended to assist the reader in reviewing chapter content and serve as guides for LPAs as they plan and engage in human-resource management.

Staffing Ultimately, the success of any language program is determined by the skills and commitment of its administrative, instructional, and support staff. One of an LPA’s most important tasks is, therefore, to ensure that policies and procedures for hiring dedicated and qualified personnel are in place. Changes in language-program personnel, both short- and long-term, can occur for a variety of reasons. Some changes in personnel are internally motivated and initiated to support professional and program growth. Experienced employees may assume (or be reassigned) new responsibilities (e.g., curriculum revision, accreditation duties, or innovative projects). Additionally, sabbaticals and professional leaves of absence may be granted, and in-house or institutional promotions may take place. Such vertical and horizontal movements within the program and/or institution often provide incentives that result in renewed commitments and dedication to the program and profession. Other changes in personnel can be tied to the economic well-being of the program. When administrators find their programs in a growth cycle, additional hiring may occur. Such hiring can prove challenging when short-term hires are needed

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

209

in locales where qualified part-time employees are not readily available. Conversely, when a program experiences an economic downturn, financial constraints and budgetary concerns seriously affect personnel retention. A reduction in language-­ program staff is often due to declines in enrollments or mandated budget cuts, which oblige the LPA to innovate and be creative when distributing assignments, while still ensuring that student needs are met. In the sections that follow, administrative practices and procedural recommendations related to job analyses, recruitment and screening, interviewing, and hiring are presented.

Job Analysis and Job Description Language-program staffing considerations must begin with a clear understanding of how each position contributes to the program as a whole. A staffing plan should recognize that both educational and business best practices must be balanced to produce optimal results for all stakeholders (Walker, 2010). LPAs benefit from being familiar with the duties and responsibilities of all positions. Together with faculty and support staff, LPAs should periodically conduct job analyses and review job descriptions. Throughout this process, it is important for LPAs to think creatively about how positions are best filled. For example, joint appointments with another department or positions with duties split between administration and teaching might provide ways to meet programmatic needs. A job analysis should not result in a list of ideal behaviors or expectations; rather, it should realistically describe what can and should be expected from a person in a particular position (i.e., reporting relationships; duties and responsibilities; required knowledge, skills, and abilities; degrees, specialized training, and educational background). Programs should have an established policy on the required English proficiency for all positions (given that nonnative speakers work in language programs worldwide) as well as procedures for language-proficiency assessment. Those responsible for job analyses should begin by (a) reviewing the program’s mission, (b) outlining program needs, and (c) comparing positions and job descriptions with those in similar programs. One particularly effective job-analysis strategy involves identifying and prioritizing job-specific tasks, and then linking them to the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for successful performance in specific positions (Gatewood et al., 2018; White et al., 2008). Program or institutional guidelines often dictate the format and language of job descriptions. LPAs should not take full responsibility for writing or revising job descriptions after job analyses. Rather, collaboration with other language-program personnel during job analyses and the subsequent development or revision of job descriptions (re)introduces employees to language-program goals. At the same time, collaborative efforts give everyone involved the opportunity to provide direct input into staffing processes. (Figure 13.1 summarizes procedures for job analyses and job descriptions.)

210

H. Savolainen et al.

__ Decide who will participate in job analyses and job-description reviews. __ Review program mission and goals as well as broader institutional mission and vision. __ Identify program needs. __ Determine how each position fulfils program mission, goals, and needs. __ Interview/survey employees currently in target positions to identify key duties and responsibilities. __ Interview/survey other employees who (will) interact with individuals in target positions. __ Collect and review parallel job descriptions from other language programs. __ List duties performed, responsibilities required, and the level of English needed for target positions, focusing on realistic rather than idealistic expectations. __ Outline reporting relationships; required knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, degrees, specialized training, and educational background for target positions. __ Collaborate with other language-program personnel to identify and prioritize job-specific tasks; then link tasks to the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for successful performance. __ Write or revise job descriptions, following program and/or institutional guidelines for the formatting and language of the job description. Fig. 13.1  Checklist with recommended steps for job analyses and job descriptions. (Adapted from Geddes & Marks, 2012/2017)

Recruitment and Screening Recruitment is often viewed as a process that takes place only when positions need to be filled. Ongoing recruitment efforts, however, reflect a commitment to quality staffing. Proactive recruitment practices can help LPAs meet a program’s often unpredictable staffing needs. For example, LPAs can develop relationships with teacher-training institutions, network with colleagues at other institutions, and actively support and participate in professional organizations as a means to attract qualified applicants. Prospective employees often contact language programs to inquire about job opportunities and/or to introduce themselves; LPAs should screen all inquiries and interview promising applicants periodically throughout the year. Maintaining active files that include information about prospective employees for short-term as well as long-term teaching assignments and support services can help LPAs meet changing staffing needs efficiently. Selectively granting informational interviews is another beneficial, though indirect, recruitment practice. Individuals requesting such interviews may be seeking general job-search advice, or they may be interested in a particular program position. Although these interviews are generally viewed as beneficial to the people who seek them, establishing positive public relations in addition to meeting and

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

211

establishing a pool of potential candidates through such interviews can ultimately benefit the language program as well. When a position opens, a recruitment plan that attracts the largest pool of qualified candidates must be developed. When publicizing a position, it is important to consider what to include in the job announcement, when and where to advertise, and whom to involve in the process. The basic qualifications for those involved in recruiting and screening candidates should include (a) a fundamental understanding of program goals and specific job requirements, (b) the ability to objectively analyze and assess the background and potential contributions of all candidates, and (c) an awareness of institutional and program guidelines regarding relevant equal-­ opportunity considerations (Gatewood et al., 2018). At some institutions, human-­ resource specialists from outside the language program conduct initial applicant screenings. In such settings, it is important for LPAs to be in close communication with human-resource specialists to ensure that they understand the language program and its goals. The screening process often includes a Google search and check of candidates’ public social-media posts. While these searches might not provide information that is particularly pertinent to the position being sought, the more data the hiring committee has before making a hiring decision, the better (Clement, 2015). When hiring for part-time positions and short-term programs, it may be more efficient for LPAs to assume most responsibilities. However, when long-term positions open, a search committee should become involved in the hiring process to ensure a broad and inclusive search. When the committee is composed of representatives from all or most language-program domains (i.e., administration, office management, support services, instruction, and assessment), it is more likely that all relevant needs and concerns will be considered. Committee members might also be appointed from other departments or programs within the institution. Such collaboration can facilitate greater language-program integration into the institution and promote a deeper understanding of the role of the language program among institutional colleagues. Effective recruitment and preliminary screening should result in a strong pool of applicants from which to make selections. After considering all expectations and eliminating less-qualified individuals, it is advisable to narrow down the candidate pool to three to five finalists. Ideally, each candidate possesses the knowledge, skills, and abilities outlined in the job description, as well as other attributes that reveal their potential for positive contributions to the language program. (Figure 13.2 itemizes recruitment and screening procedures.)

Interviewing The selection interview is typically one of the concluding steps taken in differentiating among finalists. During this stage, committee members seek to confirm preliminary impressions and further assess candidates’ interpersonal, analytical, and communication skills as well as intangibles like drive, motivation, and willingness

212

H. Savolainen et al.

__ Review existing recruitment policies; consider legal and financial constraints as well as mandates. __ Develop and implement ongoing and proactive recruitment strategies. __ Identify and prioritize specific program needs. __ Review existing job descriptions and revise if necessary. __ Determine whether to hire internally or to advertise locally, regionally, nationally, and/or internationally. __ Agree upon a timeline for recruiting and screening; decide when and where to advertise and whom to involve in the process. __ Write a job announcement based on an updated job description; require all applicants to submit the same materials. __ Advertise broadly to attract the largest possible pool of qualified candidates. __ Agree upon and outline screening criteria and a rating system for initial selection. __ Utilize trained and knowledgeable program representatives for preliminary screening. __ Do not penalize candidates for failing to submit optional or unsolicited materials. __ Eliminate unqualified candidates from the pool. __ Develop a short list of 3–5 candidates for interviews.

Fig. 13.2  Checklist with recommended steps for recruitment and screening. (Adapted from Geddes & Marks, 2012/2017)

to learn. At the same time, interviewees can solicit more specific information about the position and work environment. The LPA usually assumes responsibility for establishing and implementing a fair, objective, and legal interview process. Careful preparation, with search committee members, is a prerequisite to the interview stage of the process. To develop comprehensive and uniform procedures, the job description should be reviewed, interview strategies established, and a core set of questions developed. Many host institutions offer various types of training for hiring committees, including unconscious bias training. (See Chap. 9 for more on biases.) All interviewers should be made aware of inappropriate topics and questions, which remain the same for both formal interviews and more informal social interactions with candidates. To ensure equity and an equitable comparison of candidates, the interview experience for each candidate should be consistent; the same interviewers should be present at each interview. Geddes and Marks (2012/2017) introduce basic interview formats and provide sample questions for traditional unstructured, situational, experience description, and behavior description interviews (as shown in Fig. 13.3). During initial planning, individual interviewers may have different interview-­ format preferences. LPAs should present interviewers with viable options and encourage collaborative planning and decision making. A well-informed choice of

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

213

Interview Formats

Sample Interview Questions

Traditional Unstructured Interview:



Discuss the teacher’s role in second-language classrooms.

Candidates are asked hypothetical and



Do you believe that computer-assisted language learning is a valuable and necessary

factual questions related to individual beliefs, insights, opinions, and

component of an instructional program? 

As office manager, what innovations could you bring to our language program?



If you joined a program whose faculty had agreed to use an instructional approach

perspectives. Situational Interview: Candidates are asked questions that are tied closely to the requirements of the position.

that was new to you, what would you do? 

If you were asked to develop a language course based on a popular computer program, what steps would you take?



As office manager, if you were asked to develop new data-collection procedures, how would you proceed?

Experience Description Interview:



Describe how theories of second-language learning are reflected in your teaching.

Candidates are asked to describe actual



Describe the role of computer-assisted language learning in your teaching.

experiences by reflecting on past



Describe an experience that you have had developing and managing a data-collection

responsibilities and practices.

process.

Candidates without related experiences are asked to imagine that they have worked in the field or describe a parallel situation. Patterned Behavior Description



Interview (an extension of Experience

in your language classroom. What did you do? How and why did you choose to use

Description Interview): Candidates are asked to go beyond surface descriptions

Describe a typical lesson where you tied second-language learning theory to practice

specific methods and techniques? 

and provide details about past

Describe how you have integrated innovative computer -assisted learning techniques into your teaching. If you have not yet done so in a classroom setting, how have

experiences.

you incorporated computers into other aspects of your own work? 

Describe any data-collection procedures that you have developed and tell us about the steps that you took to develop them. If you have never done this, how would you proceed?

Fig. 13.3  Basic interview formats and sample questions. (Adapted from Geddes & Marks, 2012/2017)

format, or combination of formats, enables interviewers to collect as much relevant information as possible about each candidate in as consistent a manner as possible. During the interviews, interviewers should note questions inadequately answered; weak responses may indicate lack of experience, poor listening skills, or inattention to detail. Another item to note relates to how candidates communicate lack of experience in a given area. For example, if candidates are asked about curriculum development for business English, but have no experience in the area, do they state so bluntly, or are they able to connect their answer to other curriculum-development experiences? When language programs are hiring individuals to work remotely, an accounting of candidates’ skills, knowledge, and experience is likely not enough to distinguish worker attributes required to succeed in a fully remote position. Thus, interview questions should be adjusted to address prior remote work experience, if any, as well as to elicit information on candidates’ preferred ways of communicating and receiving feedback remotely (Falcone, 2018).

214

H. Savolainen et al.

When time and resources allow, it is strongly recommended that site visits (in person or virtual) be arranged for finalists. For instructional positions, finalists should be asked to teach a demonstration lesson as part of the site visit. Language-­ program students may be recruited to participate in the demo lesson and provide input on the candidates. Of course, teaching-demo formats will vary depending on whether the teaching takes place remotely or in-person. It is useful to allot time after the teaching demo to ask candidates to discuss their lessons, including possible ways to adapt a given lesson from one modality to another. Asking all candidates to teach and discuss lessons under the same conditions facilitates objective comparisons. Even during a short demonstration lesson, search committee members can focus on an applicant’s confidence, energy, patience, communication skills, language use, flexibility, and accommodations for different types of students (Clement, 2015). Demonstration lessons provide important insights not otherwise attained. Poorly planned or executed lessons may indicate insufficient training, less than enthusiastic interest, weak organizational skills, or poor time management, both in and out of class. At the same time, candidates’ resiliency and adaptability can be seen as candidates adjust their teaching to the situation at hand. Site visits (in-­person or remote) that require both an interview and classroom teaching provide comprehensive information upon which to base selection decisions. Hiring language-program support staff requires equal care and consideration. The selection process for support staff should also include an in-person or remote site visit with an interview and a task requiring the candidate to demonstrate skills frequently needed in the position. For example, a multi-step task that entails providing candidates with de-identified data in an Excel worksheet and asking candidates to (a) manipulate the data, (b) generate a report, and (c) compose emails to various stakeholders (e.g., language-program students, the program director, a higher-level administrator, or government officials) can provide valuable insights into a candidate’s skills and communication styles. If site visits occur, program representatives can introduce the program, institution, and community to candidates. Including visits to standard classrooms, computer labs, offices, institutional facilities (e.g., the library), and a class in session contributes to an overall view of the program. A tour of the local area is typically appreciated by out-of-town candidates. The desire to highlight only positive language-­program attributes might exist, but program representatives should give an honest, objective, and comprehensive overview, which will assist in preventing false expectations from forming. Importantly, interviewers and finalists alike must attempt to determine if a good match exists between the candidate and the program. Upon completion of each site visit, the search committee should solicit feedback (anonymous or not) from those individuals (e.g., language-program instructors, students, office staff, and individuals outside the program) who have met with the candidates. The feedback received (by means of electronic or paper surveys) should be considered during final hiring deliberations and mentioned, if appropriate, when making hiring recommendations. Throughout all interview processes, interviewers should make every effort to maintain consistency and follow legal guidelines. All applicants should be asked to fulfill the same requirements. When accurate and detailed notes are kept and all documentation (from interviews, stakeholder feedback, and teaching

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

215

__ Decide who will conduct interviews and be involved in site visits, if the latter are planned. __ Set a timeline for the interview process. __ Review the job description, job ad, and information obtained from job analysis. __ Review all institutional (and governmental) regulations related to the interview process. __ Determine if it is necessary or advantageous to involve or consult with the institutional Human Resources Office. __ Choose the interview format, or combination of formats, most appropriate to the target position and agree upon specific questions. __ Agree upon how to document and evaluate responses. __ Outline a strategy and sequence for asking questions. __ Treat all interviewees equitably. Allot the same amount of time for each interview; provide each applicant with the same background information; ask all applicants the same questions; encourage all candidates to do most of the talking. __ Keep accurate and detailed notes and documentation for each interview. __ If site visits (virtual or face-to-face) take place, treat all visits the same. For teaching positions, plan for a demonstration lesson and follow-up discussion; for staff positions, plan for multi-step tasks that mirror position-specific skills. __ Solicit feedback from everyone who had contact with interviewees. __ Review notes, feedback, and other documentation with the goal of reaching consensus about final hiring recommendations.

Fig. 13.4  Checklist with recommended steps for interviewing. (Adapted from Geddes & Marks, 2012/2017)

demonstrations or task performance) is carefully reviewed, fair comparisons and objective recommendations can be made. Because search-committee hiring recommendations are sometimes overturned, deliberations, with full documentation on hand, must continue. (Fig. 13.4 outlines interviewing procedures.)

Hiring The hiring process is sometimes conducted by the language program and sometimes by the institutional Human Resources (HR) Office. Essential to the process are reference checks and employment offers. If the process takes place outside the language program, it is important that the LPA remain in close contact with HR representatives. Following the selection of one candidate or several finalists, thorough reference checks should always be conducted. No offer of employment should be made before prior work experiences have been verified and as much information as possible from past supervisors and colleagues has been obtained. It is important to ask all references the same general job-related questions and then probe for details. Past and present

216

H. Savolainen et al.

employers may be willing to reveal poor work performance or offer positive recommendations that confirm a good match between the candidate and the position. When references support the search committee’s recommendation, the candidate of choice should be offered the position as soon as possible. Detailed contractual information, as well as hiring deadlines, should be reviewed with the individual selected. Other finalists should not be contacted until this individual has formally accepted the position and agreed upon a starting date. If no strong or suitable candidate is identified, the LPA or search committee should declare a failed search. Under such circumstances, it is advisable to fill the position with a short-term employee or temporarily reassign duties rather than hire someone who cannot satisfactorily fulfill position responsibilities. Initial onboarding and introductory orientation sessions should be scheduled to maximize the possibility of successful entry into the program. Orientation sessions should familiarize the new employee with not only the program but also the larger institution. When a new employee is provided extensive background information and practical training, the return on the investment made during the recruitment and hiring period is likely to be greater. (Figure 13.5 summarizes hiring procedures.) __ Review all legal and institutional constraints. __ Determine if hiring is conducted solely by the language program, solely by an institutional Human Resource office, or jointly by the language program and Human Resources. (Note: Checklist items immediately below may differ depending on which entity is overseeing hiring.) __ Conduct thorough reference checks for finalists using a standardized questionnaire; verify past employment and solicit as much information as possible from past supervisors and/or colleagues. ___ Implement practices that ensure the security and confidentiality of reference-check communications if using email to confirm former employment. ___ Summarize information received from each reference-check source and include it in each candidate’s file. ___ If reference checks confirm the selection committee’s first choice, make an offer of employment. ___ If the offer is accepted, notify other candidates. ___ If reference checks raise doubts, reconsider ratings of other candidates. Consider the possibility of an alternate candidate or declare a failed search. ___ Schedule onboarding and introductory orientation sessions for new hire; provide the new hire with (a) extensive background information about the program and larger institution and (b) practical training.

Fig. 13.5  Checklist with recommended steps for hiring. (Adapted from Geddes & Marks, 2012/2017)

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

217

Supervisory Responsibilities and Evaluation Systematic supervision and evaluation activities normally provide the framework through which recommendations for recognition, remediation, staff development, and personnel changes are addressed. Supervision, evaluation, and documentation are closely connected and comprise a range of activities that (a) help LPAs gather important program-related data and (b) establish channels of two-way communication between supervisors and employees. In the supervision realm, supervisors and supervisees can be considered partners who work together to fulfill the program mission. Both parties should understand their roles, goals, and responsibilities. Evaluation is a joint process during which the supervisor and supervisees review job performance using job descriptions as criteria (Sever, 2016). Documentation—including classroom observation notes, student evaluations, meeting notes, and emails from colleagues or individuals outside the language program who praise an employee—provides evidence to support the evaluation. Supervisory responsibilities are often assumed and/or shared by different language-­program employees (e.g., the LPA, office managers, curriculum specialists, master teachers); thus, clear supervisory expectations and guidelines must be established and understood program-wide. After supervisors are designated, identifying who will be supervised is a critical first step. Next, supervisors and supervisees need to become familiar with supervisory and evaluation practices and procedures for particular employee categories. If language-program personnel are not working in one physical location, a plan for remote supervision may be needed. Employees working remotely must have a clear understanding of the policies and procedures involved. In all cases, supervisors must aim for clarity, transparency, and consistent communication (Falcone, 2018).

Supervisory Responsibilities Language-program personnel with supervisory responsibilities must understand program goals, be fully aware of employees’ differing roles and responsibilities, and be familiar with supervisees’ attributes (e.g., work-style preferences, as individuals and in groups; work-time preferences, that is, when they do their best work; the types of students they enjoy working with). LPAs must allot adequate time and resources for supervisory duties as well as for the training necessary to provide supervisors with the managerial, technical, and interpersonal skills needed to fulfill their duties. Often skilled classroom teachers are assigned supervisory roles without having had any supervisory training or experience; being coached by more experienced peers or mentors can serve as an effective way to familiarize newcomers to supervision with common occurrences faced by supervisors (referred to as

218

H. Savolainen et al.

“situational coaching” by Kiel, 2017). Further complicating matters for teachers who take on supervisory responsibilities is the peer-to-supervisor transition that they must make. Participating in peer-to-supervisor training may ease the transition. Utilizing training offered by the institution is often an economical way for language-program personnel to learn supervisory principles and institutional practices. Networking in professional organizations offers more context-specific resources and guidance. Effective supervision is a cornerstone upon which a strong program is built and maintained. Several supervisory models, based on distinct philosophical assumptions and management styles, exist (e.g., Glickman et al., 2018; Northouse, 2019). Determining the best approach depends on the individuals being supervised. Skill level, experience, personality traits, and preferred work style all affect supervisor– employee interactions. Successful supervision requires that supervisors determine how their supervisees work both as part of a team and individually (Sever, 2016). A key factor in successful human-resource management is open and honest communication with both highly effective and marginally effective personnel. Ongoing dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect assists the supervisor in motivating employees and intervening early when performance issues are a concern. Supervisors who regularly provide specific and timely feedback and who consistently recognize achievement do much to encourage still greater efforts and stronger commitments. After each supervisor–supervisee meeting, supervisors should make “notes-to-self.” These notes need not be formal, but they help document patterns of behavior and attitudes. Supervisors who are genuinely interested in each supervisee, as well as their contributions to the team, should let their supervisees know that their input and efforts are valued. In public forums (e.g., weekly meetings, print or electronic departmental newsletters), supervisors can (a) acknowledge individuals’ contributions to the greater goals of the program and institution and (b) encourage and/or commend collaboration among team members to strengthen commitment and engagement. Occasionally a gap exists or develops between the actual and expected performances of an employee. Underperforming employees can impact staff and student morale as well as the ability of the program to provide acceptable services. Thus, early intervention on the part of the supervisor is essential to the long-term effectiveness of the employee and the program. Gaps in performance might become noticeable when programs modify the way(s) in which they operate (e.g., with a switch to working remotely). In such circumstances, some employees, including previously strong performers, might struggle with the change(s). To assist such employees, supervisors need to be flexible and supportive (Gallagher, 2020). At all times, employees need to be able to depend on supervisors to inform them if their performance does not meet expectations. Addressing the behavior of concern in a timely, objective way gives the employee a chance to correct it; not addressing it removes the opportunity for personal growth.

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

219

When resolving substandard performance, supervisors should identify the cause and seriousness of the problem before a course of action is determined. With new employees or revised operational procedures, employees may lack the skills and/or knowledge to fulfil their duties satisfactorily. In these instances, training may resolve the issue(s). Lack of resources or other factors external to the program can also contribute to substandard performance. If it is not possible to remedy the problem, the LPA may need to consider revising performance expectations or assigning new duties (e.g., a different language skill or lower-proficiency students to teach). There are instances, however, when the employee knows how to meet responsibilities but does not. The supervisor must again communicate performance expectations in a direct, timely way, and if needed, prioritize duties to ensure that those crucial for the program are not neglected. Having a conversation that addresses substandard performance is of the utmost importance, even though it may be a difficult conversation to have. Mapping out one’s concerns (and possible remedies) and then rehearsing a possible conversation (with a mentor) can build the LPA’s confidence. (Figure 13.6 itemizes procedures for effective supervision.)

__ Determine who will assume supervisorial responsibilities in the language program. __ Ensure that supervisors receive proper training and fully understand the expectations of their supervisorial role(s). __ Identify individuals throughout the program who will be supervised. __ Ensure that supervisors and supervisees are familiar with supervisory and evaluation practices for relevant employee categories. __ Adapt models of supervision to complement the philosophical assumptions and management styles of the program. __ Establish a plan for the implementation of formal and informal supervisory activities, assigning supervisors to supervisees. __ Conduct supervisory activities with language-program personnel, including highly effective and marginally effective employees. __ Be sure that timely, honest, and meaningful feedback is provided (and documented). __ Acknowledge supervisees’ contributions to the mission of the program; let them know that their efforts and input are valued. __ Assist underperforming employees by objectively identifying the cause and seriousness of the concern and agreeing upon an action plan to remedy the problem. __ Periodically check for congruence between supervisory practices, program mission, and operating principles.

Fig. 13.6  Checklist with recommended procedures for effective supervision. (Adapted from Geddes & Marks, 2012/2017)

220

H. Savolainen et al.

Evaluation Evaluation plays a prominent role in the evolution of an employee’s career. Employees who are issued long-term contracts, following probationary status, should expect periodic formative and summative evaluations. Formative evaluations of personnel are developmental tools that examine progress, foster self-­ awareness, and promote professional growth. They may be linked to professional-enrichment activities, informal and formal reviews, peer interactions, classroom observations, analyses of student-outcome data, and self-assessments. Summative evaluations are often tied directly to promotion, compensation, and retention decisions. The relationship that a language program has with its host institution may dictate appraisal guidelines and criteria; however, when a language program must develop or adapt an evaluation model independently, it is essential to return to job descriptions and program mission to establish performance standards and indicators tied to the duties and responsibilities specified. Evaluation processes rely on employees understanding program expectations of their performance. This awareness is achieved by providing a written job description at the start of employment and reviewing it with the employee. In practice, an employee is first evaluated during the hiring process. At that time, those charged with recommending the most qualified and promising candidate seriously evaluate the applicant on the personal attributes and competencies outlined in the job description. A new hire is often placed on probation to assess performance and determine if there is, indeed, a proper match with the program. It is advisable to establish structured procedures through which systematic feedback and guidance can be provided during this period. A positive and supportive environment—one that facilitates communication between the employee and supervisor—enhances the possibility of a successful career in the program. (See Chap. 10 for steps that LPAs can take to engage, energize, and empower language-program personnel.) Should concerns arise regarding a new hire, it is important to address them as soon as possible. Based on probationary-evaluation guidelines, supervisors may recommend further training to address specific shortcomings. Because it becomes more difficult for both the employer and the employee to address major deficiencies or mismatches with program expectations after the probationary period, nonrenewal of an employee’s contract should be seriously considered before the probationary period concludes. Crucial to the success of all evaluations are position-specific criteria, clear communication, adherence to due process, in-depth preliminary and follow-up discussions, and objective data (Daresh, 2007). Because language-program personnel likely have distinct job descriptions and contractual agreements, evaluations are based on a variety of measures, instruments, and information sources. Evaluations of instructional personnel frequently include a combination of supervisor and peer classroom observations, student evaluations, self-assessment reports, standardized or holistically rated student achievement results, and documentation of scholarship

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

221

and service to the program (Arreola, 2006). Teaching portfolios have been utilized as tools that support both evaluation and professional development (Bullock & Hawk, 2010; Stronge & Tucker, 2020). Appraisals of administrative and support personnel may focus on communication, organization, productivity, motivation, workplace attendance records, management, supervision, planning, leadership, and other functions specific to the position (Gatewood et al., 2018; Rebore, 2015). Observations and ratings of non-­instructional personnel by higher-level supervisors should be supplemented by input from colleagues within the program and institution. Other constituents (e.g., students, parents, educational advisors, embassy representatives) might contribute to the process. Clarifying specific objectives and defining the criteria upon which evaluations are to be based assist LPAs in selecting appropriate measures, strategies, and techniques. During the evaluation, it is important to recognize potential conflicts that can arise when a supervisor is responsible for encouraging ongoing professional development while evaluating performance. Personnel may be reluctant to engage in professional development that requires acknowledging deficiencies and taking risks. To maintain an environment that fosters openness, trust, and mutual respect, it is helpful for different individuals within the language program to take responsibility for coordinating professional enrichment and for carrying out summative evaluations. Evaluating personnel requires the accurate, objective, and unbiased collection of relevant information by well-trained supervisors who are aware of the many options available for fulfilling these responsibilities. Employees should not learn about substandard performance for the first time in a summative evaluation meeting. Open communication, meaningful feedback, and proper documentation during the appraisal cycle ensure transparency. Highly meritorious employees may be promoted or given opportunities for growth. When outstanding employees are recognized in these ways, programs maintain and recapture the energy, vitality, interest, and expertise necessary to achieve program goals. Conversely, dismissal or forced resignation is occasionally unavoidable because of poor performance. Such actions should be pursued only after all options to support a troubled employee and provide remediation have been explored. Rebore (2015) maintains that the development of termination procedures that are objective, fair, and process-oriented (giving employees the opportunity to modify or defend their behavior) is not only good human-resources management, but also a humane responsibility. When disciplinary or corrective action takes place, it is critical that employees have access to grievance procedures and that due process is guaranteed. Institutional procedures should be strictly adhered to. At such times, LPAs must establish a framework that facilitates the short-term redistribution of duties and supports ongoing program services. The program-wide repercussions of forced resignation, dismissal, or a reduction in staff should not be underestimated; during such times, the LPA, faculty, and staff are challenged to fulfill their responsibilities. (Figure 13.7 summarizes procedures for effective evaluation.)

222

H. Savolainen et al.

__ Plan for formative and summative evaluations of probationary, full-time, and part-time personnel. __ Review institutional and program evaluation guidelines and criteria. In settings where the language program creates its own evaluation procedures, review job descriptions and program mission to establish performance standards and indicators linked to position duties and responsibilities. __ Ensure that employees understand program expectations of their performance. __ Select appropriate evaluation measures, instruments, strategies, and techniques. __ Undertake evaluations, while adhering to standards and following ethical, legal, and program guidelines. __Maintain a professional environment by committing to clear communication, adherence to due process, objective data and proper documentation, honest feedback, in-depth preliminary and follow-up discussions, and transparency. __ Make administrative decisions and recommendations based on information gathered during the evaluation process. __ Provide opportunities for employee response.

Fig. 13.7  Checklist with recommended procedures for effective evaluation. (Adapted from Geddes & Marks, 2012/2017)

Health and Wellness The health and wellness of language-program employees are affected by external and internal factors. Recently, work–life balance has dominated discussions (Guillen, 2021; Russo & Morandin, 2019), and many agree that maintaining a work–life balance is paramount to the health and wellness of language-program personnel. Work–life balance does not look the same to everyone, as factors external to the language program affect employees’ distribution of time outside of work. For some, time spent outside of work might contribute to additional stress. While some employees attend to childcare, childless personnel may be caregivers to others or have a second job. It is common that employees working remotely will use what used to be commute time to increase working time rather than engage in non-work activities (Kelliher et al., 2019). During the COVID era, the workload at home with the schooling of children and other household-related tasks escalated for both parents, but more so for mothers; these realities can lead to declines in productivity at work (Yaworsky et al., 2021). It is important for supervisors to be mindful of these external factors when observing employee performance. Having a health and wellness program in place, or host-institution resources available, can alleviate stresses created both in and out of work. When resources are scarce, book clubs, lunch-time yoga, or walking challenges, as examples, offer low-cost options for programmatic wellness initiatives.

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

223

At times, language-program internal factors may cause stress. Language-program enrollments tend to be volatile, and even the most stable programs can face reductions in staffing. Periods of reduction, transition, redistribution of workloads, and reorganization may be marked by the pain of losing valued colleagues and the fear of further reductions. Cutbacks require special efforts to assist both those exiting and those remaining; when nonrenewal of some contracts is anticipated, the LPA should be prepared to support all faculty and staff. Departing individuals appreciate assistance and direction in searching for alternative employment and planning for the future. Remaining program members may require assistance with stress management, morale building, and reorganization challenges. Balanced and objective reporting of related developments is imperative during transitional periods to reduce the potential for program dysfunction. Rumors and negativism must be countered; honest and open information sharing becomes possible when (a) the language program fosters a culture that values clarity and curiosity and (b) employees do not have a fear of speaking up (Hurt & Dye, 2020). Professional growth is inextricably linked to health and wellness. Human resources are the essential capital upon which language programs rely for quality education and services. Investing in professional-growth opportunities and the retention of employees with the highest possible skill, performance, and motivation levels is vital for program success. Professional-enrichment activities can enhance employee engagement and motivation. Such activities (a) provide program personnel with the tools and insights needed to fulfill current and future responsibilities and (b) counteract burnout. Ultimately, all LPAs should strive to develop a supportive working environment by offering a variety of enrichment and advancement opportunities. A language program that encourages growth and rewards positive contributions retains and attracts qualified and dedicated employees. (See Chap. 10 for more on fostering professional growth among language-program faculty.) A number of key components for a culture of wellness in academic settings are found in the realm of professional development (Amaya et  al., 2019). Ongoing, systematic professional development provides language-program personnel with skills and training, as well as opportunities for innovation and creativity (see Chap. 6 for more on language-program innovations), a sense of community, and collaborative partnerships inside and outside the program. Fostering collaboration builds collegiality and reduces teacher isolation (Marshall, 2013). Professional-development activities begin during induction periods with orientations, curriculum guidance, collaborative planning, and mentoring (Coppola et al., 2004; Richards, 2017). These activities should continue through probationary periods and throughout an employee’s tenure. With realistic goal setting, both teaching and non-teaching staff work to identify and prioritize professional-development activities that complement individual interests and program needs. Teachers, especially, should be actively involved in creating their own professional development plan to enhance their current skills (Richards, 2017). During this process, the LPA should address financial and scheduling implications and promote fair and equitable policies for the allocation and distribution of resources. Conference attendance and workshop participation (in-­ person or virtual), independent study, research, and enrollment in professional

224

H. Savolainen et al.

courses, including personalized micro-credentialing, are some avenues to enrichment. In-house activities that entail inviting guest speakers, sponsoring faculty brown-­ bag lunches for sharing ideas and materials, and scheduling yearly retreats for more in-depth collaboration can serve as integral components of professional development. Program personnel should also be encouraged to engage in peer coaching, mentoring, networking, teamwork, joint planning, teacher exchanges, classroom observations, cooperative learning activities, reflective teaching, and action research. With current technology, many of these activities can be expanded to involve colleagues in different institutions (or branch campuses). Opportunities such as these offer affordable, practical, and collaborative options for employees. Employee health and wellness should remain in the forefront of LPA practices as we innovate and navigate new ways to deliver instruction and support students. Recognizing internal and external stressors and offering meaningful professional-­ enrichment activities to all language-program personnel strengthen the program and its mission. (Figure  13.8 itemizes procedures for the promotion of health and wellness.)

__ Have a health and wellness program in place and/or take advantage of health and wellness resources at your host institution. __ Be mindful of internal and external stressors, including work–life balance issues that will differ across personnel. __ Be prepared to support all personnel during times of duress (e.g., enrolment fluctuations, budget cutbacks). It is at such times that the LPA must assist with stress management, morale building, and reorganizational challenges. __ Recognize that professional growth opportunities are integral to health and wellness. __ Identify and prioritize professional-enrichment activities that complement individual interests and program needs. __ Engage language-program personnel in creating their own professional development plans.

Fig. 13.8  Checklist with recommended steps for maintaining health and wellness

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

225

Conclusion Although language programs differ greatly in the scope and variety of services offered to students, almost all programs share one characteristic: They are labor-­ intensive operations, and as such, personnel constitute the most important program resource. It is, therefore, incumbent upon LPAs to dedicate significant time and energy to (a) hiring and retaining loyal, motivated, and effective personnel; (b) supervising and evaluating in ways that establish and promote an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect; and (c) nurturing health and wellness mindsets that maximize the potential of each individual. Effective management, advocacy, and leadership strategies that result in proactive human-resource policies and procedures are essential to the long-term success of language programs.

Reflecting on Personnel Matters 1. In your capacity as LPA, you have become aware that one of the most senior and well-liked teachers has been unable to satisfactorily fulfill many teaching and program responsibilities. Indicators of poor performance include lower than average student evaluations, frequent absences, unfulfilled committee responsibilities, and inappropriate interactions with colleagues. You recognize that you cannot wait until year-end summative evaluations to address these concerns. You need to proceed immediately with interventions and a plan to support the teacher and ensure the quality of program services. How will you proceed? 2. Imagine that you direct a language program with diverse personnel (age, gender, job experience, race, marital status, etc.). Given the importance of the health and wellness of language-program personnel, what indicators would you use to monitor the state of your program?

Suggested Readings College & University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). http://www. cupahr.org/. CUPA-HR provides online professional-development opportunities for the higher education human-resources community. Many resources are accessible to nonmembers. Hurt, K., & Dye, D. (2020). Courageous cultures: How to build teams of microinnovators, problem solvers, and customer advocates. Harper Collins. While this book does not directly address language programs, it offers suggestions that LPAs can adapt to create a work environment that embraces open discussion and critical problem solving. Practical tips for nurturing “employees who seek small, but powerful, ways to improve” (p. 5) are offered.

226

H. Savolainen et al.

References Amaya, M., Donegan, T., Conner, D., Edwards, J., & Gipson, C. (2019). Creating a culture of wellness: A call to action for higher education, igniting change in academic institutions. Building Healthy Academic Communities Journal, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/bhac.v3i2.7117 Arreola, R. A. (2006). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems (3rd ed.). Wiley. Brantley, A., & Shomaker, R. (2021, Spring). What’s next for the higher education workforce? A look at the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Higher Ed HR Magazine. https://www. cupahr.org/issue/feature/whats-­next-­for-­the-­higher-­ed-­workforce/ Bullock, A. A., & Hawk, P. P. (2010). Developing a teaching portfolio: A guide for preservice and practicing teachers (3rd ed.). Pearson. Clement, M. (2015). 10 steps for hiring effective teachers. Sage. College & University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). http://www. cupahr.org/ Coppola, A.  J., Scricca, D.  B., & Connors, G.  E. (2004). Supportive supervision: Becoming a teacher of teachers. Corwin Press. Daresh, J. C. (2007). Supervision as proactive leadership (4th ed.). Waveland Press. Falcone, P. (2018). 96 great interview questions to ask before you hire (3rd ed.). Harper Collins. Gallagher, J. (2020, June 4). Caring for staff during unprecedented times. International Educator. https://www.nafsa.org/ie-­magazine/2020/6/4/caring-­staff-­during-­unprecedented-­times Gatewood, R. D., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2018). Human resource selection (9th ed.). South-­ Western Cengage Learning. Geddes, J.  M., & Marks, D.  R. (2017). Personnel matters. In M.  A. Christison & F.  L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (2nd ed., pp. 219–241). Alta English. (Original work published 2012). Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2018). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (10th ed.). Pearson. Guillen, M. (2021). Motivation in organizations: Searching for a meaningful work–life balance. Routledge. Hurt, K., & Dye, D. (2020). Courageous cultures: How to build teams of microinnovators, problem solvers, and customer advocates. Harper Collins. Kelliher, C., Richardson, J., & Boiarintseva, G. (2019). All of work? All of life? Reconceptualising work–life balance for the 21st century. Human Resource Management Journal, 29, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-­8583.12215 Kiel, D. H. (2017). In search of good coaching for mid-level faculty leaders. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 28(4), 29–42. Marshall, K. (2013). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: How to work smart, build collaboration, and close the achievement gap (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage. Rebore, R. W. (2015). Human resources administration in education (10th ed.). Pearson. Richards, J.  C. (2017). Jack C Richards’ 50 tips for teacher development. Cambridge University Press. Russo, M., & Morandin, G. (2019, August 9). Better work–life balance starts with managers. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/08/better-­work-­life-­balance-­starts-­with-­managers Sever, R. (2016). Supervision matters: 100 bite-sized ideas to transform you and your team. She Writes Press. Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2020). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315505534 Walker, J. (2010). Service, satisfaction and climate: Perspectives on management in English language teaching. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

13  Personnel Matters: Revisited

227

White, R., Hockley, A., van der Horst Jansen, J., & Laughner, M. S. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations. Cambridge University Press. Yaworsky, J. E., Qian, Y., & Sargent, A. C. (2021). The gendered pandemic: The implications of COVID-19 for work and family. Sociology Compass, 15(6), e12881. https://doi.org/10.1111/ soc4.12881 Hannaliisa Savolainen is the Director of Embry-Riddle Language Institute at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Florida. Prior to this position, she worked at Northern Arizona University as an administrator in the Program in Intensive English and International Student and Scholar Services. Savolainen has completed the Supervisor’s Academy from Arizona Governmental Training Systems, TESOL International Association’s ELT Leadership Management Certificate Program, and the Practicing Leaders Residency Program in E ­ mbry-­Riddle’s Leadership Academy. Her ongoing participation in professional organizations contributes to her knowledge base on international education, teacher training and mentoring, and current trends in human resources.  

Joann M. Geddes served as Director of Academic English Studies, Lewis and Clark College’s intensive English program, for three decades. She also served as Director of Lewis and Clark Summer Sessions and led seven overseas study programs for the institution. Other program development and administrative work included coordination of the Beaverton, Oregon School District ESL program.  

Doris R. Marks (retired) served in a variety of roles in the Beaverton, Oregon School District, including ESL teacher, ESL Program Coordinator, and Elementary Principal. She also administered various Beaverton School District special education programs, taught French and English to secondary school students, and was an ESL instructor for summer sessions at both Lewis and Clark College and Willamette University.  

Chapter 14

Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud Deborah Healey and Michael Witbeck

Abstract  Language program administrators (LPAs) face ongoing challenges as educational technology becomes increasingly important and continues to evolve rapidly. This chapter provides background information and specific management guidelines in eight areas of administrative responsibility wherein digital and online technologies are critical to success. The first three sections relate to effective leadership in dealing with instructors, support staff, and students. The authors advise consideration of the diversity of instructors’ experiences with technology and stress that adequate staff training and ongoing support are critical for success. Additionally, they cite the advantages of having instructors heavily involved with decisions about technology use within the program. Also required is an awareness both of student needs and student expectations with regard to their digital and online interactions with the program. The next four sections relate to more specific administrative matters including budgeting, record keeping systems, program marketing, and planning for ongoing development of the program’s technology infrastructure. A final section addresses emerging digital technologies and their potential to further influence language teaching and learning. Keywords  Artificial intelligence · Cloud-based resources · Digital technologies · Language learning technologies · Social media · Technology management Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall. (Stephen Covey, 2012, p. 78)

Five centuries ago, language instruction in Western Europe was impacted by a new technology—printed books. Seventy-five years ago, phonograph records and reel-­ to-­reel tapes added another new dimension. In the digital era, new technologies and D. Healey (*) University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. Witbeck Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_14

229

230

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

variations of old ones continue to provide opportunities and challenges for teachers and administrators. According to Kemp (2022), two in three people globally use a mobile phone, 4.6 billion people are active on social media, and almost all of those individuals use a mobile phone for access (Kemp, 2022). What has not changed is the fact that educational technologies are used most effectively by programs that take the time to do the following: 1. examine the ways that technology can meet the needs of students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders; 2. build consensus among faculty and staff about the role of technology; and 3. encourage and provide support for teachers who are enthusiastic about technology and who have a clear vision of how particular technology-supported activities can help students achieve specific learning goals. In the area of technology, as in so many other areas, the role of the language program administrator (LPA) is to create conditions within the program under which great and wonderful things can happen. (See Chap. 7 for information about the use of technology and quality in language programs). Creating such conditions is not easy, but the basic building blocks for the effective use of technology for instruction and administration can be clearly articulated and are depicted in Figs. 14.1 and 14.2. To facilitate effective use of instructional technology, LPAs must be able to do the following: • develop a basic understanding of technological tools for language teaching and learning and the ways in which each tool can support (or subvert!) different pedagogical models; • listen and respond to what teachers say about their classroom needs and which tools are needed; • fund ongoing technology training for teachers, preparing them not only for current methods and tools, but also for future possibilities;

Willingness to listen to what teachers say about the technological tools needed in their classroooms

Awareness of different types of language-learning technologies

Commitment to ongoing funding and resources for training, technical support, upgrades, & maintenance

Administration of instructional technology

Awareness of potential legal liability

Fig. 14.1  Requirements for the successful management of technology-based learning

14  Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud

Awareness of equipment, software, and infrastructure issues in the institutional context

Best uses of new technologies for recruitment and marketing

Administrative technology: LPA considerations

231

Commitment to maintaining and upgrading equipment, software, and Internet presence

Awareness of potential legal liability, especially with student data

Fig. 14.2  Considerations for the effective use of administrative technology

• provide funding for sustained technical support; • ensure that adequate budgeting and staffing efforts are devoted to maintaining and regularly upgrading tools and infrastructure; and • be aware of legal liability for misuse of technology by students and staff that exists in some countries. For effective use of technology for administrative computing, LPAs must • know enough about required technology and infrastructure to be able to effectively explain proposed purchases to school owners, governing boards, or higher-­ level administrators; • provide funding for technical support; • make the best use of new technologies for program marketing and student recruitment, including through social media; • have staff dedicated to the program’s online presence; • commit to adequate budgeting and staffing to maintain and regularly upgrade the program’s administrative hardware, software, and Internet capacity; and • be aware of potential legal issues that might exist in some countries for failing to protect personnel and student data.

Managing the Evolution of Language Programs One characteristic shared by language programs throughout the world is a need or expectation to innovate (see also Chap. 6 for additional details on innovation in language programs). If anything, this need is increasing. Today, innovation goes to the heart of how we define a language program. Traditionally, language programs were often conceptualized in terms of classroom contact hours—per day, week,

232

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

month, term, and year. But, if an institution’s basic functional model is based on hours of physical presence in a room, what happens when instruction has left the physical classroom and moved to digital space, either partially or completely? Initially, an institution may need to continue to use the old model, if only as an organizing metaphor. However, if we consider the wide range of activities that are possible in digital space, that model—even as a metaphor—begins to appear overly restrictive. An understanding of the technologies used in digital spaces and the roles that people assume in them will be an important part of how LPAs innovate and develop new organizing principles appropriate to their contexts. (See Chap. 4 for more information on technology innovation.)

Instructors’ Roles With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers’ abilities to quickly pivot to an online environment became central to the survival of many face-to-face language programs. (See Chap. 7 for more information on online learning within language programs.) Whether in high- or low-resource contexts, teachers needed to adapt and be willing to embrace different roles and responsibilities. Those who were already online or in hybrid settings were more prepared. Those who needed face-to-face interaction to teach effectively and those who were less flexible and knowledgeable with digital and online technology were ill-equipped. The teacher’s role in designing and delivering language activities is critical to student learning, and those activities are increasingly technology mediated. The constant changes in digital and online technologies mean that there is an ever-present need for training and education. Teachers must understand how to use equipment and how to access and engage with Internet resources as they exist today. They also need to develop skills that allow them to self-train and adapt to the changes in these resources that they will face next month or next year. They need what Koehler and Mishra (2009) refer to as TPACK, that is, the ability to integrate technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. When administrators recognize what effective teaching with technology of all kinds looks like, they can appropriately (a) evaluate training and performance and (b) reward excellence. As mediators of technology use, teachers should also evaluate technology with a critical eye. Technology is not neutral. It is created with a specific mindset and has the inherent biases of that mindset. A social justice lens allows teachers to think deeply about who is represented accurately and who is not and about who is included and who is not. Then teachers can work to remedy the digital divide (Gleason & Suvorov, 2019). The move to World Englishes and first-language use (translanguaging) means that the definition of language accuracy should be broadened. Multilingual teachers, especially those who speak English as an additional language, are good sources of information about accuracy, moving away from the native speaker as the best or only model in this multilingual world (Holliday, 2006; Kiczkowiak, 2017).

14  Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud

233

Teachers also have to be able to prepare their learners to use educational resources critically and effectively. Learners need to understand that apps are built by people, and even artificial intelligence (AI) is only as good as the underlying data that were used to program the AI. In a context that encourages pedagogical translanguaging (i.e., encouraging learners to use their full linguistic repertoires in the acquisition of a target language in classroom contexts), digital translation may take on a new role, allowing learners to make good use of knowledge and expertise from their first and other languages as they acquire their second (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). Finally, to help ensure that technological evolution is carried out as smoothly as possible, communication between administrators and teaching staff needs to be bi-­ directional. Ideas for the use of innovative technologies can come from many sources. Wherever new ideas come from, best results can often be obtained by encouraging teachers themselves to make decisions about implementation. Successful planning involves targeting specific student needs that technology-­ assisted classes can address. In general, teachers are the experts who know what these needs are, and teachers are the ones who will—or will not!—make actual use of any new technology that the program provides. We must note that it is normal for different users, including teachers, to have different attitudes toward new technology. Some users will be highly attuned to technological improvements and eager to try new things. Others will strongly prefer to keep on using what is familiar. The latter view is not irrational, and such users need to be supported and their wishes heard. At the same time, however, all teachers and LPAs need to understand that change is always on the horizon whether they like it or not.

Technology Support Positions In whatever setting LPAs work, the set up and maintenance of technology infrastructure require a considerable amount of time and effort as well as some level of special expertise. Few LPAs are willing or able to take on these responsibilities themselves, so some level of support becomes necessary. The technological matters needing attention can be placed into the following categories: • • • • • •

selection and acquisition of equipment, supplies, and services; system maintenance, upgrades, and troubleshooting; user training and responses to user queries and problems; instructors’ ability to store and share digital resources; interface with host institutions and outside service providers; and informed input on the technological aspects of institutional initiatives.

The overall goal of having such support positions is to minimize friction in the program, allowing both instructors and administrators to get on with their main responsibilities efficiently and without distraction. One general rule in software production is that the easier the software is to use, the harder it was to create. Similarly, the extent to which technology within a language program performs smoothly is a

234

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

function of how much investment has been made in the bulleted items noted. In some cases, all the support work may be performed by one or more in-house staff; in other contexts, some of it may be outsourced to specialist providers. Either way, the LPA needs to be closely involved in choosing who is to do the work and in monitoring how well the work is being done. One approach to creating a support system for instruction is for the LPA to select one instructor who has technology expertise and give her a reduced class load in return for providing technology assistance to students and staff. This approach recognizes and compensates an individual instructor fairly for the time and effort that such support requires. One issue, however, is that while having a designated technology guru solves some immediate problems, it does not necessarily develop multiple kinds of expertise among numerous staff members. Hence, LPAs should also actively encourage staff to share ideas and look for ways to reward all teachers who make substantive contributions.

Student Expectations Over the past years, we have seen ever-increasing technological awareness among current and prospective students, their parents, and sponsors. The Internet is now accessible across 63% of the world, with rates varying between 46% in Africa and Oceania and 90% in Asia (Internet World Stats, 2021). Internet access is still highly dependent on income: those with the fewest resources have the least access globally (ITU, 2020). Mobile phone use is high worldwide, but it is disproportionately high in less developed areas of the world and among younger people (Kemp, 2021). Students may be very skilled in the use of social media and specific communication apps, and they expect language-program personnel to demonstrate similar proficiencies. Language students also expect to have access to the tools they need to succeed and to be oriented to the program-specific tools that they will be using. In low-resource contexts, the program may need to supply equipment and provide Internet access or make creative use of phone-based apps that are readily available. A WhatsApp group is not as powerful or flexible as a learning management system (LMS) such as Blackboard or Moodle, but it is usable in many more low-resource contexts. In secondary and tertiary institutions, students expect their teachers to know how to use the technology available to them. If an institution decides that it wants to be on the cutting edge with instructional technology, even more investment in teacher training is essential. With students’ greater technology competence comes the potential for a broader use of digital resources in teaching, particularly as it relates to encouraging learners to create their own digital resources and share them. Creativity is a twenty-first century skill, and many students now are experienced with synthesizing content to create something new, commonly called remixing. This practice can raise issues with copyright when the creators use content from others freely and then share online. An LPA needs to determine how to address this issue,

14  Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud

235

and students may need to be encouraged to use content that is free and copiable, such as Creative Commons-labeled images, audio, text, and video. Some students may simply misunderstand institutional expectations regarding appropriate use of technology, but others may deliberately abuse the system, hacking into email systems or other servers, or sending anonymous abusive messages to others. Malicious users among language students are, fortunately, relatively few. Still, misuse can have severe consequences. Cyberbullying has resulted in student suicide, and students must know how to report it and be confident that something will be done. A more common form of misuse is a copy-and-paste mindset, where students assume that anything that they can find online is available for homework assignments. Plagiarism has always been an issue in education. The Internet makes it much easier, but it also provides new tools for instructors to detect it and educate students about it. LPAs need to ensure that students are aware of institutional policies regarding appropriate use of institutional computing resources. They also need to make decisions about what procedures to follow when students do not adhere to established​policies. It is important for administrators to be aware of potential liabilities that may result if they do not establish and enforce policies for appropriate use of technology within the language program.

Implementing Technology No language program in today’s market can afford to ignore the use of instructional technology and online language-learning resources. Use of these technologies provides a host of benefits for language learning: (a) access to free or cheap resources for all skill areas; (b) interaction with a real audience; (c) easy access to interesting and timely multimedia content; and (d) a plethora of online resources for teachers, including handouts, authoring tools, lesson plans, and online teacher communities and training. Such resources are useful in all programs but may be especially helpful in contexts where English is not widely spoken outside the classroom. Technology enhances teaching; it does not replace teachers. Rather, the reality is that teachers must be competent in technology, and they must have access to the tools and infrastructure that they need. The LPA’s responsibility is to ensure that these outcomes occur. Failure to do so will lower productivity and lead to a competitive disadvantage. Two resources may be of particular assistance to LPAs who are considering how to implement and advance the use of instructional technology in their language programs: • ISTE Standards for Education Leaders (International Society for Technology in Education, 2023). • TESOL Technology Standards: Description, Implementation, Integration (Healey et al., 2011)

236

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

Table 14.1  Goal 2 Standard 2 Checklist: TESOL technology standards for language teachers Goal 2 Standard 2: Language teachers coherently integrate technology into their pedagogical approaches. Very Not Not Performance metric much so Adequately so much at all N/A Teachers have the technical support and training that they need to use available technology in their teaching. Online teachers regularly engage in professional development to stay abreast of the changes in the field. Administrators recognize and compensate expert-level teachers who support or train their peers in technology use. Healey et al. (2011, p. 213)

LPAs can use these documents to ascertain if the use of instructional technology in their programs is consistent with the appropriate standards and, if not, take steps to meet the standards. The TESOL Technology Standards book includes a chapter entitled “Administrators and the Technology Standards” (pp. 151–161) with suggestions about specific standards for learners and teachers that are highly relevant, such as Teacher Goal 2 Standard 2 (see Table 14.1). Also included is a sample scenario. The physical spaces in which technology-enhanced language learning occurs have evolved. The use of tablets and smartphones can turn any space into a digital-­ learning environment—provided that the institution provides adequate wireless Internet connections. Modern classrooms need to support built-in video, audio, and projection capability. At the same time, more and more content is being stored on local networks or in the cloud. Use of the cloud allows students to have access anytime, anywhere to resources for language learning. LPAs also need to consider the equipment that teachers need to be effective. In many schools, technology mediates all the critical aspects of a teacher’s work, for example, designing courses, planning lessons and presentations, providing feedback on student work and assignments, assessing progress, and determining teacher compliance with administrative requirements. As content creators, teachers should have access to relatively powerful personal computing equipment. This means that LPAs must provide desktop computers, laptops, or high-end tablets of sufficient quality to provide easy, frictionless access to the digital world. When it is determined that a language program needs to significantly improve its overall effectiveness in using technology, one question for the LPA will be where to begin. What is most important? With whom should one consult? We suggest here that the best place to start is not by talking to vendors or technology experts, but rather by convening a working group of individuals within the institution. (See Chap. 7 for suggestions on convening working groups within an institution.) Discussion should begin locally by examining the needs of the students, especially those needs that are the most difficult to meet within the local context. It may be, for

14  Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud

237

example, that the program is doing a good job of helping students become proficient writers, but that students’ listening comprehension is low. With this in mind, the program can concentrate on audio- and video-capable technologies and generate specific ideas about technology-based materials and methods for increasing aural comprehension. After goals have been identified, specific ideas can be examined based on feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

Budget Basics After various options have been identified, their real costs need to be estimated as closely as possible. Cost analysis should begin with the two basic cost categories. Upfront costs include the acquisition and setup of network infrastructure, the purchase of equipment and materials, and the initial training of users; downstream costs include maintenance, upgrades, and the future training of additional users. (See Chap. 15 for more information on financial planning in language programs.) The language program will need to decide whether to use in-house servers for file storage and email or shift to cloud-based computing. User training is important either way, but the program does not necessarily need to have as much in-house technical support if operations are hosted by a cloud server. Yahoo and Google are currently two of the large suppliers. Similarly, resources for learners can be cloud-based rather than hosted locally. Google Classroom is one example of a platform for hosting classes and resources. Of course, there are privacy issues to consider, and administrators working with children need to be particularly attentive here. Cloud-­ based resources are not accessible if the Internet is down or inaccessible to individuals. Still, cloud computing may be worth the cost if Internet access is equitably available to students and teachers. Upfront equipment costs are the most obvious ones. They include the purchase cost of video and audio equipment for online/ hybrid courses and computers, printers, projector/display systems, scanners, and the like. Online courses will need web conferencing software, preferably something that allows for small group work, chat, sharing in a variety of formats, and recording. Early training costs are also important to consider. These costs vary according to the amount, complexity, and ease of use of the technology involved. There is a natural tendency to underestimate training costs or even eliminate this line from the budget entirely. To some degree, the excitement and enthusiasm generated by new technology can lead to self-training and volunteer mentoring. It is also true that some systems are so easy to use that they can be implemented successfully with minimal initial training. However, this approach can prove costly in the long run. Whenever the worst case occurs and new technology is not used effectively, the difficulty can almost always be traced to a failure to provide needed support and training. And, of course, there is more. Whenever an investment in technology is contemplated, other ongoing costs must be carefully weighed. Tradeoffs abound in this area. If new administrative software is needed, for example, should it be as easy to

238

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

use as possible or as powerful as possible? If its use requires special training, will a real increase in productivity justify the expense of training? How many people will have to be trained initially? How many people will need to be trained at different intervals in the future? If an expensive package costs ten times as much as the cheap package but requires only half the training, which is the most cost effective? Similar questions must be answered in acquiring almost any technology. A new network service might be cheap to install and require little training but still be a poor idea if the result is an overloaded network with all services slowed to a crawl.

Administrative Computing LPAs need to consider not only instructional computing but also the infrastructure that supports the program as a whole. Administrators, prospective students, sponsors of students, current students, faculty, staff, alumni, and anyone else in contact with a language program will expect accurate, speedy responsiveness, no matter where in the world they are located. Administrative computing should be able to handle questions about tuition costs, enrollment, student and instructor visa status, transcripts, and other types of records, plus ongoing communication with current and former members of the instructional enterprise. Language programs within larger institutions normally follow the lead of the host institution in determining the record-keeping system to be used. Most programs will want to advocate for full inclusion in the institutional record-keeping system, primarily for cost-effectiveness and clarity. Standardized student record-­ keeping systems, such as Banner, have provisions for non-credit-bearing courses and non-matriculated students. After these options are enabled, the institution can more accurately track the number of class hours in which students are enrolled, students’ academic progress over time, and recruitment issues, such as how many language-program students become matriculated students at the university in which the language program is housed. A student record-keeping system must provide timely and accurate data about the status of an application, who is enrolled in which classes, tuition assessed and received, and grades. If the information is archived, the institution can use the data to produce statistics, for example, on the percentage of applicants who enroll and the average number of terms that a student spends in the program. This information can help the institution begin to determine the cost per student and calculate a return on investment.

Technology in Marketing Another major issue in administrative computing is marketing. The data from the student record-keeping system, including where students traditionally come from, how they learned about the program, and why they chose it, can guide future

14  Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud

239

marketing. Keeping records of students’ contact information allows the program to communicate with its alumni later, thereby serving as a marketing and/or fundraising tool. The Internet plays a major role in marketing. Prospective students and their parents, as well as advisors, agents, and sponsors, often look at a language program‘s Internet presence for information about program offerings, schedules, and costs. Users are increasingly searching for information on social media, though browser-­ based searches are still more common (Kemp, 2021). Responsiveness is key, as well. Many intensive English program (IEP) directors in tertiary institutions in the United States, as an example, have found that students often choose an IEP based on who responds most quickly to their queries. A website that is professional-looking, easy to navigate, and full of information that users want provides a marketing advantage. The opposite is also true: a poorly thought-out, incomplete, or out-of-­ date website or no website at all sends a negative message. A website also needs to be mobile-friendly because for many people, the first contact is on a mobile device, such as a phone. A social media presence is also necessary, but LPAs should also be aware that social networking can be a double-edged sword for institutions. A student blogger’s positive comments, for example, can go to all of the blogger’s “friends” and anyone else in the world. A negative comment creates a problem that someone in administration will want to address. If commenting is allowed, it needs to be moderated regularly by staff. Young people are heavy users of social networking, which makes it even more important for savvy marketers to reach this population in such a way. As content providers, language programs need to recognize that their audience will include prospective international students from specific regions of the world; prospective local students and their parents; prospective instructors who may be local or from different areas of the world; prospective advisors, agents, and sponsors; alumni; and in some cases, government agencies. A beach scene that may be a great recruitment tool for Latin American students may offend the sensibilities of Middle Eastern students and their parents. A beautiful multimedia presentation or video is a good tool, but it needs to load quickly and be accessible on all platforms. An additional consideration, especially with social media, is that some platforms are blocked in certain countries. Administrators should take care to learn which platforms and social media tools are used in their target market countries and make sure to have a presence. Information is accessible online about platforms by country, including the most popular social media platforms (Vincos Blog, 2021). Anticipated audiences should drive what information goes where. For the best marketing, users—especially prospective students and their parents—should immediately see a way to obtain the information that they want. For a website, this usually means offering menus that are customized to the different audiences that might be expected to enroll in the program. A site-specific search engine can be helpful as long as it works well. For social media, constant updating of information keeps the more important information at the top of the page. Short videos can be powerful tools. When looking for a person to develop the institution’s Internet presence, LPAs and focus groups, which are comprised of users, should examine the developer’s previous work carefully.

240

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

An Internet presence is a very public face of a language program. LPAs and staff, not student interns or volunteers, need to provide oversight, making sure that what is presented on behalf of the program enhances the program’s image and brand. Consistent and repeated training of those who are adding content and responding to inquiries is essential. Given the importance of the website and social media to marketing, programs must fund their Internet presence adequately. (See Chap. 7 for information on language program websites and quality.)

Planning for Ongoing Technology Needs LPAs can help themselves answer questions about what to buy and when by developing broad technology-acquisition strategies or guidelines. One simple guideline is that any proposal for technology acquisition must include specific projections regarding initial materials costs, initial training costs, and downstream infrastructure costs as well as a clear explanation of how it furthers curricular aims. We might think of this approach as something akin to an environmental impact statement where the program itself is the environment to be protected or enhanced. Clear answers to certain questions early on will smooth the way later. Where will material or equipment be stored? How will it be accessed? Who will need training? Who will do the training? Will everything be cloud-based or local? How will privacy be protected? If clear answers cannot be found, then the LPA has a good indication that more preparation is required. Another acquisition guideline is that the newest cutting-edge commercial hardware is often overly expensive. The performance benefits of the newest “gadgets” will hardly ever be worth the extra cost. The opposite, however, is also true. Buying near obsolete technologies will ultimately bring performance penalties to the program and do not save money in the long run. Programs looking for commercial hardware products in the mainstream market should look for hardware that is almost the newest. Last season’s technology will be a little cheaper; however, it can still offer a reasonable service life. LPAs who oversee modest budgets may be able to obtain equipment at a low cost from companies and institutions that have upgraded their hardware and thus no longer need still-usable equipment. Grants from government agencies or non-governmental organizations may also help fund needed equipment. The situation with software and apps is somewhat similar. Older software/apps can, in theory, continue to give good service for years and years. There will, however, come a time when older applications become dysfunctional from lack of compatibility with a changing network and/or operating system environment, causing major disruption. It is better to provide upgrades before a disaster strikes. Commercial software/apps can be obtained via outright purchase or via subscription. Purchase means obtaining the rights to use one version of the software for an unlimited time. The cost is relatively high, and it is all up front. Subscription means that users will have the right to use the current version of the software/app and will

14  Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud

241

automatically receive continuous support and free upgrades as long as the subscription is current. The initial cost is low, but subscription payments continue the entire time that the software is in service. Total subscription costs will exceed total purchase costs after only a year or two. However, this extra cost can buy longer-term viability. Vendors prefer the subscription model; in some cases, there are few options for outright purchase. Language programs in universities or other large organizations can often find favorable prices by participating in volume pricing agreements. Free and low-cost software/apps can often be useful, but it is important to remember that “free” generally means that the true cost will involve privacy issues. “Free” software is often designed to actively seek out and harvest information about individual users. Even purchased software can carry hidden risks relative to privacy with the possibility of password theft when passwords are entered online. If children will be using apps/software, then the administrator must take care to protect their images, information, and privacy. In the United States, federal law regulates protection of student data; similar protections for personal data for everyone are in force in the European Union. Whether or not there is legal liability, LPAs should be aware of hidden costs and risks to personal data.

Language Programs in Flux The growth in online education was dramatic at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many LPAs had to move quickly to develop their own online programs. The ability to interact with a group of people, often in real-time, made it easier to create virtual communities of practice for both teachers and students. Online video is far more usable and cheaper than in the past. Audio and video conferencing are still somewhat limited by bandwidth in some regions, especially as the number of participants grows. Having learners who are in different time zones is still a major issue in real-time (synchronous) communication. Ideally, programs can create hybrid courses where face-to-face time is reduced and online technologies are used extensively. Including hybrid courses in the curriculum provides LPAs with a way to ensure that much of the needed network capability and human resources are in place before making an emergency shift to online learning or investing substantial time and money in fully online courses. Online courses need to be much more than taking a face-to-face course and putting material on a website (Martin et  al., 2019). The syllabus for a fully online course that is asynchronous must be planned out ahead of time with material in place and accessible to learners at the beginning of each week, if not earlier. Disorganization is very visible online and damages the institution’s credibility as an online course provider. Technical support for teachers and learners is essential, with knowledgeable tech support available on a continual basis. One major question relative to online education is marketing. The Internet is nearly ubiquitous and there are millions of users, most of them accustomed to getting information of all sorts for free. Targeting the right people with the right

242

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

information at the right time so that they choose to pay for your online program has proven to be more difficult than most administrators imagine. In many cases, an online program is started because of a grant or a relationship between institutions that provides the initial funding and client base. After a program is well established, it can expand. Considerations related to the acquisition of technology resources, teacher training, provision of technical support, and marketing costs mean that online courses are not cheap. It is possible, in some cases, to create a course using higher-paid faculty as content designers, then deliver the course with lower-paid faculty. In the long run, however, you get what you pay for. Overworked, underpaid, and undertrained faculty will underdeliver. Online learners are free to pick and choose among providers, and they are unburdened by visa restrictions and costs of moving a residence. Quality counts in online learning, as in most other areas of language education.

Responding to New Technologies Some new technologies that may be useful in language teaching include, for example, voice recognition (text to speech and speech to text), machine translation, virtual and augmented reality, and artificial intelligence. Voice recognition is now more widely incorporated into software and is far more effective than in the past. Narrated slides and videos can automatically generate closed captions. Messaging, email, and word-processing can shift from text to speech or vice versa. Websites can be read out loud. Users still need to review options for automated speech production, but the quality is surprisingly good in many contexts. The quality of web-based machine translation has improved dramatically, and languages are now translated more accurately. Learners can use machine translation on target-language webpages to get at least the gist and some details, making full comprehension of the pages much easier. Teachers should encourage appropriate use of the tool but must also be able to recognize when homework is created primarily through machine translation. For LPAs, machine translation may make communicating with learners’ families easier, but both sides need to be aware that translation will not be perfect. Virtual reality (VR) puts the user into a simulated three-dimensional context. Early virtual worlds for language teaching included spaces such as Second Life, where users spent hours creating the context and their avatar (i.e., the user’s image in Second Life) and then interacted with other users who were in the same virtual space. More contemporary VR spaces are largely solitary and headset-based. Users are isolated from the real world, though efforts are being made to create collaborative environments. Some current language apps allow learners to enter virtual spaces such as restaurants and interact with virtual characters for a personal immersive

14  Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud

243

experience. At this point, development is slow and painstaking. Hours of programming time go into the virtual environments and activities that can happen there. If software improves to the point where VR spaces are easier to create and allow collaboration, then this could be a way for learners to practice their use of language in a supportive context. Augmented reality (AR) uses a mobile phone or other device to add an overlay to what people are seeing. Pokémon Go is a widely recognized use of AR. Some city tour and museum guides use AR to provide pop-up information on screen when the user views a specific place, generally with a “marker” that connects the app to the relevant information. This combination of place-based learning and text provides contextualized language information that enhances comprehension (Godwin-Jones, 2016). Considerable programming goes into creating the overlays. As with all technology, the result is not neutral; information is supplied by people and increasingly by commercial interests with their own agendas. As with VR, most of the applications are solitary. Work is ongoing to create apps where users can interact with other users and not just with the overlay, making communicative language learning possible. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been touted for years as a solution to language learning, with “intelligent Computer Assisted Language Learning (iCALL),” “intelligent writing tutors,” and so forth. As mentioned earlier, the quality of AI depends on the data set that informs it and the expectations of software designers. AI that uses natural language processing as a creative tool, such as in ChatGPT, is a new disruptor whose effects are currently unclear. The potential for use by students and teachers is extensive, as is the potential for abuse. Such tools may make many traditional writing assignments problematic, for example. Administrators will need to encourage teachers to stay abreast of the latest developments and find positive ways to inform teaching and learning that use these powerful new tools.

Conclusion The growth of the Internet and increase in access to high-speed networking have opened up many possibilities for language programs and LPAs. Social networking and web interactivity are becoming important tools for promoting language programs and recruiting students. LPAs in different programs can interact with one another as part of social networks, thereby building trust and collaboration. LPAs can encourage teachers to use new technology effectively by providing the infrastructure and training that they need to fully implement new resources. Online videos provide training in specific apps and tools. Teachers will still need to find and use appropriate videos and integrate the tools into the curriculum, which is where collaboration among teachers and with administrators can be particularly effective. Access to and use of digital tools can be highly motivating and make a difference in

244

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

students’ attitudes toward language learning and the language program. Rather than being a school subject with homework, particularly in a foreign language learning setting, the target language becomes a tool used to communicate with real people and connects the language program to the wider world. A trained teacher can use interactive web-based applications to good use in almost any skill area, making training investments cost-effective. In sum, this chapter has covered a range of technology-related issues that LPAs need to address. Instructor roles; ongoing training for staff, instructors, and students; developments in technology and its use in language teaching; demands of administrative computing; new tools for marketing; the expanding area of online learning; and emerging technologies are all challenges for LPAs. The basic effect on LPAs has been a need to be ready to change and adapt to new circumstances, which is really just business as usual for an LPA.

Reflecting on Managing Technology 1. Many aspects of a language program are information intensive: they involve the generation and distribution of information by means of technology. In terms of technology, what is the administrator’s role in ensuring that the six programmatic areas showcased in Fig. 14.3 operate as effectively and efficiently as possible? How should the administrator manage information technology to create useful connections among the areas? 2. What are the risks in your context of having a vibrant social media presence that includes student input?

Student Records

Instruction/ Instructors

Billing & Finance

Technology in Different LanguageProgram Domains

Curriculum & Materials

Marketing

Administration

Other

Fig. 14.3  Technology in select language-program domains

14  Managing Technology: Feet on the Ground, Head in the Cloud

245

Suggested Readings Herro, D. (2015). Sustainable innovations: Bringing digital media and emerging technologies to the classroom. Theory into Practice, 54(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841. 2015.1010834. The author provides examples of successfully implemented digital media learning innovations in schools. Motteram, G. (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/innovations-­l earning-­t echnologies-­e nglish-­ language-­teaching. This downloadable book examines how methodology and technology combine in the English language classroom.

References Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Pedagogical translanguaging: An introduction. System, 92(102269), 102269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102269 Covey, S. (2012). The seven habits of highly successful people [Electronic version]. RosettaBooks. Gleason, J., & Suvorov, R. (2019). Promoting social justice with CALL. CALICO Journal, 36(1), i–vii. Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile games. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 9–19. http://llt.msu. edu/issues/october2016/emerging.pdf Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubband, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2011). TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration. TESOL International. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/ elt/ccl030 International Society for Technology in Education. (2023). ISTE standards for education leaders. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-education-leaders Internet World Stats. (2021). Internet usage statistics. https://internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. ITU. (2020). Key ICT indicators for developed and developing countries. https://www.itu.int/ en/ITU-­D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ITU_regional_global_Key_ICT_indicator_aggregates_ Nov_2020.xlsx Kemp, S. (2021). Digital 2021: Global overview report. https://datareportal.com/reports/ digital-­2021-­global-­overview-­report Kemp, S. (2022). Digital 2022: Global overview report. https://datareportal.com/reports/ digital-­2022-­global-­overview-­report Kiczkowiak, M. (2017). Confronting native speakerism in the ELT classroom: Practical awareness-­raising activities. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL. https:// www.academia.edu/39123465/Confronting_Native_Speakerism_in_the_ELT_Classroom_ Practical_Awareness_Raising_Activities Koehler, M.  J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001 Vincos Blog. (2021). World map of social networks. https://vincos.it/world-­map-­of-­social-­networks/

246

D. Healey and M. Witbeck

Deborah Healey was the 2019–2020 President of TESOL International Association and is emerita faculty at the University of Oregon. She is a contributor to several publications, including the Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology. An online and face-to-face teacher educator, she presents extensively internationally (Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, and the USA) on appropriate uses of technology in language teaching. Her doctorate is in computers in education.  

Michael Witbeck is an emeritus member of the Professional Faculty at Oregon State University (OSU). While at OSU he served as Technology Coordinator for the English Language Institute, as Pathways Coordinator for Science and Engineering for INTO OS, and in other administrative positions. He has also worked extensively outside the United States, first as an EFL instructor/ materials developer and later as a teacher trainer and resource specialist in educational technology for language teaching.  

Chapter 15

Managing Resources and Financial Planning Denise E. Murray

Abstract  This chapter explains the processes that language-program administrators (LPAs) can use to deploy the resources of their language programs effectively, efficiently, and equitably. A language program’s resources are usually considered to include finances, material inventory, human skills, information technology, and natural resources. In discussing resources, LPAs must also consider the broad social, political, and psychological forces that impact on their allocation. Acquiring, allocating, and coordinating resources are fundamentally driven by a language program’s strategic plan, not the budget. Because the handling of money is often the aspect of language-program management that leaders worry over the most and often delegate to others, the majority of the chapter focuses on how to manage finances in order to deploy other resources most effectively. Keywords  Budget · Business plan · Fiduciary responsibility · Financial management · Fiscal performance · Language-program resources

In business we must evaluate our decisions and actions on the basis of moral criteria just as we do on economic criteria. (Nair, 1997, p. 103)

At first glance, the quotation from Nair that begins this chapter may seem to be related to a different chapter, perhaps one on the moral criteria for decision making. I begin with it, however, to emphasize the point I shall make throughout this chapter: Economic criteria should not be the sole drivers of any educational or business decisions made about language programs. All financial plans and the management of resources should be decided based on “whether total expenditures produce a sufficient human outcome” (Carver, 1996, p. 1). The acquisition, allocation, and coordination of resources are fundamental to strategic management and are, therefore, essential elements in strategic planning D. E. Murray (*) Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_15

247

248

D. E. Murray

(Maritan & Lee, 2017). A strategic plan needs to clarify the principles for how the organization will enlist its resources (or develop new resources) to achieve its goals. An organization’s resources are usually considered to include finances, material inventory, human skills, information technology, and natural resources. However, the recent COVID-19 pandemic forced us to manage in technical, physical, and socio-psychological ways not previously encountered. Therefore, in discussing resources, we must also consider the broader social, political, and psychological forces that impact on their allocation. This chapter builds on information on strategic planning (see Chap. 5 for more information on planning strategically) and the importance of including principles of resource allocation in strategic planning. In this chapter, I explain the processes that language-program administrators (LPAs) can use to deploy the resources of their language programs effectively, efficiently, and equitably. The handling of money is an aspect of management1 that concerns LPAs the most. It is often delegated to others because LPAs lack experience and training in effective financial governance. This chapter focuses on demystifying how to manage finances in order to deploy other resources most effectively. The perspective presented in this chapter is based on a framework of planning and control systems, both of which have cultural bases. For example, in cultures with high power distance and hierarchical structures, “accounting systems will more frequently serve to justify the decisions of top power holders,” while “in strong uncertainty avoidance countries, accounting systems will contain more detailed rules as to how to handle different situations” (Hofstede, 2001, p.  383) because people in cultures that avoid uncertainty want rules or laws to reduce their anxiety (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). This chapter, therefore, is designed to help LPAs focus on values rather than numbers, while simultaneously explaining the technical aspects of fiscal responsibility. The chapter begins with a discussion of fiduciary responsibility,2 the legal and moral imperative that guides financial management. It then discusses budgets, how to develop fiscal policy, how to monitor fiscal management, and finally, it presents a framework that LPAs can use to develop a business plan to guide requests for new initiatives. Throughout, reference is made to and examples are given of how financial resources interface with other resources.

 There is considerable confusion in the field regarding the terms management and leadership, with many uses partly overlapping. The view presented here is that those who manage language programs and centers also need to provide leadership for the center, its personnel, students, and other stakeholders. For a more elaborated discussion of the differences, see Christison and Murray (2009). 2  All accounting/bookkeeping technical terms are italicized when a definition is provided. 1

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

249

Fiduciary Responsibility Everyone who manages an organization has fiduciary responsibility for all the resources of that organization. Managers hold these assets in trust for the benefit of others (i.e., the organization’s stakeholders). Fiduciary responsibility is also referred to as duty of care, and this duty of care extends to students, who, along with staff, are human resources in a language program. Educational organizations have a duty of care for the welfare of their students, for their learning and for their socio-­ psychological/emotional and physical health because student well-being affects their ability to learn. Therefore, the management of other resources is in the service of students. Sound financial management is firmly rooted in the strategic plan of the organization (see Chap. 5 for more information on planning strategically), a plan that has carefully considered the needs of all stakeholders. In other words, the strategic plan determines the financial plan, not vice versa. That the strategic plan is primary does not mean that it should include a wish list that is financially unfeasible. Rather, during the strategic-planning process, the financial implications of the plan’s objectives should be considered, as in Scenario 1. Scenario 1. The strategic plan for Socrates Language Center3 included adding a new language course called English for Business Law that was requested by a stakeholder, namely, a university department. However, no current staff had the expertise to teach such a course. Therefore, the center would need to hire a new staff member if it was to provide such a course. The only person qualified and willing to teach the course asked for a salary commensurate with her salary in the law department, which was more than double what language-­ center staff received. The staff union stated categorically that should this new hire receive such a salary, it would require the same for other language-center staff with the same years of experience. The current income from course fees could not cover such salary costs.

As illustrated in Scenario 1, the desire to teach the new course needed to be weighed against the costs. The Center could seek other ways to staff it. However, the financial implications of the addition of this course needed to be decided before making the decision to include such a course in the strategic plan.

 A pseudonym.

3

250

D. E. Murray

Budget A budget is a financial plan, usually for the following year. It is based on best estimates of income, expenditure, and assets. However, neither income nor expenditure is likely to transpire exactly as predicted in the budget. Assets may also differ from expectations, for example, if they are invested in the stock market or even in a bank and interest rates change. Therefore, it is vital for the budget to be as accurate as possible but also be monitored on an ongoing basis. The strategic plan should lead to an annual work plan that implements the strategic priorities. The annual work plan includes a budget that estimates income and expenditure for the year, in accordance with the language program’s principles for resource allocation. Budgets include the following components: income, expenditure, capital expenses, assets, reserves, and liabilities.

Income Income can include tuition fees, materials fees, interest on reserves, sales of materials, and consulting fees. In most contexts, students pay the fees or at least a deposit prior to the delivery of the course. If a student is unable to take the course, or if the center is unable to offer the course, it will have to repay the deposit or pre-paid fees. Therefore, the budget cannot assume those fees are income until they are earned, that is, until the student is in the course. This type of accounting is called accrual accounting. Many language centers operate on several different cycles, with lengths of courses varying during the year or courses being offered in the same cycles but for different hours of instruction, which results in non-teaching weeks for full-time instructors who are being paid for those weeks. Therefore, these non-teaching weeks need to be costed into the various programs when deciding on course fees.

Expenditure Expenditure includes both fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs are ones that will not change in the budget year, no matter what or how many courses or programs are offered. They include rent (or, if the building is owned by the institution, interest on the mortgage), property taxes, utilities, and permanent teaching and support staff salaries. In contrast, variable costs change based on what programs and courses are offered during the year. They include salaries of temporary teaching and support staff, advertising, class materials, and professional development. One of the challenges of language-program management is balancing fixed costs and variable ones.

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

251

While having few variable costs can be a risk if there is a downturn in student enrollment, having mostly permanent teaching staff leads to a cohesive and collaborative staff and effective program delivery. Depending on the perceived risks, each language program has to determine the level of risk that is feasible for its particular context. For example, some intensive English centers had large numbers of teaching and support staff on long-term fixed contracts when SARS broke out, and Chinese students could not get visas. Releasing staff on long-term contracts was not always feasible because some union contracts included a large severance pay for early dismissal. Language programs without reserves had to lay off staff; others chose to use their reserves so those staff members without students to teach could develop curricula, assessments, and other materials. A related situation occurred in the United States after the September 11 attacks; the U.S. government instituted stricter controls on issuing student visas, and student numbers dropped dramatically. A related situation has ensued with the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as being a financial decision, balancing the ratio of fixed costs (such as salaries for permanent language-­ teaching personnel) and variable costs (such as salaries for temporary language-­ teaching personnel) is an ethical choice if the center has committed to equitable treatment and participation of all staff. Costs can also be considered as either direct or indirect. Direct costs include salaries, while indirect costs include fringe benefits, such as contributions to a healthcare plan, workers’ compensation funds, disability insurance, and retirement benefits. These indirect costs vary considerably from country to country and often depend on whether staff are full-time, permanent, temporary, or part-time. Whatever the local legal requirements, the language center often cannot negotiate such benefits, and so they must be budgeted for. Like salaries, consumables is a major category of current expenses. Consumables cover everything from utilities to office supplies to duplicating to travel to equipment-maintenance contracts. All these costs need to be amortized, that is, prorated by program and often by weeks within a program because, as mentioned earlier, different courses may operate for different numbers of weeks. In some businesses, both income and expenditure can be amortized on a monthly basis because activity is regular across the year. This situation is rarely the case in language centers where there are periods of heavy use of resources and periods of light use. Therefore, costing and budgeting on the basis of “a week of instruction” may better serve the institution.

Capital Expenses Capital expenses need to be considered separately from current expenses because they are usually major expenditures for large equipment or buildings that depreciate over time and need to be replaced or upgraded.

252

D. E. Murray

Assets In a general sense, assets are all the resources that a center uses to successfully develop and deliver its various programs. The greatest asset is, of course, people. They are also the most expensive asset because in most organizations the largest expenditure is on salaries. Assets also include both cash (which can be invested money, not just actual petty cash) and materials that can be sold, such as buildings, equipment, and books.

Reserves Reserves are separate from operating monies, the monies used to provide ongoing services. Reserves usually result from an accumulation of profits, that is, when expenditure is less than income. Profits are often referred to in educational contexts as surpluses or earnings. In some educational contexts, language programs and centers are not permitted to roll over or carry over any surpluses; instead, they are returned to the state or parent institution. However, where possible, it is important for language programs to develop reserves because they can be used to update equipment, purchase furniture or even a building, embark on new projects, invest in the professional development of staff, or cover unexpected deficits.

Liabilities Liabilities may include loans, or goods purchased on credit. One of the liabilities in English language programs is the potential for refunding of prepaid fees referred to earlier. When large language centers offer a variety of programs, such as General English, English for Accounting, or TOEFL Preparation, there are usually separate budgets for each program. In this way, program directors can monitor how each program performs, thereby acquiring information that is factored into decisions about which programs to continue, which to discontinue, and which to expand or change. Because staff working at the program level are most likely to understand their own program’s needs, budget preparation is best achieved through a cyclical approach, which is explained below. The interaction of various language-program personnel in developing the overall budget is critical for defining activities, determining what is needed to perform them, and deciding how they all relate to the center’s strategic directions. Table 15.1 provides a possible budget template for a language center.

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

253

Table 15.1  Budget template for Socrates Language Center Admin Office

General English

Accounting English

TOEFL Prep

Lab Total

INCOME Course fees Sale of materials Consultancy services Other TOTAL INCOME EXPENDITURE Salaries  Academic  General  Overtime Total salary expenses Materials  Equipment  Library materials  Office consumables  Software  General consumables Total materials Services  Advertising: Promotion  Telephone/fax  Computing services  Conference fees  Consultants/agents  Copyright charge  Entertaining  Freight/courier  Hire & lease  Maintenance contracts  Postage  Printing  Subscriptions  Staff PD Total services Internal servicesa  Rent  Phone/fax  Design production (continued)

254

D. E. Murray

Table 15.1 (continued) Admin Office

General English

Accounting English

TOEFL Prep

Lab Total

 Printer  Levyb Total internal services Travel Technology infrastructure Total non-salary expenses TOTAL EXPENDITURE SURPLUS/DEFICIT These internal services are charges made by the parent organization and, therefore, require internal transfers, not external purchases b Levy is fee paid to the parent organization a

Costing Courses It is vital to cost courses as accurately as possible. A common method in accounting is called a break-even analysis, which can be used to determine how many courses need to be offered to break even. The formula suggested by White et al. (2008) for language programs is as follows: Number of courses 

Fixed costs Estimated income per course  variable costs per course

While this formula seems simple on the surface, if the fixed costs are very high, either a large number of courses needs to be offered, tuition fees need to be high, or classes need to have large enrollments. However, the market may not be sufficiently large for that number of courses nor sufficiently robust for high tuition costs, and large classes may not be permitted by the accrediting agency or staff teaching contracts. Additionally, as discussed earlier, if permanent, full-time teaching staff are not teaching for various periods, this cost needs to be built into the overall costs. The formula also assumes that all courses will run for the same length of time, the fees will be the same for each course, and each course will have the same number of students. In many language programs, course offerings are far more complex. A strategy in such cases is to determine income and expenditure for each different type of program or course in terms of student weeks—the number of students in a course multiplied by the number of weeks for the course (see also Table 15.3). For example, a 10-week course with 17 students would constitute 170 student weeks, while a 4-week course with 20 students would constitute 80 student weeks. Having determined how much it costs per week to offer either course (i.e., the ratio of student weeks to total salaries), the LPA can then set course fees. Additionally, the variable costs such as photocopying and utilities need to be allocated across different programs, as do salaries for non-teaching language-­program

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

255

personnel and other overheads, such as rent or maintenance. It is not necessary to ascribe exact amounts to each program because this action can lead to an increase in time and salaries being spent on minute details. As a matter of policy, a language center with many different language programs needs to develop a set of principles for allocating budget expenditures to individual programs. One way to manage course fees is to set specific fees to cover different activities, such as • • • •

an application fee to cover the administration of an application; a test administration fee to cover the administration of any required entrance test; a student fee to cover excursions, social events, sporting events, etc.; and a lab fee to cover materials and equipment for a computer or language lab.

Often the costs associated with the course fees are omitted from the variable costs because course fees are set too low to break even. Some expenses are incurred even if a student withdraws from a course. Therefore, these expenses need to be factored into a refund policy.

Developing a Budget The process for developing a budget needs to be flexible, but it also needs to include the following stages although not necessarily in the linear fashion in which they are presented in Table 15.2. The process depicted in Table 15.2 is for a large language center with different programs, but the same process is recommended for a small language program.

Development of Fiscal Policy The budget process needs to be driven by policy, which is the responsibility of management. Without clear policies, fiscal decisions are not transparent to stakeholders, resulting in individual stakeholders trying to enhance their share of the resources, as in Scenario 2. Scenario 2. The CEO of a major Japanese corporation effectively explained the principle underlying fiscal policy in his orientation speech to new employees. He drew a circle on a board and divided it into segments, each segment representing the share of a constituency—such as management, labor, customers, and shareholders. He then explained how each constituency in the past had tried to increase the size of its segment at the expense of another. He told them that he believed the purpose of each individual in the corporation was to increase the size of the whole circle, which could only be done by serving all constituencies.

256

D. E. Murray

Table 15.2  Process for developing a budget Process Create budget template.

Purpose To ensure consistency across all program budgets because they eventually need to be combined into an overall budget. To have as accurate a projection of income as is possible.

Who is responsible Center director with an accountant or a business manager.

Special considerations Ensure each category in the budget template has a principled basis to guide decisions (see the chapter section on policy). Ensure equity across sub-programs.

Program coordinators with an accountant or business manager.

Estimate expenditures for each program. Consolidate a draft budget.

To have as accurate a projection of expenditures as possible. To ensure the whole draft budget is balanced.

Program coordinators with an accountant or a business manager. An accountant or business manager.

Follow principles of accrual accounting. Include tuition fees, royalties, interest on investments, sale of materials, and consulting fees. Follow principles of accrual accounting. Include salaries, consumables, and fringe benefits.

Review the draft budget.

To ensure the draft budget is compatible with the goals and principles of the host institution.

Center director with an accountant or a business manager.

Revise program budgets as needed.

To ensure all individual and overall budgets meet the goals of the host institution. To ensure agreement on the overall budget.

Program coordinators with an accountant or a business manager.

Estimate income for each program.

Create a final budget.

Check that the budget is using accrual accounting. Check that costs and income are amortized. Assign performance measures. Apply principles by asking questions (e.g., do line items support program goals? Is there flexibility to adjust for the unexpected? Does any excess expenditure over income comply with principles? Are key performance indicators [KPIs] appropriate?) Apply principles and KPIs.

A center manager or director and program coordinators with an accountant or a business manager.

Fiscal policy can help all staff members and other stakeholders work together to enhance the whole organization, not just their particular constituency. Such policies allow for transparency and are established in terms of relationships, ratios, growth rates, or other characteristics, rather than as specific numbers. These characteristics can be thought of as key performance indicators (KPIs), that is, measures that indicate whether the budget has performed to expectations. Examples of KPIs are provided later in the chapter. The policies need to be based on the values of the institution, as they are related to each of the following: surpluses, consumables, refunds, allocation of fixed and variable costs, fund transfers, and reporting.

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

257

Surpluses One area of policy making that needs to be determined at the outset is whether surpluses (profits/earnings) are permitted within the legal framework of the language program or the broader institution. If they are, then one of the principles that needs to be determined is what surplus is expected of each program. This is best stated as a percentage of income. Some programs may not result in profit but may still be required to meet the language program’s or institution’s strategic goals. All language programs should cover their own variable costs and make some contribution to fixed costs. If surpluses are permitted and carryover is also permitted, the question arises of how to use reserves. Reserves provide a cushion, but administrators need to have policies in place for expending reserves.

Consumables Unfortunately, some of the hardest fought financial battles in all types of organizations are often over seemingly trivial issues. Management, in consultation with all staff, needs to develop policies for how decisions are made about allocating consumables. The policies developed need to be simple, transparent, equitable, and conveyed to all staff (and other stakeholders, as necessary). While it is vital for staff, both support and teaching, to have professional development (PD) opportunities, guidelines need to be developed regarding both PD requirements and their funding. Similarly, principles need to be established for use of all office equipment, from computers to telephones to language laboratories.

Refunds As previously discussed, refunds for students who are not able to take courses are a liability to a language program. Therefore, clear policies need to be established and made available to all potential students in promotional materials. I have already listed a variety of possible fees (see Costing Courses) that can be used by a language center, in addition to the actual tuition fee. Most language programs do not refund the application fee and have a pro-rata refund for tuition fees depending on when the student withdraws. A student might be able to withdraw without penalty up to a month prior to the start of the course if language-program personnel believe that they can cover the loss of the student fees, but students might receive no refund if they withdraw after the class begins. The center needs to plan for the worst-case scenario when perhaps 25% or more of the expected students withdraw (perhaps because of changes to visa regulations or a global pandemic).

258

D. E. Murray

Allocation of Fixed and Variable Costs In language centers with multiple programs or in language programs situated within a larger institution, the following principles are ones to consider for determining how fixed and variable costs are assigned. • Each language program covers its own unique variable costs. • Each language program contributes to shared variable costs and fixed costs on a pro-rata basis.

Fund Transfers If a language program has income from discrete sources, it is often necessary to have completely separate budgets and bookkeeping documentation to be accountable to the different funding sources. For example, one language program might be funded by a government grant while another is funded on a fee-for-service basis (tuition fees), so transfer across these two sources of funds may not be permitted. In contexts where there are no legal impediments to transfer between programs, management needs to develop policies for such transfers. For example, if a particular program is essential for the center’s goals, but in one year the program does not have sufficient enrollment to break even, then monies from another profitable program can be transferred as in Scenario 3. Scenario 3 also illustrates how different staffing ratios (such as temporary/full-time and part-time/full-time) impact budget performance.

Scenario 3. Enigma University3 had to impose a 25% cut to expenditures because the university was in a financial crisis. In the College of Humanities, some departments had carefully monitored their annual budgets and accumulated considerable reserves; others had not, always spending all of their income. One of these latter departments (Profligate Department) only managed to make a 10% budget cut, largely because it had fewer variable staffing costs. At the end of the crisis year, it had a large deficit. The Dean of the College brought all the department heads together and suggested that those departments that had carried over large reserves should transfer their reserves to cover the deficit of Profligate Department. This, of course, was galling to department heads who had taken their fiduciary responsibility seriously. However, the Dean further suggested that the transfers were only a loan and Profligate Department had to repay the loan over the next two years. All department heads agreed because each realized that, at some future time, they might be in a similar situation.

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

259

In addition to transfers across language programs, sometimes it is necessary to transfer funds between categories within a language program. Criteria should be established for transfers to allow coordinators to make transfers within those guidelines without having to request permission from the LPA for each transfer.

Reporting Reporting is the most important tool for monitoring fiscal performance, so policies need to be established regarding the frequency of reports and their content. Managers do not need to be swamped with data, but they do need to ensure that they have sufficient, accurate data to make decisions. While the accountant needs to produce monthly reports, managers may only need to review quarterly reports, particularly if programs do not vary considerably from month-to-month. However, where they do vary, administrators need to receive monthly reports. KPIs (i.e., key performance indicators) need to be developed to monitor performance. One KPI related to fixed costs such as rent might be the maximum percentage of income to be used for rent. Another might be the percentage of income that can be spent on non-teaching salaries or the ratio of non-teaching salaries to teaching salaries. As previously mentioned, KPIs provide management with accurate and succinct means of determining fiscal health. All language programs need to develop KPIs, and these KPIs will likely differ across different courses within a language program. The purpose of KPIs is to evaluate progress against the budget and help motivate and monitor program performance.

Monitoring of Fiscal Performance “If there are no established criteria, monitoring cannot take place; the board can only rummage around in information” (Carver, 1996, p. 17). Although Carver was writing about nonprofit boards, this comment applies equally to language-program management. As indicated earlier in the section on policy, monitoring needs to be based on established policies. Most financial experts suggest that administrators check on a quarterly basis. However, because language programs fluctuate considerably month-to-month, I have found that monthly monitoring is more effective. Given that reports should include the KPIs touched on earlier, language-center directors only need to examine these specific measures. They do not need to conduct a line-item analysis if the measures are acceptable. If the measures are not acceptable, then they need to determine why numbers vary from the budget. However, because the budget is a forecast, the budget assumptions may need to be questioned. Perhaps the KPIs were not realized because of increased/decreased income or increased/decreased expenditure. LPAs need to investigate the causes of the variation and then take action.

260

D. E. Murray

Financial Reports Monthly reports should be designed to display actual fiscal condition, which can be compared to the budgeted financial position. Budgeted income and expenditure are usually amortized over the year so that in the first quarter, one would expect income and expenditure to be 25% of annual budgeted income and expenditure and so on. Often management also wants a comparison with the previous year, so the actual final data from the previous year may be included in the report. The major components of financial reports are as follows: • • • • • •

year-to-date budgeted income and expenditure, year-to-date income (actuals), year-to-date expenditure (actuals), variance of actual from budget (forecast), KPIs, and a written summary of key elements.

Key Performance Indicators Because of the possible variation by quarter or even month in language programs, KPIs often provide a more accurate picture of financial health than do the standard amortized percentages. Although KPIs vary from program to program, some examples are provided to demonstrate the type of KPI that is useful for monitoring fiscal performance. Salaries are the single biggest cost in any organization. Therefore, one KPI should be related to the relationship between salary and either overall income or overall expenditure. Another KPI to consider is the number of student weeks of instruction.

Sample Report Different centers have different financial years, but the mid-year report is usually significant because one would expect income and expenditure to be 50% of budget, even in contexts where there is considerable month-by-month variation. Table 15.3 shows a fictional, simplified report for mid-financial year (June). The budget is based on the following assumptions: • Permanent and non-permanent teaching staff have been given separate line items because permanent staff incur fringe benefit costs and are a fixed cost, while non-­ permanent staff do not. • Travel is not subsumed under consumables because the parent institution has guidelines for travel that need to be monitored.

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

261

Table 15.3  Mid-year financial report for Socrates Language Center

Income  Course fees  Consulting  Interest Total income Expenditure  Teaching salaries (permanent)  Teaching salaries (casual)  Support salaries  Consumables  Equipment  Travel  Rent  Contribution to parent organization  Honoraria Total expenditure Operating surplus (deficit) Reserves Accumulated surplus (deficit) KPIs  Student weeksn  Ratio of salaries to student weeks  % of income spent on rent

2021 Actual

2022 Approved Budget

2022 June Budget

2022 June Actual

3,500,000 50,000 20,000 3,570,000

4000,000a 100,000 25,000 4,125,000

2000,000 60,000d 12,500 2,072,500

1,750,000 1,900,000 800,000 110,000 250,000 20,000 25,000 250,000 357,000

1,912,500b 60,000 10,000e 1,982,500

2022 June Variance $ (87,500)c 0 (2500) (90,000)

% (4.4) 0.0 (20.0) (4.3)

950,000

930,000f

20,000

(2.1)

1000,000

500,000

510,000g

(10,000)

2.0

130,000 300,000 30,000 25,000 280,000 412,500

65,000 150,000 15,000 12,500 140,000 206,250

63,000h 200,000i 2300j 20,000k 140,000 0l

2000 (50,000) 12,700 (7500) 0 206,250

(3.1) 33.3 (84.7) 60.0 0.0 (100.0)

2500 2,041,250 31,250

4000m 1,869,300 113,200

(1500) 171,950

60.0 (8.4)

5000 5000 3,567,000 4,082,500 3000 42,500 250,000 253,000

295,500

6250 425.60

6375 475.29

3187 475.37

3000 501.00

7.00

6.79

6.76

7.06

Course fee to increase to cover expected salary increases and additional courses offered Contract already signed for work in first half of year c Figures in parentheses are a deficit d Lower student enrollments than expected e Interest rates lower than expected f One permanent teaching staff member left g Casual teacher hired to take load of permanent teacher who left h Support staff left i Paper and other consumables bought in advance. Service contracts for equipment paid in advance j New computers not yet paid for k Most conference travel occurs in the first half of the year l Contribution not made until December each year m This report shows considerable variation from the approved budget n The number of students in a course multiplied by the number of weeks for the course a

b

262

D. E. Murray

• The center pays a percentage (e.g., 10%) of its income to the parent institution. • This report is for the General English program. Separate reports are generated for other programs. This report shows considerable variation from the approved budget. However, the issue for management is whether that variation is sufficient to cause concern, and if it is, should action be taken. If managers looked only at expenditure and income lines, they could perceive there are no problems because expenditure has been less than income for the period. Most of the variance is small in terms of dollar amount, even if the percentage is high, such as for travel and consumables. In both cases, the notes explain the variance adequately. However, the major expense of the contribution to the parent organization has not been paid. Consequently, what looks like a positive variance is actually a negative one because this fee is a fixed cost. The KPIs reveal the key issues. Student weeks are below those expected and the ratio of salaries to student weeks has increased, which shows that staffing costs have not been reduced to match the decreased enrollment. Rent, another fixed cost, also reflects the change in enrollment. Therefore, management needs to determine whether this reduced enrollment is a seasonal variation. For example, in previous years, perhaps there were more students in the second half of the year. If not, the center needs to project anticipated enrollments for the rest of the year based on current patterns and adjust staffing and other resources accordingly.

A Framework for Developing a Business Plan A significant part of language-program business can be consulting. There are three major sources of such consulting requests: 1. Individuals within the organization may be asked by an outside body to provide a consultancy. 2. The program may be asked to develop a course or curriculum for another entity, either within or outside of country. 3. A stakeholder requests that the language program offer a particular course or advise another program. In each case, whether to offer the consultancy needs to be decided based on (a) the strategic directions of the institution, (b) a market analysis, (c) institutional resources, and (d) the fiscal viability of offering the consultancy. Thus, the first decision point is whether the consultancy falls within the core business of the language program or the institution in which the language program might be housed. The request for a business law course was given earlier in this chapter. The institution decided that this request was part of its core business because it provided courses in business for the business school and one of its strategic directions was to provide English language support to units across the campus. However, when the institution examined its resources, it found that it did not have the resources to offer such a course without great financial risk. A different example is provided in Scenario 4.

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

263

Scenario 4. A private English language school was asked to develop a curriculum for a short 10-week intensive course for e-commerce business executives. The company making the request wanted its executives to be able to interact in English with companies needing to sell their products online. After careful costing and due diligence, the curriculum was developed; the costing for the course included the development of the curriculum as well as delivery. The company, as is often the case, would pay a month before the executives were to arrive for the course. However, because of the dot-com downturn, the company went out of business. Several years later, when the e-commerce economy picked up, a different company made a similar request that required only a few changes to the original curriculum. However, they would only negotiate for a much lower fee than that agreed with the previous company. This lower fee would cover delivery costs and costs for changing the curriculum and give the school a small profit of $2000 (rather than the $15,000 they planned from the original company). The school decided to go ahead with the course. Although the profit was small, it was $2000 more than the program would have had without offering the course because the original development costs had already been incurred. The monies already invested in the program that did not eventuate are referred to as a sunk expense. To determine whether to go ahead with a potential new program, management needs to develop a business plan (in some countries called a business case), after they have determined that the program is within the strategic goals of the language program. A market analysis needs to be conducted to determine whether the services are needed. This analysis can be done through interviews, surveys, and an examination of offerings by competitors. A market analysis is similar to the environmental scan conducted in strategic planning (see Chap. 5 for more information on environmental scanning). To examine whether the center has the resources and whether the project is fiscally feasible requires a plan for both program development and its implementation. The development plan includes the activities that are involved, the deliverables, the time and personnel required, other resources needed, people and non-human costs, and a timeline. A sample plan for a fictional language program, the Socrates Language Center (based on Scenario 5), is provided in Table 15.4. Scenario 5. Socrates Language Center (SLC) was asked to develop a curriculum for low intermediate learners who were intending to study in an English-­ medium university. The country making the request intended to use the curriculum in-country, and so SLC would not be teaching it. The deliverable for this fictional plan is a content-based curriculum consisting of a published four-unit workbook and accompanying DVDs for use with low intermediate learners. SLC has a staff member who can serve as project manager and perform editing and proofreading, but video production and desktop publishing need to be outsourced.

264

D. E. Murray

Table 15.4  Plan for development of curriculum materials Activity Planning & review meetings

Writing

Video shoot

Desktop publishing (DTP) Editing/proofing Photocopying Postage/stationery Final printing Total costs

Personnel Project manager Writers (2) Desktop publisher Editor Project manager Writers (2) Project manager Outsourced company Project manager Outside DTP Project manager In-house editor Project manager Office staff Office staff Project manager Print shop

Time Needed 4 days 2 days 1 day 1 day 8 days 40 days each 5 days

2 days 5 days 2 days 3 days 1 day 2 days 1 day

Resources Meeting room Food Data projector

Room

People Costs $800 $800 $200

Other Costs $400 $400 $400

$200 $1600 $16,000

$4000

$1000 $20,000 None Printing

Postage/ stationery

1 day

$400 $1000 $400 $450 $200 $200 $100

$500

$500

$200 Print shop $43,550

$3000 $9200

Although the costs are provided in Table 15.4, they were costed in more detail than using a typical budget-preparation template and cost structures. Note that meeting rooms are charged because the language program pays rent for all of its rooms. The timeline for the development of the curriculum is represented in Fig. 15.1 using a Gannt chart, a visual commonly used to map out timelines for development activities. Some activities can be conducted in parallel. For example, while the writers need to write the video script before video shooting can take place, they can be writing the workbooks while the video shooting is taking place. However, desktop publishing of the workbook cannot start until the writers have finished. The final decision of whether to accept the proposal lies with the requester; however, SLC has determined through the business case that it has the expertise (or can hire in what it does not have in-house) and will charge a fee of 10% of costs as profits.

15  Managing Resources and Financial Planning

265

Activity Meetings Writing Video shoot Desktop publishing Editing/proofing Printing Weeks

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fig. 15.1  Gannt chart for developing curriculum materials

Conclusion This chapter has covered some of the basic principles involved in managing language- program resources. Even in large language centers or language programs within larger institutions where budgets are often determined by others, the strategies discussed here will help LPAs manage those budgets so that financial and other decisions that influence resource allocation are transparent to both language-­ program personnel and senior management outside of the language program. It is important to note that the strategies introduced in this chapter are based on two higher-level principles: (a) financial plans result from strategic plans and directions and (b) directors have a moral duty of care (i.e., fiduciary responsibility) for the resources (both human and non-human) that they hold on behalf of their various stakeholders.

266

D. E. Murray

Reflecting on Managing Resources and Financial Planning 1. The chapter suggests that, in some language-program contexts, budgets be developed in close consultation with language-program personnel (and possibly other stakeholders). Have you worked in a language program where budgets were developed through collaboration? If not, how were they developed? What do you see as the advantages of a collaborative process? Would this process be appropriate in your context? 2. The chapter recommends policies and KPIs for budgets. Think about the language programs in which you have worked or administered. What policies and KPIs would be needed for those language programs?

Suggested Readings Brady, B. (2008). Development, a.k.a. fundraising: A neglected element of professional development. In C. Coombe, M. L. McCloskey, L. Stephenson & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Leadership in English language teaching and learning (pp. 154–166). University of Michigan Press. Although fundraising is not discussed in this chapter, it is an important aspect of managing financial resources in many institutions. Increasingly, educational institutions are relying on fundraising (also called development) to meet some of their expenses. Brady’s chapter provides an excellent overview of types of fundraising, as well as principles and techniques for managing fundraising. White, R., Hockley, A., van der Horst Jansen, J., & Laughner, M.  S. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations. Cambridge University Press. This volume, written for language program administrators, has two chapters devoted to financial management—one on strategic financial management (Chapter 6) and one on operational financial management (Chapter 7).

References Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. (2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), 1469–1505. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022022118798505 Carver, J. (1996). Three steps to fiduciary responsibility. Jossey-Bass. Christison, M. A., & Murray, D. E. (2009). Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times. Routledge. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Sage. Maritan, C. A., & Lee, G. K. (2017). Resource allocation and strategy. Journal of Management, 43(8), 2411–2420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729738 Nair, K. (1997). A higher standard of leadership: Lessons from the life of Gandhi. Berrett-Koehler. White, R., Hockley, A., van der Horst Jansen, J., & Laughner, M. S. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations. Cambridge University Press. Denise E. Murray is Professor Emerita at Macquarie University, Australia, where she was the Director of the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR). Previously, she was founding Chair of the Department of Linguistics and Language Development at San José State University, California. She co-edited a volume on leadership in English language teaching with M.A. Christison and has taught classes on leadership in Australia, Thailand, and the United States. She also served as President of TESOL International Association.  

Chapter 16

Managing Time MaryAnn Christison

and Fredricka L. Stoller

Abstract  To assist language-program administrators in carrying out their management and leadership responsibilities effectively, this chapter focuses on developing a time-management plan that is based on a key time-management principle: the importance of connecting daily activities to core values. The chapter covers basic reasons for organizing and managing time and introduces four primary strategies for successful time management. These strategies include (a) incorporating time management into a daily routine, (b) dealing with unfinished business and incomplete tasks, (c) avoiding crisis management whenever possible, and (d) managing electronic communication. When these strategies are combined into regular and systematic practice, they can coalesce into a coherent time-management plan. Keywords  e-Communication · Prioritizing tasks · Productivity · Time · Time management · Time-management strategies If I were to let my life be taken over by what is urgent, I might very well never get around to what is essential. (Henri Nouwen, cited in Ringma, 2000, p. 48)

Whether language-program administrators (LPAs) work in small language programs with few students, teachers, and staff or in large language programs with many students, numerous teachers, and multiple staff, they are partially or fully responsible for overseeing many different facets of a language program, including student admissions, curriculum design, class scheduling, the administration of placement exams, management of budgets, supervision of language-program personnel, hiring and firing of staff, running of meetings and orientation sessions, building of linkages with other programs or businesses within the community, and M.A. Christison (*) University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] F. L. Stoller Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_16

267

268

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

student and faculty advocacy. In addition to the so-called standard duties for LPAs, unforeseen tasks arise daily that seem urgent. These tasks include requests for information, unanticipated student and faculty crises, abrupt breakdowns in technology, unexpected personnel illnesses, and disruptive computer viruses, to name just a few. With so many different duties, coupled with a rather large number of potential unexpected demands, it is easy to understand why tasks that seem urgent can overwhelm essential and personally fulfilling ones. Consider Scenario 1.

Scenario 1. Sophia wakes up late because her alarm did not go off. It is already 7:45 a.m. Her stomach starts churning, and she feels panic. At 9:15 a.m., she has an extremely important meeting with the Academic Vice President about the language program that she directs. Typically, her commute to work takes about 45 minutes. Because she will be leaving her home late, she will hit rush hour traffic; consequently, her drive could take over an hour. Sophia hurriedly dresses and dashes out of the house after a meager breakfast of coffee and toast. She arrives late at the office but in just enough time to meet the Vice President. Because she did not have time to adequately prepare for the meeting, it does not go well. Sophia feels that she answered questions poorly and was unable to make her points clearly or succinctly. By lunchtime, she feels hassled, hungry, and inarticulate. Because she is running behind, she skips lunch and grabs another cup of coffee. The rest of the day assumes a pattern similar to the morning—she loses a memo, is late for another meeting, and has to deal with several student crises. She accomplishes none of the tasks that she had hoped to complete, including reading a journal article that caught her attention, reviewing several textbooks for possible adoption, revising a lesson plan for her own course, returning two important phone calls, writing three letters, and correcting the last of the essays for her writing class. She ends up going to her class inadequately prepared and is unable to return the essays to her students. By the time she is ready to leave work after her late afternoon class, she feels stressed and unfocused.

Scenario 1 illustrates how easy it is for the urgent to overwhelm the essential. To be able to respond effectively to routine and less-than-routine responsibilities, LPAs must be skilled communicators, leaders, negotiators, decision makers, innovators, and strategic planners, as indicated elsewhere in this volume. We believe that LPAs must also be able to manage time wisely by prioritizing tasks strategically, planning effectively, delegating sufficiently, and avoiding procrastination.

16  Managing Time

269

One of the greatest challenges associated with time management for most LPAs is that they are often not in total control of their time. Their time is partly controlled by their superiors and partly by the program itself; thus, an LPA’s own time is quite restricted. Given the limited time available, how can LPAs best fulfill their responsibilities, continue to find their work satisfying, and avoid burnout and feelings of being overwhelmed? There is no one correct way to manage time. The decisions that LPAs make about how to structure time are largely context specific; consequently, it would be impossible to prescribe a singular approach to managing time that would work for every LPA. Nevertheless, an endorsement of a key principle for time management, as well as the implementation of specific strategies, can be helpful regardless of the context in which LPAs work. In this chapter, we explore a basic time-management principle and suggest specific strategies for implementing it in language-program contexts.

The Concept of Time It is interesting to note the intended meanings of some common English-language expressions that are associated with time; these meanings and the frequency with which we use the expressions provide insights into our relationship with time. For example, “time flies” is used when one has not accomplished expected outcomes within the time available. “Time will take care of it” is stated when one does not know how to move forward and hopes that, given enough time, a particular condition will rectify itself without intervention. “Sorry, I just don’t have time” is asserted when one would rather not admit that a request or proposal is not sufficiently important to warrant taking or finding the time. In these common expressions, time is presented as if it were something physical, but time is only a theoretical construct. Time cannot be physically experienced by seeing, hearing, feeling, or tasting it. It only seems physical because it is measured by a clock and calendar. Sophia, the LPA in Scenario 1, experienced a conflict between time as it was measured and time as she experienced it. In the busy lives of LPAs, there is likely no rhetorical question asked more often than “Where has the time gone?”. To be sure, time does not depart the scene; it has not gone anywhere. The real question about time is the following: How is it that some people seem to accomplish so much and others so little in the same amount of time? We hope that Sophia’s story in Scenario 1 does not sound overly familiar to you, but if it does, even some of the time, we believe that you can benefit from the time-management principle and strategies introduced in this chapter. Time does not have to be in control. With purposeful changes in the way time is managed, it is possible to control and manage time more wisely and find work more satisfying.

270

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

A Key Time-Management Principle The productive use of time is ultimately a result of personal judgment calls (Coombe et al., 2020). It is our daily, weekly, and yearly actions that determine whether we will (a) achieve successful and rewarding professional lives and (b) have fulfilling personal lives with time for our close friends and families, as well as other activities that we deem important. Finding a balance in life can be challenging. Anderson (2020) notes that achieving a balance between our personal and professional lives is not as easy as it may seem on the surface and that traditional ways of viewing balance (personal vs. professional) have not resulted in the type of balance that he (Anderson) is seeking and wishes to achieve. “We may believe that there are just two things to balance. But, when we actually subdivide each of these two into smaller segments, we see why balance can be difficult to maintain” (p.  104). Anderson states that we all assume multiple roles in our personal and professional lives. For example, we are friends, parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, partners, volunteers, husbands, or wives. The same is true for our professional lives. We are likely committee members, reviewers, teachers, supervisors, mentors, coaches, editors, and colleagues; each of the roles that we assume leads us to multiple goals. Achieving balance is a complicated matter that is related to the goals that we set for each of the roles we assume. Consequently, finding balance is more than simply dividing up time in the day to attend to various tasks. How we use time is dependent on the goals that we have in all areas of our lives. At the core of successful time management is one key principle: Your values and how you spend your time must be connected (Covey, 2020; Covey et al., 2003; Dodd & Sundheim, 2005). This approach to time management is referred to as a strategy process (Anderson, 2009). In a strategy process, personal and professional activities are connected to one’s goals and objectives (Zeller, 2015), which in turn are connected to core values. Central to Sophia’s problems with time in Scenario 1 was the fact that so much time in her workday was filled with tasks and activities that were not at the core of her values system. For example, she wanted to read over a professional journal that had just arrived, revise a lesson plan, return important phone calls, and review textbooks for possible adoption. She did not get to any of these tasks. Because she did not purposefully structure her life to allow time to pursue the activities that she valued, she was not able to approach the other activities in her life in a purposeful and organized way, which added to her feelings of stress. The basic objective of time management is not for us to become super-efficient and super-productive by completing endless lists of “to dos” but rather to use time in ways that allow us to achieve important goals. If you are like the two of us, it is likely that you became a language teacher because you loved teaching, loved languages, and loved exploring other cultures and ways of seeing the world through interactions with language learners. Teaching language and doing it well was an integrated, essential, and fulfilling part of our lives. Transitioning into language-­ program administration from teaching brought us face-to-face with a wide array of daily tasks that did not hold the same meaning for us as teaching had. While we persisted in completing many difficult and challenging tasks because we wanted the

16  Managing Time

271

programs that we were directing to be successful, it was important for us to remember that a certain amount of our time had to be spent pursuing activities that supported our core values or we would have eventually sabotaged our own productivity and organizational efforts (Zeller, 2015). To help you explore the basic time-management principle in your own life, we provide reflective tools in the appendices to this chapter. Appendix A contains a questionnaire that will help you determine your time-management needs. Appendix B provides a tool that will help you view your daily activities from two different perspectives so that you can determine how to prioritize and connect these activities to your values.

Reasons for Organizing and Managing Time LPAs often bemoan the fact that they are so busy that they do not have time to get organized. Morgenstern (2004) suggests that individuals often become motivated to engage in time management when they become so mired in busyness that their lives are more about finishing the million and one things on their to-do lists than about making time for what really matters in their lives. While finishing tasks is important, there are at least seven other important reasons for organizing and managing one’s time (Gavin, 2021; Pavlina, 2009): 1. Reduce stress. Being disorganized adds stress to life. Frequently looking for misplaced items, being hurried, missing deadlines, or not having enough time to get urgent and/or important things done are likely signs of being disorganized. Certain aspects of our lives may not necessarily be within our control. Yet, the application of better time-management strategies and organizational skills are within our control and can help reduce overall stress when things arise that we cannot control. 2. Increase productivity. If we are disorganized, we are not as productive as we could be. If we are organized, we not only accomplish our objectives, but we may also do a better job. Our surroundings at home and at work say a lot about us. If our workspaces are disorganized and we cannot find anything, our colleagues notice and adapt their behaviors toward us in light of this observation. 3. Retain more control. Being organized and managing our time allow us to control our lives to some extent. When no conscious effort is made to manage time, time will control us. Not managing our time guarantees that important items (e.g., reports, contracts, syllabi, fee schedules) will not be found when we need them and tasks that need to be finished may not be completed on time. 4. Gain perspective. Managing our time and developing organizational skills can heighten awareness and give us the mental space to change our perspectives on certain issues. When we give ourselves the time to think, it becomes possible to determine our mental and emotional states and see where we are and where we are going. Time management allows us to consider the issues and respond thoughtfully. 5. Improve professional reputation. Rushed work, mishaps, and missed deadlines inevitably have a ripple effect, impacting colleagues’ abilities to get their work done. “When colleagues have to pick up slack because of [our] time-­management failures” (Gavin, 2021, p. 16), we develop a reputation for being unreliable and untrustworthy.

272

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

6. Free yourself from regret. Looking back often reveals time misspent, followed by regret. Time management allows us to focus on the present and future, even when things in the past didn’t proceed as intended. 7. Add time to your life. When we manage time well, we often feel that we have more time to pursue our personal goals and dreams. Most people who actively engage in time management feel motivated and have a sense that it is possible to achieve their overall goals. If we endorse the most basic time-management principle—that is, our values and our use of time must be connected, we are ready to focus on critical strategies for getting organized so that we can experience the benefits of time management.

Strategies for Successful Time Management Four basic strategies can help LPAs manage time successfully: (a) incorporating time management into daily routines, (b) dealing with unfinished business and incomplete tasks, (c) avoiding crisis management whenever possible, and (d) managing electronic communication. When these strategies are regularly and systematically combined, they can coalesce into a coherent plan for successful time management.

Incorporating Time Management into Daily Routines LPAs can manage each day more efficiently by setting aside 10–15 minutes at the end or very beginning of a workday to organize their time and activities. Initially it may take more than 10–15  minutes, but when the practice becomes routine, less time will be needed to manage one’s time. Organizing a daily routine is essentially a four-step process. • Step 1—Focus on making a to-do list for the day that includes valued activities, old business, routine appointments, and office hours. Sample lists appear in Figs. 16.1 and 16.2 (the latter organized around task types). • Step 2—Focus on prioritizing daily tasks. Assign a number to each task according to its urgency or importance (Covey, 2020): 1. High priority—Valued tasks or tasks that are either important and urgent; to be worked on or completed today. 2. Priority—Tasks that are important but not urgent; to be completed within the week. 3. Low priority—Tasks that are less important and less urgent; to be completed within two weeks. See Fig. 16.3 for an example of a prioritized to-do list. See also Gavin (2021, p. 34) for a “4Ns approach to prioritization,” using now, next, not by me (or not by myself), and never.

16  Managing Time

273 September 28, 2022

Set up appointment with Dean Call Admissions Office at KU Evaluate three online admission files Keep office hrs. Write memo about office changes Contact IT person about on-line courses Delegate drafting of poster for upcoming fundraiser for student scholarships Check email inbox (30 min.) Clear voicemail and text messages Check mail Return phone calls from yesterday Work on paper (1.5 hrs.) Prepare for class (1 hr.) Make hotel reservation for conference Book transportation to conference

Fig. 16.1  Sample to-do list

• Step 3—Assign an approximate completion time to each task. If high-priority tasks require more time than is available, several tasks are crossed out and moved to another day. Priority and low-priority tasks may have to be scheduled later in the month. This approach to time management provides insights into what can and cannot be accomplished. It also helps LPAs set limits for themselves. The goal, of course, is to eventually be able to spend time on all high-priority tasks each day. • Step 4—Concentrate on how successful the process has been relative to the completion of designated tasks. Tasks are rated as completed, scheduled for another day, delegated (with a time to check back established), in process, or deemed unnecessary and deleted from the list. It is not uncommon for LPAs to receive urgent requests for information from senior-­level administrators, sponsoring agencies, colleagues, faculty, and staff that require a change in one’s schedule and priorities. It is important to determine what percentage of time can realistically be spent on tasks that come about as a result of someone else’s priorities. For example, a dean or vice president may request information about language-program enrollment trends that will take time and effort to compile. It would not be prudent to deny the request, but our responses should be framed in a way that demonstrates the key time-management principle, as well as programmatic priorities. LPAs can respond to such requests by letting the senior official know that they would be happy to complete the task, but they should also

274

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

September 28, 2022 Contact Dean’s office for appointment Admissions Office at KU IT person about on-line courses Evaluate Three online admission files Write/draft Memo about office changes Paper (1.5 hrs.) Delegate Ask (someone) to draft poster for upcoming fundraiser for student scholarships Email/Phone Check email inbox (30 min.) Clear voicemail and text messages Return phone calls from yesterday Class Prepare for class (1 hr.) Office hours Keep office hrs. Other Make hotel reservation for conference Book transportation to conference Fig. 16.2  Sample to-do list, organized by task type

let the person know how much time it will take and when it can be finished. If there is pressure to complete the task immediately, LPAs should state their willingness to complete the task, but inform the senior official of the tasks that will not be completed as a result of immediate compliance. This technique is intended to place the responsibility for changing a time-management plan into the hands of the requester.

Dealing with Unfinished Business and Incomplete Tasks Newcomers to time management often have lists of unfinished business or tasks that have piled up. Several practicing LPAs have told us that the following sequence has been useful in moving forward.

16  Managing Time

275

September 28, 2022 #1 High priority Set up appointment with Dean Call Admissions Office at KU Keep office hrs. Check email inbox (30 min.) Clear voicemail and text messages Return phone calls from yesterday Work on paper (1.5 hrs.) Prepare for class (1 hr.) #2 (Priority) Evaluate online admission files Write memo about office changes Make hotel reservation for conference Book transportation to conference #3 (Low priority) Contact IT person about on-line courses Delegate drafting of poster for upcoming fundraiser for student scholarships Fig. 16.3  Prioritized to-do list

1. Compile a list of unfinished business. You may be able to create the list quickly, or it may take a few hours or even days before all unfinished business comes to mind. 2. Prioritize items on the list. Place the tasks or projects that seem most urgent or most important first. 3. Decide how much time is needed to finish up each responsibility. 4. Determine when to begin work on each task and how much of your day to devote to the task after you have begun to focus on it. For example, if you have a list of 10 unfinished tasks that will take you between 25–30 hours to complete and if you devote two hours a day to these tasks, it will take you about three weeks to complete all of them. Deliberate planning is important for determining what needs to be completed, how much time is required, and how much time is available. Going through this process is helpful in deciding when new tasks and responsibilities can be added to the list.

276

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

Avoiding Crisis Management Whenever Possible Urgent and sometimes totally unanticipated tasks often surface and require some form of crisis management. (See Chap. 9 for a discussion of proactive strategies that can be used for managing crises.) Consider crisis-management Scenario 2. Scenario 2. As Sophia arrives at the office, her office assistant hands her a note stating the following: • 2 former Ss waiting to see you; each requesting letter of rec today. Ss travelled 2 hrs to talk to you and get letters. • Dean called. Needs some stats for 10 a.m. meeting with President. • Jane Doe called in sick, requesting substitute in 10:30 a.m. class. Sophia spends the next two hours working on statistics for the Dean. She compiles them just in the nick of time and takes them to the Dean’s office. To her dismay, she learns that the meeting was canceled, but no one had bothered to tell her. She returns to her office, quickly throws some tried-and-true class activities together, and then substitutes for an hour (because she was listed as the on-call substitute for the day). She returns to her office at 11:45 a.m. and spends the next 90 minutes writing letters for the two students who have been waiting since 8:00 a.m. At 1:00 p.m. she finally looks at her own to-do list, only to be reminded of how far behind she is. She has not yet corrected papers or prepared for her own class at 2:00 p.m. nor has she completed next semester’s class schedule for her faculty to review or responded to the two recruitment agencies that are sending students to the program for the next class cycle.

By looking at Sophia’s morning through the lens of the key time-management principle, we can gain another perspective on how Sophia might have approached her day (Scenario 3).

Scenario 3. By the time Sophia arrives at work, she has already evaluated her workday and knows that it is very full. She knows that responding to the three unanticipated requests essentially means that these new tasks would be considered more important than the tasks that she has planned for and scheduled. Is she willing to remove some previously designated “high-priority” tasks from her list to attend to these new requests? Sophia decides that these new tasks are urgent and important for the people who have made the requests, but they are neither urgent nor particularly important for the overall program nor for her own personal goals. (continued)

16  Managing Time

277

Sophia meets briefly with the two former students and gives them the proper forms to complete for requesting letters of recommendation from her. She directs students’ attention to a policy statement at the bottom of the form, which explains that students should allow at least a week for letters to be sent. Sophia tells the students that while she is happy to write the letters for them, she cannot do it today. It is hard for Sophia to say “no” to students, but it is easier when she understands the consequences of making such a decision. What would she change or give up to be able to write those letters today? Sophia asks her secretary to call the Dean’s office to tell him that the statistics he has requested can be available Thursday by noon. Does he still want them if he cannot get them today? The Dean’s office informs Sophia’s secretary that the 10 a.m. meeting was cancelled and that receiving the information on Thursday would be fine. Sophia knows that she is on call as a substitute teacher this week, so she has already planned how she will revise her schedule should the need arise.

Managing Electronic Communication It is hard to imagine life without e-communication such as email, Skype, Zoom, SMS messaging, Dropbox, Google Docs, to name a few. In the daily life of an LPA, e-communication can be both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because it allows LPAs to get more work done and facilitates communication with individuals worldwide (e.g., prospective students, former students, new hires, parents, recruitment agencies, colleagues). Email correspondence is particularly useful if LPAs (a) need a written record of the communication, (b) are communicating with more than one person, (c) need to attach documents (e.g., reports, contracts), (d) are dealing with an individual whose level of English proficiency makes spoken communication difficult and potentially confusing, (e) are communicating across time zones, or (f) have a limited amount of time available. Email can also be somewhat of a curse because of the time required to manage the enormous volume of incoming and outgoing email. Moreover, there is no break from email; it arrives in the evening, on weekends, and on holidays, and with email, there is the expectation of an immediate response. LPAs often manage as many as 200+ email communications each day, and this number does not include inbox entries that result from in-house or external electronic mailing lists and advertisements. Without a strategy for managing email, it can be a constant distraction. We offer some suggestions for handling email so that it does not end up controlling time. • Discard unwanted emails as soon as you receive them, so that you don’t find yourself rereading them later.

278

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

• Limit the amount of time that you spend on email each day. If you know that you have only so much time for your emails, you will be more efficient and concise in your responses. • Only read over emails when you have time to respond to them; in this way, you will not have to read most emails more than once. • Develop standard responses for program inquiries that can be pasted into messages as needed. • Forward messages that can be answered by staff. • Refer inquiries about the language program to the program website. • Develop a system for filing email messages (in folders that are labeled in transparent ways) so that important emails can be retrieved easily. LPAs are in and out of their offices constantly and need some way for staff, faculty, and stakeholders to contact them when issues arise. Text messaging has become a very common method of contact. Messages left on voicemail are also common. It is important to remember that both texting and voicemail give individuals who leave messages the impression that they have communicated with you. Unfortunately, both types of e-communication create a process that puts the responsibility for follow-­up with you, the receiver of the message. It is hard to set parameters for texting after someone has your mobile number, but it is possible to set parameters for voicemail, such as encouraging those who want to contact you to call you back when you will be in your office, letting them know when you check voicemail, encouraging them to contact you via email, or giving them contact information for other individuals who may be able to address their concerns.

Twelve Additional Strategies LPAs can manage their busy lives and multiple responsibilities by following the time- management plan outlined above. We have compiled 12 additional strategies for managing time. 1. Delegate. Learning how to delegate is important for one’s health, sanity, and the language program (Murphey & Brogan, 2008). Although a delegated task may not be accomplished exactly as you would have done it, remember that you cannot personally attend to every task. When you delegate tasks, communicate “expectations clearly and up-front” (Gavin, 2021, p. 43). (See Chap. 9 for perspectives on the delegation of responsibilities in language-program contexts.) 2. Just say “no.” Of all time-saving techniques, perhaps the most effective is the use of the word “no” (Mancini, 2007). Because most LPAs are conditioned to say “yes” to requests relating to professional work, saying “no” to a request is difficult. Consider having a system in place for responding to requests. Say “no” to requests when any of the following conditions exist: • The request does not move you closer to your personal goals. • The request does not move the program closer to its goals.

16  Managing Time

279

• Unreasonable pressure is exerted for an immediate answer. • You are not certain that you can deliver what is being asked of you. 3. Interact with all types of communication (paper and electronic) only once. Make a decision about what to do, reply, and take care of it immediately. 4. Post regular office hours and keep them (whether you meet with others face-to-­ face or virtually). Be accessible to students, faculty, and staff during these times. Knowing that you are available during office hours makes it easier for others to accept that there will be times when the LPA cannot be interrupted. 5. Develop a system for labeling and organizing electronic documents so that you can retrieve them in a timely manner. Only file items that you may need at a future date. Do not clutter your files with needless items. Consider saving documents in the Cloud so that they can be retrieved from any location. (For comments on cloud-based computing in language-program contexts, see Chap. 14.) 6. Develop strategies to assist you in managing time. • Organize contact information on digital devices (e.g., computer, cell phone) so that you can locate this information easily. • Use form letters or templates to answer the most frequently asked questions. By simply changing the salutation, such correspondence can appear to be personalized. • Keep program-related resources that you may need both at home and at work. No matter how hard you try to separate your home life from your work life, you may still have to attend to some work while at home. It is much easier to take care of things at home than making a trip back to the office “off hours.” 7. Plan for rest periods and vacations. When you formalize your daily plan, schedule a short morning and afternoon break if you can. In addition, schedule time for lunch. When you engage in long-term planning, plan for vacation days and make certain everyone knows well in advance what your plans are. 8. Keep co-workers informed. You can save time in the long run if you (a) write short email messages to faculty and staff and (b) convene regular meetings (McCloskey, 2008; see also Chap. 12 for tips on planning and running effective meetings). After co-workers learn to trust these procedures, there will be no need for them to solicit information about routine matters from you. 9. Overcome the tendency to procrastinate. The best rule to follow is to delay taking action only if moving forward keeps you from a higher-priority task. 10. Review time-saving technology tools that could assist you with time management. For instance, look over Google Workspaces apps (e.g., Google Calendar, Keep), Todoist (i.e., a cloud-based service that permits the organization and prioritization of tasks), and Trello (i.e., a web-based list-making app). (See Dieste & Giraldez, 2021, for more details about these apps.) 11. Prepare standardized presentations and web-based materials to introduce new employees to the language program. 12. Create online presentations about the language program for key stakeholders (e.g., new administrators in the institution, student sponsors). With these presentations, misunderstandings and miscommunication about the language program can be avoided or at least minimized.

280

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

Conclusion Time is something that measures the length of our lives, but it is time management that determines the quality of our lives. The ability to manage time and use it efficiently can move us to greater heights professionally and offer us greater contentment and satisfaction in other parts of our lives as well. The challenge for LPAs is to seize the opportunity to invest in time management. Life is an exercise in time management because time is the most precious resource you have. You don’t know how much you have, but you know you’ll never get more of it. Your mission should be to spend it wisely. To spend it making an impact. To spend it becoming the person you want to be. (Gavin, 2021, pp. 136–137)

In this chapter, we have provided a general time-management framework that can guide LPAs in productive ways and suggested specific strategies for making time management work in the context of language-program administration.

Reflecting on Time Management 1. Share the results of your Preliminary Inventory on Time Management (Appendix A) with a peer. What did you learn about yourself? What are you committed to changing? What are the advantages to being organized? How do these advantages apply to you personally? 2. Imagine that you direct a language program with about 150 students. You supervise 13 teachers and non-teaching staff. One of your greatest frustrations is that you are continually interrupted throughout the day. You find it impossible to get some tasks finished because they require thinking and planning time. What steps can you take to change this situation?

Suggested Readings Anderson, N.  J. (2020). A paradigm shift in balancing your professional and non-professional lives. In C. Coombe, N. J. Anderson, & L. Stephenson (Eds.), Professionalizing your English language teaching (pp. 103–114). Springer. Balancing roles and responsibilities in life can be a challenge for LPAs. Striving for excellence and productivity can lead to an unbalanced life because we might put too much focus on a single responsibility. This chapter provides a view of balance that goes beyond the typical characterization of balancing one’s personal and professional lives. This chapter focuses on achieving balance by carefully examining life’s many roles and responsibilities. Zeller, D. (2015). Successful time management for dummies (2nd ed.). Wiley. Like other books in the For Dummies series, Zeller’s book offers an excellent introduction to the target concept, in this case time management. The book offers practical advice for people

16  Managing Time

281

wishing to improve their time-management skills. Topics include linking time management to life goals, prioritizing tasks, setting up workspace, communicating strategically, maintaining efficiency, and mastering meetings with co-workers. One section of the book targets time management for specific individuals, such as administrators and salespeople. The last section covers time savers and time wasters.

 ppendix A: Preliminary Inventory on Time Management A for Language-Program Administrators Directions: Read each question. Check yes if the statement is true for you 25% or more of the time. Check no if the statement is true for you less than 25% of the time. 1. Do you sometimes reach the point where you find yourself deliberately not opening your mail, reading your email, or clearing phone messages for a few days? ▢ Yes

▢ No

2. Is the top of your desk often so cluttered with piles of paper that you don’t have any space left to do your work? ▢ Yes

▢ No

3. Does it sometimes take you more than 10 minutes to unearth an important piece of paper from your files, desk, etc.? ▢ Yes

▢ No

4. Are there papers on your desk that you haven’t looked through for a week or more because you have been too busy to deal with them? ▢ Yes

▢ No

5. Within the last two months, have you forgotten any scheduled appointment, anniversary, or specific date that you wanted to acknowledge? ▢ Yes

▢ No

282

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

6. Do you tell co-workers to ignore the mess in your office because you know where everything is? ▢ Yes

▢ No

7. Do you have some friends and family who get annoyed with you because you do not have time to return calls, answer letters, and spend time with them? ▢ Yes

▢ No

8. Do you have stacks of articles and professional journals piling up because there is something important in each one, but so far you have not had time to read them? ▢ Yes

▢ No

9. Do you find yourself avoiding phone calls and social events because you just do not have the time to deal with people? ▢ Yes

▢ No

10. Do you frequently procrastinate so long on a work assignment that it becomes an emergency or panic situation? ▢ Yes

▢ No

11. Do you often misplace your cell phone, keys, glasses, gloves, briefcase, and other items? ▢ Yes

▢ No

12. Do you have piles of papers in closets, in corners, or on the floor because you have no time to decide where to put them or what to do with them? ▢ Yes

▢ No

16  Managing Time

283

13. Do you feel that the storage problems in your office could be solved if you had more space? ▢ Yes

▢ No

14. Do you want to get everything organized in your office, but it is such a mess that you do not know where to begin? ▢ Yes

▢ No

15. Does your workday usually start with a crisis of some sort? ▢ Yes

▢ No

16. Do you put off making decisions until the situation becomes an emergency? ▢ Yes

▢ No

17. Do you make to-do lists for the day but never make it through the lists? ▢ Yes

▢ No

18. Do you have a difficult time keeping regular office hours? ▢ Yes

▢ No

19. Are you constantly plagued by interruptions and, as a result, never seem to get anything done? ▢ Yes

▢ No

20. Do you often find yourself agreeing to do something just because you don’t know how to say no? ▢ Yes

▢ No

284

M.A. Christison and F. L. Stoller

Scoring: Give yourself one point for each yes. 1–4 5–7 8–10 11–20

You are relatively well organized and manage your time quite well. The organizational and time-management principles presented in this chapter will either serve as a helpful review or introduce you to a few new time- management strategies. You have a little problem with time management and organization. You could benefit from implementing the strategies outlined in this chapter. You probably feel that you are about to lose control. You should begin following the time-management suggestions outlined in this chapter. You are disorganized and do not manage your time well. It is time for an organizational overhaul. You should follow the suggestions outlined in this chapter, consult additional time-management resources, implement a time-management plan, and make time management the most important goal in your life until you get back on track.

Appendix B: Two Perspectives on Professional Activity Part I. Make a list of 10 professional activities that you consider most important. In a perfect world where you had no other professional distractions or obligations, these are the activities that you would pursue and value above all other activities. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Part II. How do you spend your time? List 10 activities that occupy the bulk of your time in a normal professional working day. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Part III. Put your lists side by side. How do they compare? How many of the activities that you value (Part I) appear in the second list (Part II)?

16  Managing Time

285

References Anderson, N.  J. (2009). Leading from behind. In M.  A. Christison & D.  E. Murray (Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (pp. 110–122). Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Anderson, N.  J. (2020). A paradigm shift in balancing your professional and non-professional lives. In C. Coombe, N. J. Anderson, & L. Stephenson (Eds.), Professionalizing your English language teaching (pp. 103–114). Springer. Coombe, C., Quirk, P., Shewell, J., & Al-Hamly, M. (2020). How the most productive TESOLers fit it all in: Strategies for productivity and efficiency. In C.  Coombe, N.  J. Anderson, & L. Stephenson (Eds.), Professionalizing your English language teaching (pp. 85–102). Springer. Covey, S. R. (2020). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Simon & Schuster. Covey, S. R., Merrill, R. A., & Merrill, R. R. (2003). First things first. Pocket Books. Dieste, V., & Giraldez, R. (2021, October). Smart time management in ELT: 21st century considerations. TESOL Connections. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/ issues/2021-­10-­01/3.html Dodd, P., & Sundheim, D. (2005). The 25 best time management tools & techniques. Ann Peak Performance Press. Gavin, P. (2021). The workplace guide to time management: Best practices to maximize productivity. Rockridge Press. Mancini, M. (2007). Time management: 24 techniques to make each minute count at work. McGraw-Hill. McCloskey, M.  L. (2008). Behind door #3: Effective meetings for the ELT profession. In C. Coombe, M. L. McCloskey, L. Stephenson, & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Leadership in English language teaching and learning (pp. 63–73). University of Michigan Press. Morgenstern, J. (2004). Time management from the inside out (2nd ed.). Henry Holt & Company. Murphey, T., & Brogan, J. (2008). The active professional’s balancing act: Time and self- management. In C. Coombe, M. L. McCloskey, L. Stephenson, & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Leadership in English language teaching and learning (pp. 79–89). University of Michigan Press. Pavlina, S. (2009). Personal development for smart people: The conscious pursuit of personal growth. Hay House. Ringma, C. R. (2000). Dare to journey with Henry Nouwen. Nav Press. Zeller, D. (2015). Successful time management for dummies (2nd ed.). Wiley. MaryAnn Christison is a professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Utah and was founding Director of the International Program and English Training Center at Snow College for 20 years prior to her University appointment. She has authored, co-authored, and co-edited over 22 books and written 140 articles and chapters on applied linguistics and English language teaching. Two of her co-edited books were specifically on language program administration (with F.  L. Stoller), and one was on leadership (with D.  E. Murray). Christison has also served as President of TESOL International.  

Fredricka L.  Stoller is Professor Emerita at Northern Arizona University (NAU). During her 35 years at NAU, she founded NAU’s Program in Intensive English (PIE), served as its Director, and then was an Advisory Board member. Fredricka has decades-long interests in language-­ program administration as evidenced by p­ resentations and publications on the topic (numerous with MaryAnn Christison) and the graduate-level courses that she taught on the subject. She was a Fulbright senior scholar in Turkey (2002–03) as the MA-TEFL program director at Bilkent University, in Timor Leste (2014), and in Vietnam (2018).  

Part IV

Best Practices in Language-Program Administration

Chapter 17

Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience Fredricka L. Stoller

and MaryAnn Christison

Abstract This chapter presents the voices of 18 professionals with extensive administrative experience. These administrators were invited to reflect on their years in administrative positions and submit up to five best practices. Their combined 66 best practices depict the breadth and depth of effective administration and touch upon a range of administrative responsibilities and abilities including advocacy; collaborative decision making; communication skills; curriculum; diversity, equity, and inclusion; empathy; health, wellness, and self-care; networking; proactivity; professional development; team building; and trust. Keywords  Best practices · Administrative best practices · Effective administration · Language-program administration · Language-program administrators

In this final chapter of the volume, we bring to life the voices of 18 professionals who have had extensive experience in leadership and management. Together they have had 366 years of experience in a range of administrative positions—in publicand private-sector language programs, universities, secondary schools, and professional associations. They have served as (a) directors of language programs, adult-education programs, satellite campuses, and special programs and projects;

With contributions by: Anthony Acevedo, Mark Algren, Neil J Anderson, Rosa Aronson, Alejandro Beoutis, Deena Boraie, Susan Carkin, Christine Coombe, Ayşegül Daloğlu, Maria Eugenia Flores, Patrick C. Kennell, Kristen M. Lindahl, John Macalister, Elizabeth Palacios, Suzanne Panferov Reese, Dudley Reynolds, Nelly Romero, and Rob Sheppard. F. L. Stoller (*) Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] M.A. Christison University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M.A. Christison, F. L. Stoller (eds.), English Language Program Administration, Educational Linguistics 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28601-8_17

289

290

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

(b) coordinators of testing, curriculum and instruction, computer labs, and ESL composition; (c) heads of teaching units, international-student advising, and international services; (d) department chairs, university deans, and university vice presidents; and (e) professional-association executive directors, presidents, convention chairs, interest section chairs, and board of trustees members. This partial listing of their leadership positions should give readers a sense of the breadth and depth of contributors’ administrative experiences. Furthermore, these 18 professionals have held administrative positions in many parts of the world, including Cambodia, Costa Rica, Egypt, New Zealand, Peru, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. The global nature of their experiences adds strength to their contributions. We invited these 18 individuals to contribute to the volume by asking them to reflect on their years of administrative experience, with the aim of identifying up to five best administrative practices.1 When viewed collectively, their 66 best practices paint a vivid picture of what it takes to be an effective language-program administrator (LPA). We have organized contributors’ best practices into two major sections: Single-­ theme and multi-theme best practices. We hope that you can translate these best practices into reality in your own administrative settings for the benefit of your language programs (including students, teaching and non-teaching personnel, and other stakeholders), home institutions, local communities, and yourselves. Before we move onto the best practices, we thank our 18 contributors for their wise advice.

Best Practices Organized around Overarching Themes In this section, we introduce six of our 18 contributors, who have organized their best practices around a central theme.

Mark Algren’s Best Practices Algren’s four best practices emphasize the importance of advocacy both inside and outside the language program. 1. Advocacy, both internal and external, is a key leadership responsibility that serves many vital purposes. Through advocacy, you can educate others about your program and students, thus enabling others to see how they can support your program so that, in turn,  We want to acknowledge Neil J Anderson whose solicitation of best practices from experts in L2 reading for Anderson (2008) inspired us to follow his lead for this book on language-program administration. 1

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

291

your program can support them. Advocacy requires knowing the concerns and needs of the individuals with whom you communicate and presenting information in ways that they will understand. 2. Advocacy requires that you exhibit confidence and pride. You can enhance the standing of your language program in the eyes of others by encouraging instructors to eliminate the marginalizing word “just” as in “I am just a teacher.” In this way, you can end the practice of self-diminishing the importance of the language program and its good work. With professional pride as an international educator, you can advocate with confidence, addressing language teaching, learning, and policy, as well as broader international-­ education issues. 3. Internal advocacy builds mutual support systems within an organization. Whether your language program is a unit within a larger institution, a standalone proprietary entity, or something in between, internal advocacy is necessary to build relationships with closely allied stakeholders (e.g., universities, students’ employers). It is important to develop relationships over time and not wait until help is needed. My language program benefitted from advocacy by educating campus offices about our mission, curriculum, and teaching methods; our students; and our financial, academic, and social contributions to the institution and community. We joined mission-relevant university committees, and we attended campuswide meetings, public presentations by high-level interviewees, and other social events. Through such activities, we gained visibility and learned about advocacy ­opportunities across campus. As we strengthened relationships with international units, notably international admissions, and sometimes provided financial support, our program became a partner in planning and decision making. Through these actions, we developed dependable partners who supported us when, for example, declining enrollments materialized during the COVID pandemic. 4. External advocacy strengthens programs by keeping stakeholders informed about a program’s contributions at levels ranging from local to international. Like internal advocacy, external forms of advocacy are useful in promoting language programs and students on a variety of levels. At the local level, community organizations, government offices, and businesses benefit from assistance in learning how to interact with non-native speakers, to the benefit of your students. These efforts shine a spotlight on your program as a resource in which the community has a vested interest. Further afield, when you join voices as one in advocacy through professional associations (see Pentón Herrera, 2022), you can capture the attention of influencers and decision makers, notably in government. Many associations inform members of advocacy opportunities at local, regional, state/provincial, national, and even international levels. To be effective advocates, it behooves us as international educators to track domestic and international events that impact our students.

292

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

Susan Carkin’s Best Practices Carkin’s three best practices center around the LPA who (a) advocates for diversity, equity, and inclusion and (b) addresses issues related to stereotypes, biases, and attitudes toward English. LPAs work in diverse academic, proprietary, and even volunteer positions. The nature of their work is made complex by a legacy—from colonial history to modern reality—that makes English the dominant global language and lingua franca. While the role of English varies by country and region, it is undergirded by the near-­ universal need to access English-based resources, products, and communications. The global distribution and broad functionality of English challenge LPAs to create environments that serve student needs while promoting values of inclusion and diversity. LPAs must also address issues of stereotypes and entrenched attitudes that may work against student learning and community acceptance of the program and its students. Because English is used by many more non-native speakers than native speakers, it is subject to the perceptions of diverse speakers and cultures. Into this milieu, LPAs must perform as managers, leaders, and influencers. The following best practices address the challenges of developing and influencing programs that foster inclusivity and deal with stereotypes, biases, and attitudes toward the varieties of English that result from both L1 and L2 instruction. 1. Create and publish a rationale for the language program, including its inclusive values and its benefit to the students it serves and the community. A language program that introduces its students to the L1 and L2 community is able to proactively address attitudes toward English that are held by the learners and the community. Issues of prestige, power, access, and human rights should be considered inseparable aspects of teaching English. These issues are best addressed by a program that (a) functions with explicitly articulated values of equity, diversity, and opportunity and (b) operationalizes those values throughout the educational environment and curriculum. 2. Publish, promote, and model values of inclusivity and equity throughout all aspects of the program. LPAs are positioned to influence practices that support diverse students and teachers, whether those differences are based on gender, ethnicity, nationality, or the L1. To support such practices, internal documents—including mission statements, hiring practices, classroom expectations—can be produced and shared. Faculty and staff may benefit from diversity-focused workshops. Such efforts can move parochial ideas about language, culture, and diversity to a more centered and global awareness that is shared across the program. 3. Discern a wider community for language-student engagement. Community engagement is crucial for expanding student opportunities for interaction with locals and local contexts, which could include conversation partners, workplace mentors and volunteers, and school and institutional visits. Such exchanges can break down stereotypes and biases among participating students

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

293

and community members. In EFL contexts, such engagement centers around the value of English to the local community where exchanges between students and community members provide enrichment opportunities through English.

Christine Coombe’s Best Practices Coombe’s five best practices underscore the importance of attending to the health, self-care, and wellness of language-program personnel. Coombe’s best practices are framed around language teachers, though parallels exist for other language-program personnel, including LPAs themselves. 1. Encourage teachers to take care of themselves. Self-care and well-being play critical roles in teachers’ abilities to build positive student–teacher relationships. In fact, when teachers enjoy increased wellbeing through self-care, they can teach to the best of their abilities and facilitate student learning. Encouraging teachers to care for themselves includes emphasizing the value of eating right, getting exercise, and sleeping between six–eight hours per night. Indeed, a host of problems has been associated with not getting enough sleep, among them diminished focus, reduced creativity, and weakened immune systems. 2. Support teachers in controlling stress in their lives. Self-care is always important, but at particularly stressful times, it is crucial. During the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers felt additional pressures on top of their already demanding jobs. Being responsible for the emotional support of students and themselves, making the switch to remote teaching in lightning speed, and mastering technology to do so added stress to their lives. LPAs can remind teachers to stay organized, at home and in the workplace, as an effective way to control stress and build resilience. 3. Urge teachers to set aside time for themselves. A teacher’s job often leads to keeping unconventional hours and letting unfinished work spill over into weekends and evenings. Self-care is enhanced when time is carved out for oneself. Whatever “free-time” activity is chosen, it should be enjoyable. 4. Remind teachers to be kind to themselves. LPAs are often approached by teachers going through troubled times. In oneon-­one conversations, remind these individuals that self-compassion is an important aspect of self-care. Being kind to oneself helps control stress and permits relaxation. Remind teachers that they play a key role in making a difference in their students’ lives. Urge them to reflect on their classroom accomplishments and other successes (beyond the classroom and Zoom screen). Encourage them to cut themselves some slack on unaccomplished goals. Suggest that they find time to engage in enjoyable activities and build them into their daily routines.

294

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

5. Aid teachers in making connections and engaging with like-minded individuals. Staying professionally and socially connected to individuals and groups with shared interests is important. The COVID era highlighted the importance of such connections. During my lockdown in Dubai, I joined a virtual Toastmasters club, helped form an online TESOL Gulf association, participated in a Zoom trivia quiz with teachers around the world, and started studying Arabic online (after almost 30 years of living in the Arab world!). These connections helped get me through the lockdown, reduced the stress I was feeling, and proved to be important for my own personal and professional development.

Maria Eugenia Flores’s Best Practices Flores’s four best practices illustrate the value of motivated teams of teachers and the administrator’s role in team building. 1. The LPA is, above all, a leader. As a leader, you need to be a visionary, skillful communicator, and great motivator. Ultimately, success is measured by students’ performance, but many factors are involved. You need a happy, prepared, and motivated team of teachers to ­facilitate the learning process. Make sure team members understand program goals, feel supported personally and professionally, and are proud of the impact of their joint efforts on students and the community. 2. The team makes it happen! Even the most experienced LPA cannot succeed in isolation. Building your team is not a matter of luck. During recruitment processes, there is a tendency to focus on the knowledge, skills, and experience that team-member candidates must have. Yet, it is exceptionally important to determine if the attitudes of potential team members align with a program’s values. Ask interview questions that reveal if candidates have a clear notion of the mission and values of the institution and how candidates will contribute to reinforce them. Solicit concrete examples to verify if candidates are team players and assess their capability to adapt. Understanding what you and the institution need will help determine which candidates may substantially contribute to your team. 3. Participatory leadership works best. Participatory leadership is sometimes considered risky, yet my experience suggests that the effort it requires ultimately pays off. Collaborative strategic planning and decision making motivate team members and help build a sense of ownership. Motivated team members, who feel valued, more readily accept new program trajectories when they are reached by consensus. Although lengthy, the process of consensus building lowers resistance and improves implementation. Team creativity will always surpass your own. Thus, create opportunities for the team to share visions, plan together, generate ideas, and find solutions to challenges.

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

295

4. Discover talent and provide opportunities for growth. Interpersonal relationships are keys to successful administration. Take time to get to know your team members as individuals and discover their strengths and passions. Match talents with responsibilities for outstanding performances. Remember that the quality of a language program is mainly determined by the quality of its teaching staff. Devise a comprehensive professional development (PD) plan—with clearly defined stages and goals—that requires active teacher engagement. Use the comprehensive PD plan to further knowledge, develop skills, and, most importantly, empower teachers to embrace new roles and responsibilities. When a language program invests in a comprehensive PD plan, the profit translates not only into quality teaching, but also into increased staff retention and successful recruitment efforts. Teachers value the opportunity for continuing education, especially as they discover innovative ways to serve their students and the program.

John Macalister’s Best Practices Macalister’s five best practices for LPAs focus on the value of knowing, that is, understanding the language classroom, oneself, students, and the location in which one serves as an administrator. 1. Keep teaching. You should aim to maintain a connection to the language classroom. When you move into administrative roles, it is very easy to allow the demands of administration and management to take over your life. When that happens, you can lose contact with the real-life classroom experiences of teachers and learners. Effective LPAs find ways to stay in touch with classroom matters by teaching a whole class, teaching a course module, or stepping in as a relief teacher when needed. 2. Know who you are. You should appreciate the unearned advantages and undeserved disadvantages that might affect how you work. Being in a leadership role gives you power. When heading an English language program in Cambodia, I kept teaching and having fun with materials redesign. But I was very aware that what I could do in the classroom (as a white, male, native speaker in a leadership role) was rather different than what Cambodian learners would accept from their Cambodian teachers. I said this at a seminar in Phnom Penh. The Cambodian teachers nodded in agreement enthusiastically while the British head of a similar program vigorously shook his head in disagreement. 3. Know where you are. You should make the effort to understand your context. Even if you have moved into an administrator role in your current workplace, there will be new things to learn about administrative systems and new colleagues. It is not just the formal systems, but the informal systems that you need

296

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

to understand. How, for example, are decisions really made? If you find yourself in a new institution, or a new country, you should never assume that you know how things function. When working in Thailand, I quickly noticed that decisions “made” in formal meetings never seemed to result in action. The formal system only “allowed” people to express agreement. After learning about the importance of consensus in that culture, I began to have “informal” conversations before formal meetings to learn what people’s opinions really were and to solicit suggestions about how things might be done. With that change in orientation, actions and changes started to happen. 4. Know who your learners are. You should make the effort to understand who your learners are, why they are studying, and what challenges they may face. If you follow my first and third pieces of advice, you are well on your way to doing this already. I would only add a caution against over-reliance on anecdotes and personal observations. There is also value in collecting systematic and objective information (e.g., through initial placement testing and demographic/ background survey questions). 5. Accept your limitations. You will not always be able to do everything you want. As you develop an understanding of your context, you will find that there are reasons why some things work and others do not. A creative challenge for LPAs is how to mitigate those inhibiting forces in a positive fashion. That’s fun!

Suzanne Panferov Reese’s Best Practices Panferov Reese’s five best practices highlight the importance of proactivity. 1. Gather data. Get the full story and the big picture. Be a detective and track down data pertinent to your situation. If you are new to your LPA position and have access to additional training, take advantage of the opportunity. So many decisions run afoul because of a lack of training or unreliable data. As a result, collegial relations become stressed when one side of the story is heard but not the other. Being new in a position makes you vulnerable to the most vocal stakeholders, but it also permits you to ask as many questions as you need. Get the data, critically analyze them yourself, hear out all stakeholders, and then make your decisions. 2. Include and be included. Competing voices are typically present in educational institutions. Be proactive in making sure that the voices of the majority and minority are included in discussions about the language program. Listen for missing voices and encourage them to express their opinions. When program cuts are foreseeable, advocate for your program and students. Be ready to remind colleagues that global communication is critical on this interconnected planet. Position yourself in meetings where critical decisions are made so that you (and your language program) are not excluded.

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

297

3. Collaborate and celebrate. Seek out opportunities to cooperate with other academic and non-academic units. Know whom to ask for help and be willing to help others. Become known as the reliable go-to lead for solutions and model kindness even when you cannot help. Recognize, thank, and celebrate everyone who helps your program succeed (e.g., your teachers and staff, accountants, and health care teams). 4. Be nimble and innovative. As we learned during the COVID era, crises require new ways of thinking. Every obstacle is accompanied by a new challenge. How can you teach students if you cannot meet them face-to-face? How can you help learners gain access to online courses if they cannot pay for the internet? Think flexibly. Try new tools for teaching and staff meetings: hybrid, online, and in remote locations. Allow for failure. Model trial-and-error for your team and celebrate new successes together. 5. Be proactive and build trust. Language programs have the ability to bring different stakeholders together to reach agreements and find common solutions. Embrace these opportunities because they can transform and lift up your program; they are critical in times of ­instability when forward progress is so tenuous. Leading and modeling positive and proactive behaviors will go a long way in building trust, breaking down barriers, and forging new alliances.

Multi-Theme Best Practices In this section, we introduce 12 of our 18 contributors who showcase a diverse set of best practices that bring to light the numerous roles and responsibilities of individuals in leadership positions.

 ony Acevedo, Alejandro Beoutis, Elizabeth Palacios, T and Nelly Romero’s Best Practices Acevedo, Beoutis, Palacios, and Romero’s four best practices highlight the value of team building and its role in nurturing respect, trust, success, excellence, and engagement. 1. Getting to know program personnel, recognizing their efforts, and demonstrating that you sincerely care contribute to team building. For language-program personnel to be motivated and self-confident, they need to be noticed and acknowledged by their leaders. Leaders who hope to inspire others must demonstrate a sincere interest in both the personal and professional goals of the individuals with whom they work. Collegial bonds can be created by sharing interests and professional experiences, leading by example,

298

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

and collaboratively establishing program objectives. When personnel feel recognized, even for small achievements, leaders build momentum. Active listening, open communication, and constructive feedback contribute to a positive work environment, which, in turn, leads to respect and trust. 2. Communicating with empathy and understanding—while maintaining program goals— contributes to respectful interactions and professional engagement. Demonstrating empathy helps LPAs stay in tune with the expectations of program personnel. To find the right balance between the achievement of program goals and the advancement of teachers and supervisors, it is important to create face-­to-­face and virtual spaces for discussion and collaboration. Leaders should consider the perspectives of program personnel who are facing challenges, make pertinent adjustments to ensure everyone can succeed, and balance expressed needs with established program objectives. A healthy work environment requires resources to attain program goals and meet, even surpass, the expectations of program personnel. 3. Approaching challenges from a proactive perspective, rather than a reactive one, allows for timely responses and a reduction of stress. Effective LPAs respond to crises in moments when they are least expected. It is imperative to be proactive and develop plans that permit the achievement of goals, while also addressing challenges when the time comes for taking action. Before making decisions on sensitive issues during a crisis, it is vital to consider options, analyze possible scenarios, determine what could go wrong, and develop strategies to respond to the crisis. Proper planning allows for thoughtful and timely responses and, even more importantly, a reduction in stress levels among program personnel. 4. Defining success, excellence, and empowerment as distinct concepts facilitates language-program collaboration and innovation. Success in language program administration requires the dedication and collaboration of program personnel who strive for professional excellence and mutual respect. Success also necessitates the monitoring of planned accomplishments, always keeping in mind that striving for excellence and perfection are worthy goals, but, in practice, perfection escapes us all. Empowerment entails acknowledging that each person in an organization is a leader with some level of responsibility to decide, communicate, and review progress individually and as a member of a collaborative group.

Neil J Anderson’s Best Practices Anderson’s five best practices stress the importance of committing to and personalizing teachers’ professional development, maintaining balance in one’s own life, networking with other LPAs, and questioning one’s assumptions.

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

299

1. Lead teacher development. One important role of an LPA is to take the lead in teacher development. Helping each individual become a competent teacher benefits everyone on your team. You may have delegated teacher-development responsibilities to a colleague, but make sure you maintain close ties with that colleague to assure that teachers are developing as professionals. One way to lead teacher development is to regularly teach a class within your program. An LPA who maintains ties to the classroom is in a stronger position to lead teacher development. 2. Personalize professional-development training. Most language programs provide professional-development (PD) opportunities for everyone in the organization. These PD opportunities might come in the form of conference attendance or invited speakers. Personalize PD opportunities by asking all members of your organization (teachers, administrators, support staff) to complete a Personal Professional-Development Plan. Review everyone’s plans with the goal of designing opportunities that meet specific needs. Use PD resources to help individuals grow and meet their professional-­ development goals. 3. Maintain balance in your personal and professional lives. You are more than an LPA. You are an individual. You are a daughter or son. You are a friend. Identify all the roles that you have in life and then develop a plan to maintain and strengthen your various roles. The work of an LPA can be overwhelming, and one can easily forget that there is more to life to be enjoyed than administrative responsibilities. Participate in and build your hobbies and interests outside of your LPA responsibilities. Make sure you maintain a positive physical exercise plan that allows you to be strong enough to address the important work you do. 4. Connect with other LPAs. Colleagues who work as LPAs can be a source of support and direction. These colleagues may have already faced the very challenge that you are experiencing. Establish an online group that allows you and your colleagues to be in contact regularly. Ask for input from them and be a source of support for them. Your connections with other LPAs will strengthen both you and your colleagues. 5. Question all assumptions. Above all, question the assumptions under which you operate. Assumptions quietly influence all your decisions. When making major decisions, pause and list the assumptions that are influencing the choices that you are making. Question those assumptions by challenging their veracity in making the decision. You might discover that an assumption is holding you back from achieving greater personal and professional success.

300

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

Rosa Aronson’s Best Practices Aronson’s three best practices emphasize the importance of diversity, trust, respect, and self-care. My experience in language-program administration is somewhat different from others in that the organization that I managed was a global membership association of English-language practitioners, researchers, and policymakers dedicated to advancing expertise in the English-language profession. My leadership tenure at TESOL International Association gave me insights that I hope will be useful to administrators and aspiring leaders in the field. 1. Seek and assemble the most diverse team you can. It may be tempting to think that homogeneous and conflict-free teams are easier to manage, and more productive. In reality, research has shown that the more diverse and more inclusive an organization is, the more effective and innovative it is. As an administrator, you will be working with a team of specialists. Seek out team members who don’t look like you and don’t think like you. Being able to listen to diverse voices on any issue enriches the conversation and ensures that any decision you end up making has taken into account a range of perspectives. It also counteracts the biases you have (and we all have them). 2. Cultivate and nurture a culture of trust and respect. According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), culture is “the glue that keeps an organization together. It is the silent code of conduct; it’s more about how things get done, rather than what gets done” (SHRM, 2016). Whether you came from a different institution or were promoted from within, as an administrator, you are now in charge of maintaining or modifying the culture of your organization. Can you identify the values that are driving the dominant culture? Are these values aligned with the organizational mission? If not, your responsibility is to ensure a realignment. Trust in your team and respect differences that contribute to a culture of collaboration and innovation. Your successes are their successes, and their failures are yours only. Remember that failure is the doorway to improvement. 3. Self-care is critical to leadership. As an administrator, you will be pulled in many different directions daily. Your best plans will be thrown out by a crisis, a new opportunity, or an unexpected situation. Trying to resist this aspect of your role is like fighting against the strength of an ocean. However, if you give in, you risk being swept away by these competing demands. I cannot stress enough how important it is to carve out some time for self-reflection and self-care. As you plan your week or day, begin by setting aside moments designed to replenish your physical energy and spiritual strength. And then, hold yourself to it. Read a book, practice your favorite activity, reflect on your journey. Times away from the daily tide will give you the discernment that you will need in separating the important from the urgent, the priorities from the distractions.

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

301

Deena Boraie’s Best Practices Boraie’s five best practices depict effective leadership in terms of team building, trust, good communication skills, currency, and accountability. The core of effective leadership and administration in multicultural contexts is to build trust within a team. Gaining the trust of teachers takes time and requires a commitment to thoughtful practice and training. Administrators who respect their team will gain their trust. If trust is lost, it is very hard to regain it. 1. Practice effective communication. Good leaders communicate constantly and get to know each member of their team over time. Leadership has changed in recent times and now we are responsible for the mental well-being of our colleagues. To foster good working relationships, regular face-to-face or online group meetings are essential. With Zoom or other technologies, leaders can also set up one-on-one meetings periodically to develop deeper relationships with each team member. These individual online meetings can yield insights that cannot be gained from a group meeting. Staff, particularly those from a culture different from the mainstream, can express their concerns or bring up issues that they may not be comfortable doing in a public setting. 2. Keep up to date professionally. While it is essential for leaders to be well versed in the curriculum, instructional materials, and student-learning outcomes of their programs, they also need to fine tune their leadership skills. Good administrators benefit from enrolling in leadership-training programs to gain an understanding of organizational structure, strategic planning, management of human and financial resources, etc. Leaders must also commit to continuous professional development through associations such as TESOL and IATEFL to be able to (a) support teachers and staff in their work and (b) earn their trust and respect. 3. Set priorities publicly. The key to creating a high-performing culture is to make sure that all team members are aware of and aligned with the long-term goals and short-term objectives of the program. All teachers and staff should have a clear sense of program trajectories and understand what they are working for and why. Administrators should review priorities regularly and constantly re-calibrate. 4. Address workplace problems immediately. Leaders should handle dysfunctions right away and not leave them to fester; the aim is to minimize long-term negative consequences. It is important for leaders to mend fractured relationships within a team, support team members, and show transparently their commitment to creating a unified team of teachers who may come from different backgrounds, cultures, or teaching contexts.

302

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

5. Encourage accountability. Leaders should foster a culture of accountability and establish processes in the workplace to regularly track deadlines and evaluate progress in relation to program goals and objectives. Leaders must also be accountable themselves and acknowledge both their mistakes and successes. Such behaviors will reinforce the credibility of the leader and build trust.

Ayşegül Daloğlu’s Best Practices Daloğlu’s five best practices focus on the knowledge bases that give administrators an advantage, the value of having a vision for the program, the benefits of supportive work environments, collaborative decision making, and proactivity. 1. Effective LPAs benefit from being knowledgeable about language-teaching issues and experienced in language teaching. Being knowledgeable about and experienced in language teaching give LPAs a definite advantage. Knowing the dynamics of the language classroom makes it easy for LPAs to empathize with teachers when they are dealing with in-class or profession-­related challenges. Do LPAs need to be good teachers? Not necessarily, but teaching experience adds to their credibility as administrators. 2. Having a vision for the program is valuable for nurturing a professional community. Having a vision about the future of the program provides direction in planning. Without such a vision, administrators can find themselves remedying only surface-­level issues that have a limited effect on the program’s future and its place in the larger institution. Negotiating program goals with teaching and managerial staff to generate a shared road map for achieving them creates a community in which everybody has a sense of program ownership. The absence of a vision enables staff to operate within their comfort zones without stretching their creative potential beyond existing limits. 3. Nurturing a supportive environment for interactive and sustained professional development fosters collegial bonding. Opportunities for professional growth promote a commitment to the language program. Although engaging in professional development is best when it is voluntary, providing teachers with possible developmental paths should be a priority for LPAs. When teachers feel competent and successful, they develop a sense of pride that encourages them to contribute more fully to the language program. This type of collegial support bonds teachers and LPAs. 4. Collaborative decision making fosters ownership. When stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process, they own the consequences that result from it. Collaborative decision making is especially important with innovations that impact the curriculum and assessment. When teachers suggest improvements in current practices, when they are informed of the need for enhancements, and when they have a voice in the decisions that shape innovations, their commitment to implementing them increases.

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

303

5. Fair, consistent, and approachable administrators become proactive leaders. LPAs must be prepared for just about anything. When dealing with so many different groups, it is hard to predict the issues that will arise. LPAs must be excellent listeners to become proactive leaders. Staff and students should feel comfortable consulting the LPA before issues turn into crises. Such approachability usually results from a history of fairness and consistency with the LPA.

Patrick Kennell’s Best Practices Kennell’s four best practices emphasize the value of being a servant leader, leading by example, providing stellar services, communicating clearly, and motivating language-­program personnel. 1. Be a servant leader. Servant leaders put their faculty, staff, and students first. To function as servant leaders, LPAs must know what goals their faculty, staff, and students have. Work with faculty, staff, and students to help them achieve their goals. The saying “Students don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” is true for faculty and staff as well. Don’t be afraid to push your faculty to higher levels of instruction; such actions on your part demonstrate your belief in their abilities and care for their professional development. Finally, as a servant leader, lead by example. Never ask your faculty or staff to do something that you would not do yourself. 2. Provide great customer service. Think of your school as a business and your students as clients. Language programs provide a service. If clients are not happy, they will quickly take their business to another school. It is vital that you and language-program personnel are friendly, caring, positive, and provide fast, quality service. Students should never be looked upon as a nuisance for they are “bread and butter” for the language program. From the first phone call or inquiry to the final day of graduation (and beyond), students should feel valued and cared for. 3. Communicate clearly and transparently. Good communication is key to creating trust among students and language-­ program personnel. When students, staff, and faculty come into your office, turn away from the computer and give them your undivided attention. Before making major decisions and/or major announcements at program-wide meetings, get buy-in from individual faculty and staff. If there is a problem, no matter how small you may think it to be, take it seriously and respond to it quickly. Be transparent. Share the budget and the issues facing the program with staff and faculty. Ask for input and listen carefully to their concerns. Share your plans and fully explain the reasoning behind them. Be optimistic but also realistic. Finally, welcome feedback, be receptive to criticism, and have a short memory!

304

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

4. Motivate! It is up to you to mold your staff and faculty into a team and give them a sense of pride in their work and the language program. Be positive! Work with your team on setting high standards together and then stick to them. Your employee evaluations should be constructive, frank, and to the point; evaluations should not be used to tear down, but rather to help each team member develop and grow. Do not be afraid to set ambitious goals with your team; “to be the best language program in the country” is ok to aim for!

Kristen Lindahl’s Best Practices Lindahl’s five best practices center on the life-long process of developing a leadership identity and the value of risk taking, recognition of language-program personnel, and transparency. 1. Recognize that leadership entails a context-bound process of identity development. Professional learning is a career-long process, and becoming a “leader” is no exception. Negotiating and constructing a leader identity evolve as you make ­decisions, collaborate with colleagues, and learn more about your program and institution. The leader identity that you develop should be linked to the (a) location of your language program; (b) specific needs of your program, faculty, staff, and students; and (c) relationship that your program and institution have with the larger community. 2. Reflect regularly on your own leadership practices. Developing a leadership identity, which is grounded in practices that are influenced by diverse people and perspectives, involves a great deal of selfreflection. You might ask yourself, in conversations within your program, whose voices are the “loudest”? Whose voices are missing? How do current practices and policies perpetuate cycles that include or exclude certain people? Consider faculty, staff, students, and community members when posing these reflective questions. Tensions may emerge during reflection, which is an expected part of the process. Understanding the relationship between how we feel and what we do (emotional responses and professional practices, respectively) is key to building resiliency and agency as leaders. 3. Take risks and experiment in reasonable but innovative ways. Engaging in reflection may bring about the realization that aspects of your program or institution would benefit from deliberate efforts to bring about improvements. English language teaching is a dynamic field, with constantly evolving research-­supported findings about how and why people learn and use language(s). Being responsive to change in general requires a balance between incorporating new ideas from the larger field and ensuring that those ideas are implemented in relevant and manageable ways.

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

305

4. Recognize contributions. Leadership is not a single-person endeavor; rather it is often the result of the combined strengths of a group. Highlight contributions that individuals make to your overall organization and enable them to leverage their own strengths to participate. Provide opportunities for professional development and delegate tasks when you can. Entrusting others will strengthen your program and institution. Be sure to recognize regularly the contributions of program faculty, staff, and students, in addition to community members. 5. Remember to be transparent in your decision making and actions. It has been said that “if you haven’t said something in 30 days, it’s as if you had never said it.” This is a reminder to consistently convey the program’s mission, values, goals, and initiatives in both words and actions. Explaining expectations, activities, and decision making—clearly and often—contributes to transparency. Many important messages can become lost in the day-to-day business of teaching and learning, so reiterating them helps reinforce the shared culture that you are creating as a leader.

Dudley Reynolds’s Best Practices Reynolds’s five best practices showcase the significance of having a vision, planning for dialog and discussion, engaging in review and revision, building leadership capabilities among program personnel, and finally showing empathy. 1. Craft a vision and use it. Language programs have many moving parts: students, teachers, curricula, institutional stakeholders. An effective LPA keeps these parts flowing. What makes individual parts move smoothly is not always clear, and the interests of different groups will conflict. An explicit vision statement for the program—that articulates how the program contributes to the well-being of society—identifies values to draw upon and cite when making decisions. Referencing the statement frequently and with different audiences shows that decisions are more than your whim and promotes cohesion within the program, fostering a sense that the program is about more than the needs of any individual. 2. Plan meetings for dialog and discussion. Systems Thinking expert Peter Senge (2006) makes a distinction between “discussions” that lead to decisions and “dialog” from which thoughts and ideas emerge. He advises planning meetings with time for both and being clear about the purpose of individual agenda items. Discussions value opinions supported by evidence; dialog encourages more creative, out-of-the-box thinking. Including both (a) builds upon diversity of experiences and abilities and (b) creates a sense of getting things done while laying the foundation for innovations.

306

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

3. Make review and revision natural processes. There is a lot to be said for sticking to what works. However, the time to discover something is no longer working is not when it breaks. Establish protocols for when key policies, processes, and curricula will be reviewed and open to revision. The expectation of review communicates that nothing is sacred, lessens the chance that people will be blindsided by change, assures people that innovations are welcome, and encourages currency. It also discourages waiting for things to fall apart—because they will. 4. Build leaders within your program. Effective LPAs see what needs to be done and pursue it. They notice details and want all accomplishments to make everyone feel proud. LPAs who are effective in carrying out these practices may also find it hard to let go of control. Program sustainability, however, depends on having new people ready to step into positions of increasing leadership. Delegating responsibilities and creating space for people to learn from mistakes are just as important as getting things done right the first time, if not more so. 5. Do not be afraid to empathize. LPAs get paid to make tough decisions. When tough decisions must be made, be clear about the criteria followed and transparent about your own thinking and dilemmas. Most importantly, be aware of how decisions may be perceived by different constituencies. Understanding and compassion are not signs of weak leaders; rather, they are indicators of leaders who take their responsibilities—all of them—seriously.

Rob Sheppard’s Best Practices Sheppards’ four best practices center on the LPA attending to the well-being of language- program personnel; being proactive about serving as buffer, mediator, and advocate; making a commitment to maintaining a culture of curriculum; and engaging in continuous language-program improvement. 1. Prioritize teacher well-being. The best resource any language program can hope for is a team of welltrained, well-resourced, well-paid, and well-supported teachers. The primary role of LPAs is to ensure that teachers have what they need to do their jobs, and then step aside. LPAs need to position themselves as vocal advocates for teachers because teachers are often undervalued and placed in precarious work conditions. Serving as an advocate also means placing great importance on teacher concerns and emotions. Effective LPAs proactively ask teachers about what works and what doesn’t, identify pain points, and take action to remedy them.

17  Best Practices Based on 360+ Years of Administrative Experience

307

2. Think and act from in-between. Our field involves a tension that often pits effective classroom teaching against the systems that affect language programs from the outside: politics, policies, funding sources, and market forces. An effective LPA serves as a buffer—preventing outside forces from disrupting teachers’ work and wellbeing, a mediator—communicating between these worlds, and a strong advocate—supporting the needs of the classroom, students, and teachers. 3. Cultivate a culture of curriculum. A curriculum encompasses a set of interrelated, interconnected, and nested structures, resources, and policies that shape our teaching. A curriculum typically includes materials, a scope and sequence, learning objectives, assessments, and lesson plans. But teachers often experience curriculum as an ever-present chore, as prescriptive paperwork, and as an instrument of accountability. Such counterproductive attitudes are products of the program culture. LPAs can turn such attitudes around and build a program culture in which curriculum is understood as the very stuff of our teaching. If it is happening in class, it is curriculum. Consider ways to ensure that the curriculum supports, rather than inhibits, teachers’ efforts. Ensure that its design and accessibility are teacher friendly. Ensure that the curriculum is constantly being reviewed and updated in response to teacher and student feedback. Hold a curriculum debrief at the end of each semester. Ask teachers what is and what isn’t working. Do what you can to give teachers the full picture of the curriculum, including all its components, levels, and the place of their courses in that big picture. Involve teachers in all curricular changes. 4. Adopt an approach of continuous, incremental improvement. With limited resources, maintaining the many moving parts of regular program operations can leave little time or resources for making ongoing program improvements. Sweeping changes in a complex program can cause unintended consequences. Establishing a baseline of sustainable best practices, strategically prioritizing one or two incremental improvements from semester to semester, and assessing whether they are working are likely to be more realistic options.

References Anderson, N. J. (2008). Practical English language teaching: Reading. McGraw-Hill. Pentón Herrera, L.  J. (2022). Advocacy for language teacher associations. English Teaching Forum, 60(4), 21–29. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/ Currency. SHRM. (2016, February 23). Defining organizational culture. https://www.shrm.org/ ResourcesAndTools/hr-­topics/behavioral-­competencies/global-­and-­cultural-­effectiveness/ Pages/Defining-­Culture.aspx

308

F. L. Stoller and M.A. Christison

Fredricka L.  Stoller is Professor Emerita at Northern Arizona University (NAU). During her 35 years at NAU, she founded NAU’s Program in Intensive English (PIE), served as its Director, and then was an Advisory Board member. Fredricka has decades-long interests in language-program administration as evidenced by presentations and publications on the topic (numerous with MaryAnn Christison) and the graduate-level courses that she taught on the subject. She was a Fulbright senior scholar in Turkey (2002–03) as the MA-TEFL program director at Bilkent University, in Timor Leste (2014), and in Vietnam (2018).  

MaryAnn Christison is a professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Utah and was founding Director of the International Program and English Training Center at Snow College for 20 years prior to her University appointment. She has authored, co-authored, and co-edited over 22 books and written 140 articles and chapters on applied linguistics and English language teaching. Two of her co-edited books were specifically on language program administration (with F.  L. Stoller), and one was on leadership (with D.  E. Murray). Christison has also served as President of TESOL International.