Quality Assurance in a Language Learning Centre: Challenges and Opportunities

1. Quality Assurance in a Language Learning Centre: Challenges and Opportunities Beverly-Anne Carter Centre for Language Learning University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus B. Carter November 17, 2011

2. Overview of the Presentation Definitions and context Responding to external and internal imperatives Focussing on the core The continuous improvement cycle QA = Challenges and opportunities Language centres as adding value to HE Bibliography B. Carter November 17, 2011

3. The Core Functions of a Language Centre The provision of practical training for non-specialist language learners The integration of appropriate technology in language learning Research and development in foreign language education Cited in Ruane (2003, p. 3) B. Carter November 17, 2011

4. Language Centres ≠ Traditional FL Departments Learners Teaching staff Curriculum Locus Administration Size Financing models B. Carter November 17, 2011

5. CLL @UWI • Campus ≠ faculty; intra and extramural learners • More adjuncts that fulltime tenure-track; recruitment criteria • Non-specialists; extracurricular; language use ≠ study • Locus • Administration • Current enrolments approx. 2000 per year • Mixed funding B. Carter November 17, 2011

6. Impetus for Change • Program evaluation <-External, e.g. QAR • “Program evaluation is the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs to make judgments about the program, improve program effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about future programming.” Paton (1997, p. 23) cited in Watanabe, Norris and González-Lloret (2009, p. 12) • The intention = Developmental • Metric = Fitness for purpose • Program evaluation <-Internal, e.g. interests or needs of the students B. Carter November 17, 2011

7. A New Mission • Redefining mission to provide a new conceptual framework for programme delivery • Mission = Core, commercial, pro bono publico • Our mission = What we add to the world • The Centre will deliver innovative, high quality language training and services to the UWI learning community and to the wider public, thereby affirming the University’s role in the promotion of multilingual competence. B. Carter November 17, 2011

8. Focus on the Core • QAR recommendations: • Clear learning outcomes • Benchmarking; indexing to internationally recognised standards • Integration of languages into students’ degree programmes • Differentiated curriculum • Internal push for accreditation • Validation of learning via credits (≠ Adults’ resistance to assessment-driven language learning, e.g. “it is often perceived in a negative way by students and tutors alike, who associate it with feelings of being overworked, overstressed and other traumas.” Bissar (2000, p. 38) B. Carter November 17, 2011

9. Continuous Improvement (after Pagano, 2011) B. Carter November 17, 2011

10. Quality Assurance and Enhancement Exhaustive curriculum review Adoption of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) Formulation of a campus language policy Seeking aspirational peers and forming strategic alliances e.g. membership in AULC and ADFL Institutional strengthening via stakeholder involvement, e.g. Language Advisory Panel Putting research on the agenda B. Carter November 17, 2011

11. Quality Assurance and Enhancement B. Carter November 17, 2011

12. Quality Assurance and Enhancement B. Carter November 17, 2011

13. Quality Assurance: Some Issues/Challenges Exhaustive curriculum revision—>priority languages for accreditation Adoption of CEFR—>rationalisation of advanced course offerings Formulation of a campus language policy; no mandatory language requirement Research as a core focus—>recruitment criteria B. Carter November 17, 2011

14. QA: Opportunities✔Curriculum Review B. Carter November 17, 2011

15. QA: Opportunities✔Curriculum Review Clarifying objectives = CLL Philosophy + + Credit-bearing elective courses B. Carter November 17, 2011

16. QA: Opportunities✔ CEFR • Define clear entry levels and learning outcomes • Integrate concepts such as plurilingualism, i.e. • “Plurilingual and pluricultural competence refers to the ability to use languages for the purpose of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person is viewed as a social agent, has proficiency of varying degrees, in several languages, and experience of several cultures. This is not seen as the superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competences, but rather as the existence of a complex or even composite competence on which the user may draw.” Council of Europe, CEFR, (2001, p. 168) B. Carter November 17, 2011

17. QA= Opportunities✔Campus Language Policy Foreign language competence is one of the basic competences of the tertiary educated person. It is a key to national and international citizenship in today’s multilingual and multicultural world. The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus will promote and foster student engagement with foreign language learning as it pursues its strategic goal of embedding an international and intercultrual dimension in the curriculum. B. Carter November 17, 2011

18. QA: Opportunities✔ Research B. Carter November 17, 2011

19. QA: Opportunities✔ Research “Research as one of the basic functions of language centres should primarily have pedagogical development as its main target, in line with another of language centres’ basic functions, teaching. Because of their multidisciplinary nature involving several languages and fields, today’s language centres foster and promote interdisciplinary scholarship and research in the teaching and learning of languages… B. Carter November 17, 2011

20. QA: Opportunities✔Research …This multidisciplinarity creates an ideal forum for collaboration in research and materials development to enhance teaching and learning; further, it is something fairly unique in the university context and deserves to be addressed and applied in pedagogical development. The historically high disciplinary barriers, for example between different philologies or linguistic fields, should be easy to transcend.” Tuomi & Rontu (2011, p. 48) B. Carter November 17, 2011

21. Continuous Improvement in Curriculum • Curriculum • Financing • Teaching & • Learning • Research B. Carter November 17, 2011

22. Quality Assurance in a Language Learning Centre in HE “… a language centre must constantly evaluate and update its own functions, and proactively develop those areas that are expected to become essential to the university.” Tuomi, & Rontu (2011, p. 47) B. Carter November 17, 2011

23. Key terms ADFL-Association of Departments of Modern Languages www.adfl.org AULC-Association of University Language Centres of the UK and the Republic of Ireland www.aulc.org CEFR—Common European Framework of Reference www.coe.int/lang CERCLEs-European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education www.cercles.org IWLP—Institution-Wide Language Programme QA—Quality Assurance QAR—Quality Assurance Review B. Carter November 17, 2011

24. Bibliography Angell, J., Du Bravac, S. & Gonglewski, M. (2011). Towards higher ground: Transforming language labs into language centers. IALTT, 39, 1-11. Accessed Nov 10, 2011. Beaton, F. (2000). Student attitudes to learning, assessment and accreditation. In A. Hübner, T. Ibarz & S. Laviosa (Eds.). Assessment and accreditation for languages. The emerging consensus? (pp. 25-36). London: CILT. Beaton, F. (2004). Participation, expectation and motivation. Adults learning languages. In H. Harnisch & P. Swanton (Eds.), Adults learning languages. A CILT guide to good practice (pp. 21-34). London: CILT. Bissar, D. (2000). Assessment on a fully accredited Open Language Programme: achieving beneficial backwash in a standardized scheme. In A. Hübner, T. Ibarz & S. Laviosa (Eds.). Assessment and accreditation for languages. The emerging consensus? (pp. 37-46). London: CILT. Carter, B. (2007). Introducing a language policy at the University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus. Unpublished document. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garrett, N. (2003). Language learning centers: An overview. In U. S. Lahaie, G. Bartle, R. Gilgen, M. D. Ledgerwood & A. Ross (Eds.) The IALLT Management Manual. 2nd ed. (pp. 1-9). Wheeling, IL: IALLT. Guarnieri, M., & Usategui, C. (2000). Developing a language curriculum for non-specialists: from theory to practice and back. In M. Fay & D. Ferney (Eds.), Current trends in modern languages provision for non-specialist linguists. (pp.193-205). London: CILT & APU. Harnisch, H., & Swanton, P. (2004). Aims, audience and approach. In H. Harnisch & P. Swanton (Eds.), Adults learning languages. A CILT guide to good practice (pp. 4-8). London: CILT. Ibarz, T., & Spöring, M. (2000). Measuring the impact of accreditation: two surveys on the provision of modern languages in university departments of continuing education. In A. Hübner, T. Ibarz & S. Laviosa (Eds.). Assessment and accreditation for languages. The emerging consensus? (pp. 103-126). London: CILT. Lüdtke, S., & Schwienhorst, K. (2010). Language centre needs analysis. Defining goals, refining programmes. Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main. B. Carter November 17, 2011

25. Bibliography McCall, I. (2000). Introducing credit and assessment: attitudes and responses among adult language learners. In A. Hübner, T. Ibarz & S. Laviosa (Eds.). Assessment and accreditation for languages. The emerging consensus? (pp. 48-59). London: CILT.  Nott, D. (2000). What language should we aim to teach, how and why? In M.-N. Guillot & M.-M. Kenning (Eds.) Changing landscapes in language and language pedagogy: Text, orality and voice (pp. 227-248). London: AFLS & CILT. OBUS. (2005). Report of the review of the Centre for Language Learning. Mona, Jamaica: QAU Pagano, M. A. (2011). Final Report – 2011 Retreat/Planning Session the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus. Parker, L. (2004). Adults learning languages – the challenge. In H. Harnisch & P. Swanton (Eds.), Adults learning languages. A CILT guide to good practice (pp. 9-20). London: CILT. Powell, B. (2003). Developing language centres. In D. Head, M. Kelly, E. Jones & T. Tinsley (Eds.), Setting the agenda for languages in higher education (pp. 167-79). London: CILT. Ruane, M. (2003). Language centres in higher education: facing the challenge. http://asp.revues.org/1127 [4.01.2011]. Tuomi, U.-K., & Rontu, H. (2011). University language centres in Finland-Role and challenges. Applies-Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5, 45-50. Watanabe, Y., Norris, J. M., & González-Lloret, M. (2009). Identifying and responding to evaluation needs in college foreign language programs. In J. M. Norris, J. McE. Davis, C. Sinicrope & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 5-56). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center. B. Carter November 17, 2011