DOCUMENT RESUME 107 096 FL 005 048 AUTHOR Morehouse, Ward; Boyd-Bowman, Peter' TITLE Independent Study of Critical Languages in Undergraduate'Colleges. SPONS AGENCY Institute of International Studies (DHEW/OE), Washington,'D.C14,1 t BUREAU NO BR-0-97755 PUB DATE M y 73 CONTRACT 0 -0-9-097755-4080(014) NOTE 1 6p., EDRS PRICE tg-$0.76 HC-$5.70 PLUS POSTAGE 4 DESCRIPTORS .11utoinstructional Programs; College Curriculum; *College Language Programs; Educational Inn-ovation; Examiners; *Independent Study; Individualized Instruction; *Language InstruCtion;hodern Language. curriculum; Second Language Learning; Student Motivation; Teaching Methods; Tutors; *Uncommonly Taught Language's IDENTIFIERS **CE:itical Languages; NDEA Title VI , ABSTRACT r , . Tleis.isthe final report idescribing a supervised program of -self- instruction in critical languages at the undergraduate level. The projecp was begun at a single college. in 1963, was expanded to a statelade basis in 1966, and was again enlarged to run op a national.basis in 1969.'In 1971-72, over 1,D00 studentS were enrolled in these piograms at about 45 colleges across the country. The primary method employed in this project was the initiation'of,:self-insfiuctioUal programs on/fndivitual college campUges in order to .examine such faCtors in- se f+instructional language learning as motivation apd aptitude, uitability of existing materials, the roles played by camps coordina ors, tutors, and outside examiners,- and problems of interinstitutionarcooperation in furthering this method. The. basic iConclusion was that independent study of critical languages is ajlinancially and academically viable means fort the small college as!s well as thelarge university to broaden significantly their offerings of foreign languages to the carefully selected and.yell--..motiv'ated student. A major,goal of the project was to determine the feasibility of "institutionalizing" the. overall program 'structure.to assure continuation of individual programs; thris.goal was partly achieved with the formation of a National Association for Self-Instructional Language Programs. Appendices contain: program,data for 1969-70, 1970-71, and 1971 -72;e guide to a film on self-instrUction; reports on two conferences on independent language studyl a checklist for 'CLP evaluators; and .copy for the ck cover of the SILP Handbook. (Author/AM) US DEPARTMENT°, HEAL TN, EDUCATION a WELFARE FINAL REPORT NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFROM Project No. 097755 THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIGIN ATING IT POINTS OF View OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRE SENT OFF ICA NATIONAIIINSTITUTE OF Contract No:.0EC-0-9-097755-4080 (014) EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY INDEPENDENT STUDY OF CRITICAL LANGUAGES IN UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGES Ward Morehouse (Project Dfrector), Gentefor Internhtional ProgramandComparative Studies State Education Department,,. - University of the State of New York Peter Boyd-Bowmitn (Project Consultant) Center for Critical Languages State University of New York at Buffalo r/ Albany, New York May 1973 TAOReSearchreported herein was performed pursuant44o a contract with the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects. under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judge- ment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions C stated do not therefore, necessarily represent official Office of Education pos).tion or'policy. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF -,...HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 0 s),1 0 ffice of Education Instileof International Studies t-L 2/3 CONTENTS. SUMMarY000seogise 00000 0or0o-o7o 00000000 0.,,o0eou 000000 0000000.90*iv , Introduction 1 Methods... OOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOO .....,........ OOOOO OO 00 OOOOOOO 3 Findings OOOOO du u000 u 000n009ro010,000u 5 Conclusions OOOOO .0fOOOnn)000,110%,"040gMO0000000001110,'4100 OOOOOOO 11 Bibliography...... OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO 0000"00000.4.10.000.000013 Appendix 1 National' Program of Self-Instruction in Critical 4 Languages: Annual Report for Academic Year 14 Appendix 2 National Program of Self-Instruction in Critical Languages: Annual Report for Academic Year 1970-71 .. 30 Appendix 3 /1 National, Program of Self-Instruction in Critical Languages Annual Report for Academic Year 1971-72.. OOOOO Appendix,4 A Guide to the Self-Instructional Language Film, "Do's and Don'ts of Drilling"....... OOOOOO 76 Appentx.5 Conference on Independent Study of Critical Languages, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, November'19-20, 1971 AMiAute on the Di-scussion OOOOOOO.............. OOOOOO80- Participants in the/Conference 84 Appendix 6 Confekence on theNational Program of Self-Instruction. in Critical Languages Program of the Conference....... OOOOOOO .............. 85 Tentative List of Partrcipants.., OOOOOOOO OOOOOO 88 Appendix 7 Checklist for CLP Evaluators.......... ......... ......... 93 Appendix 8 Copy for back coVer of SILP Handbook 96 Constitution of the National Association for Self-fAstructionalLanguage Programs 97 iii SUMMARY Su'Pervised self-instruction in critical languages on American college Ampusesgoes back a decade to the first experiments with this apprda" to learning'other languages at Kalamazoo College. Beginning in 1966, this approach was expanded on a titalewide basis in colleg(sin New York State, And in 1969, the program was again I expandedon a national basis in an effort to determine the potenti,a1.- ities of and limitations to self-instruction in foreign languages through examination of factors such as student motivation and language learning aptitude, the roles of the campus coordinator of self- instruction, thelariguage tutor,,and the outside examiner, and inLer- institutional cooperation. Some 45 colleges and universities from Maine to California now offer opportunities for learning other languages to their students through the supervised, externally assessed self-instructional approach. In 1971-72, over 1,00C students were enrolled in self-instructional language courses at these colleges. Sufficient experience has been accumulated to demonstrate that this method of language learning works on a large number of geographically diffuse. campuses loosely coordinated through a program structure which provides some profess!nnal guidance and advice on techniques, study materials, and examiners, and which serves as a_source of inexpensively reeeoduced language study Materials. 4 to Fxperience with this project has also established that 1. StAent rillotivationis a far more important factor than, language learning aptitude; 2. "Successful" campus programs of selfinstruction require an able and nergetic local faculty member committed tO this approach to language 'earning to serve as campus coordinator; . Language tutors must be carefully screened, oriented, and supervised, 'especially during the early stages of their roles as tutors; 0 4, External -examine, have a vital "technical assistance" or troubleshootingfunction to perform, in addition to assessing individual student progress and maintaining academic standards. Problems, of course, remain to be solved. More attention will need to be given to developing stanriardized levels of achievement and graduated courses' of study beyond the introductory level. Ire some languages, instructional materials, especially for self- study, ark! less than satis- factory. The pool of exp'erienced examiners will need to be enlargedas the program continues to grow. And more experience needs to 'beo aq5umulated with different materials and examining techniques in self - instructional . programs in the more commonly taught Wtstetil European lareages ih whcch interest is just beginning to emerge. iv INTRODUCTION Amid all the current rhetoric about the need for reformin American colleges and universities is one recurringthcile--make students more responsible for their own education. Typical of much" of the rhetoric about diverse aspects ofcontemporeify society which we inflict upon ourselveS,the correlation between verbalization and resulting action is very low. One striking exception to this melancholy state of affairsis the program of self- instruction in critical languages.*Here is a genuine innovation in language learning which isorganized around the central proposition that the individual student should haveprimary responsibility lor what he or she learns. The self-instructional language program,has another singular ateribute. Unlike many other educationally worthwhile innovations which are so costly that they. cannot be sustained without continuing subsidy,self-instruction is fully competitive in economic terms with conventional language instruction. "Self-instruction" as a method of learning another language is % certainly not new. Indeed, it may be the o}dest method of all,slong used by travellers, merchants, and misSionaries, and in.more recent times, by anthropologists. But the approach described in this report and involving a supervised program of self-instruction with external assessment of student pertormance goes back only adecade to the U.S. Office of Education-asSisted experiment conducted by ProfessorPeter Boyd-Bowman at Kalamazoo College in 1963-65. The successful experience on one campus le4 to the'secohd stage- a cooperative statewide effort to introduceself-instruction in critical languages simultaneously on a number of campuses in New York, beginning in 196,6. Supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation, to the Regents of the University of the State of