Article In: Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報): Online-First Articles
Beyond “elementary”
Misconceptions and policy challenges in language requirement implementation at a U.S. liberal arts college
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This article examines recent policy debates surrounding the “Elementary Proficiency in a Second Language” (EPSL) requirement at a U.S. liberal arts college, focusing on how misconceptions about language learning and assessment shape curricular decision-making. Drawing on a case study of institutional discussions between the language department, curriculum committee, and administration, the study analyzes four key assumptions underlying proposed policy changes: automatic fulfillment of EPSL based on placement, the restriction of EPSL designation to elementary-level courses, the need for alternative standardized testing for exemption, and the interpretation of “elementary” as a course level rather than an outcome-based concept. The analysis demonstrates that these assumptions stem from a misunderstanding of second language competence — which is inherently multidimensional and developmental — as well as from confusion between placement and proficiency tests. Particular attention is given to the implications for languages of differing difficulty levels and for diverse learner populations, including heritage learners. The article further argues that language requirements should not be understood merely as procedural or skills-based requirements, but as important components of higher education that foster intercultural competence, interactional sensitivity, and broader human development. By clarifying key concepts and highlighting the complexity of language requirements, this study offers insights for language programs navigating similar institutional challenges.
摘要
摘要： 超越“初级”：美国文理学院外语要求实施中的认知误区与政策挑战
本文以美国一所文理学院“第二语言初级能力要求” (Elementary Proficiency in a Second Language, EPSL) 所引发的政策争议为个案，探讨关于语言学习与语言评估的误解如何影响高校课程政策决策。文章基于外语系、课程委员会与学校行政部门之间的制度协商与讨论，分析了推动相关政策调整的四项关键认知误区，包括：依据分级测试结果自动认定学生已满足外语要求、将 EPSL 限定于“初级”课程层级、以标准化测试作为豁免外语要求的替代途径，以及将“elementary”理解为课程层级而非学习结果导向概念。研究指出，这些认知误区在很大程度上源于对第二语言能力这一多维度、发展性概念的误解，以及对分级测试 (placement testing) 与水平测试 (proficiency testing) 之间区别的混淆。文章特别讨论了不同语言难度以及传承语学习者 (heritage learners) 等多样化学习者群体对语言要求实施所带来的复杂性。本文进一步指出，高校语言要求不应仅被视为程序性或技能导向的要求，而应被理解为促进跨文化能力、互动能力与人的全面发展的重要高等教育组成部分。通过澄清关键概念并揭示语言要求实施的复杂性，本文为美国高校语言项目在类似制度环境中的政策协商与课程倡议提供了有益启示。
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Challenges in language requirement implementation at a U.S. college
- 3.Misconceptions and conceptual issues
- 3.1Automatic EPSL fulfillment for placement above elementary-level courses
- 3.2Placement tests vs. Standardized proficiency tests
- 3.3EPSL designation limited to courses at the elementary level
- 3.4Utilizing standardized language proficiency tests for EPSL fulfillment
- 3.5The source of confusion: The word “elementary”
- 4.Conclusion, solutions, and implications
References
References (37)
ACTFL. (2012). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Adler, E. (2023). The hypocrisy of English-only ‘decolonization’: How dare colleges preach diversity while slashing language study? The Chronicle of Higher Education. [URL]
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
(2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.
Baird, J. (2016). The reliability and validity of standardized admissions tests in predicting academic success. Educational Assessment, 21(3), 126–139.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Boyd, F. A. (2024, November 20). Investing in humanities: Resisting cuts and redesigning curricula. McAllister & Quinn. [URL]
Brinton, D. M., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (Eds.). (2008). Heritage language education: A new field emerging. Routledge.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
(2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Multilingual Matters.
Cinaglia, C. (2023). University students’ beliefs about the language requirement: Policy as articulated and as perceived. In E. Heidrich Uebel, F. A. Kronenberg, & S. Sterling (Eds.), Language program vitality in the United States (pp. 141–157). Springer.
Coda, E., Czerwionka, L., William, J. M., & Babic Williams, T. (2022). Enrollment challenges for university language classes in the twenty-first century: Strategies, case studies, and considerations for adapting to changing circumstances. ADFL Bulletin, 47(1), 33–50.
DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). The role of assessment in supporting the learning of English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 413–448.
Dimova, S., Yan, X., & Ginther, A. (2022). Local tests, local contexts. Language Testing, 39(3), 341–354.
Fischer, K. (2023, November 15). It’s a bleak climate for foreign languages as enrollments tumble. The Chronicle of Higher Education. [URL]
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.
Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (Eds.). (2022). The test-optional revolution: How admissions testing is changing at U.S. colleges and universities. Inside Higher Ed.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Heinemann.
Kramsch, C. (2006). The multilingual subject: What language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2019). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, summer 2016 and fall 2016: Final report. Modern Language Association. [URL]
Magnan, S. S., & Backlund, P. L. (2014). Exploring language proficiency and intercultural competence in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 445–459.
McNamara, T. (2012). Language testing and social justice. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 435–447). Routledge.
Ortega, D. P., Cabrera, J. M., & Benalcázar, J. V. (2018). Differentiating instruction in the language learning classroom: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(6), 1220–1228.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Quinn, R. (2023, November 16). Foreign language enrollment sees steepest decline on record. Inside Higher Ed. [URL]
Rambur, S. (2019). Foreign language policies, consequences, and recommendations (ED597798). ERIC. [URL]
Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, J. & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: A history of the A — F marking scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(2), 201–224.
Shohamy, E., Inbar-Lourie, O., & Waltorp, K. (2010). Language tests as a tool for learning and teaching. Language Testing, 27(3), 357–377.
Socias, M. (2016). The impact of socioeconomic status on standardized test performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 791, 1–12.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Van Gorp, K., Heidrich Uebel, E., Kronenberg, F. A., & Murphy, D. (2024). How important is studying languages for undergraduate students and why (not) study languages? Foreign Language Annals, 57(4), 900–920.