Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T15:05:56.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Program Evaluation: Decisions, Problems and Solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

James Dean Brown
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In referring to evaluation, this chapter is not describing the testing that is done in language programs. As Alderson put it, “evaluation is the process of seeking to establish the value of something for some purpose, a test is an instrument for gauging learning outcomes” (1986:5, emphasis added). The use of the word testing will refer only to the instruments. The term evaluation will be used to include all of the instruments and processes involved in gathering information to make judgements about the value of an educational program. More precisely, language program evaluation will be understood as the systematic collection and analysis of information necessary to improve a curriculum, assess its effectiveness and efficiency, and determine participants' attitudes within the context of a particular institution (Brown 1989; 1995).

Information

Type
Language Assessment and Program Evaluation
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 15 , March 1995, pp. 227 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderson, J. C. and Scott, M.. 1992. Insiders, outsiders and participatory evaluation. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A. (eds.) Evaluating second language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. 1986a. Program-fair language teaching evaluation. TESOL Quarterly. 20.431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. 1992a. Evaluation of language education: An overview. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A. (eds.) Evaluating second language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D. 1989. Language program evaluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 222–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, T. 1989. Mastery decisions in program evaluations. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, B. 1992. Evaluating a program inside and out. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A. (eds.) Evaluating second language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 61–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderson, J. C. 1986. The nature of the beast. In Wangsotorn, A., Maurice, A., Prapphal, K. and Kenny, B. (eds.) Trends in language programme evaluation. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. 5–24.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. 1992. Guidelines for the evaluation of language education. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A. (eds.) Evaluating second language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 274–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, J. 1972. Children's first language as a model for second language learning. Modern Language Journal. 56.133–139.Google Scholar
Asher, J., Kusudo, J. and de la Torre, R.. 1974. Learning a second language through commands: The second field test. Modern Language Journal. 58.24–32.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. 1981. Formative evaluation in specific purpose program development. In Mackay, R. and Palmer, J. D. (eds.) Languages for specific purposes: Program design and evaluation. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 106–116.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. 1989. The development and use of criterion-referenced tests of language ability in language program evaluation. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. 1986b. A case for field-experimentation in program evaluation. Language Learning. 36.295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. 1986c. Toward a methodology of ESL program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly. 20.144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. 1990a. The program evaluator: The ESL researcher without portfolio. Applied Linguistics. 11.1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. 1990b. Implementation of the Bangalore project. Applied Linguistics. 11.321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. 1992b. What can be learned from the Bangalore evaluation? In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A. (eds.) Evaluating second language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 250–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. and Davies, A.. 1985. Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. Language Teaching Journal. 39.121–127.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. 1988. Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher's guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. 1995. The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D., Chen, Y. and Wang, Y.. 1984. An evaluation of native-speaker self-access reading materials in an EFL setting. RELC Journal. 15.75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D. and Hilferty, A. G.. 1986. The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms for listening comprehension. RELC Journal. 17.59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D. and Pennington, M. C.. 1991. Developing effective evaluation systems for language programs. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 3–18.Google Scholar
Bushman, R. W. and Madsen, H. S.. 1976. A description and evaluation of suggestopedia—A new teaching methodology. In Fanselow, J. F. and Crymes, R. H. (eds.) On TESOL '76. Washington, DC: TESOL. 29–40.Google Scholar
Byrd, P. and Constantinides, J. C.. 1991. Self-study and self-regulation for ESL programs: Issues arising from the association approach. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL.Washington, DC: NAFSA. 19–35.Google Scholar
Cartier, F. 1986. Instructional decisions and language tests: Matching the test to the decision. In Wangsotorn, A., Maurice, A., Prapphal, K. and Kenny, B. (eds.) Trends in language programme evaluation. Bangkok: Chulalongkora University. 334–352.Google Scholar
Casey, J. B. 1968. The effectiveness of two methods of teaching English as a foreign language in some Finnish secondary schools. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Chastain, K. D. and Woerdehoff, F. J.. 1968. A methodological study comparing the audio-lingual habit theory and the cognitive code-learning theory. Modern Language Journal. 52.268–279.Google Scholar
Coleman, H. 1992. Moving the goalposts: Project evaluation in practice. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A. (eds.) Evaluating second language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 222–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, H. et al. 1984. Second-language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A study of sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review. 41.268–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elley, W. B. 1989. Tailoring the evaluation to fit the context. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.) The second language curriculum. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 270–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskey, D. E., Lacy, R. and Kraft, C. A.. 1991. A novel approach to ESL program evaluation. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 36–53.Google Scholar
Fox, R. P. 1991. Evaluating the ESL program director. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 228–240.Google Scholar
Freeman, D., Freeman, Y. and Gonzalez, R.. 1987. Success for LEP students: The Sunnyside Sheltered English Program. TESOL Quarterly. 21.361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gary, J. O. 1975. Delayed oral practice in initial stages of second language learning. In Burt, M. and Dulay, H. (eds.) On TESOL 75. Washington, DC: TESOL. 89–95.Google Scholar
Genessee, F. 1983. Bilingual education of majority language students: The immersion experiments in review. Applied Psycholinguistics. 4.1–46.Google Scholar
Gradman, H. L. 1986. An extralinguistic view of language program evaluation. In Wangsotorn, A., Maurice, A., Prapphal, K. and Kenny, B. (eds.)Trends in language programme evaluation. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. 155–187.Google Scholar
Harklau, L. 1994. ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly. 28.241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauptman, P. C. 1971. A structual approach versus a situtational approach to foreign language teaching. Language Learning. 21.234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauptman, P. C., Wesche, M. B. and Ready, D.. 1988. Second-language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A follow-up study at the University of Ottawa. Language Learning. 38.433–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heining-Boynton, A. L. 1990. The development and testing of the FLES program evaluation inventory. Modern Language Journal. 74.432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heining-Boynton, A. L. 1991. The FLES program evaluation inventory (FPEI). Foreign Language Annals. 24.193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenks, F. L. 1991. Designing and assessing the efficacy of ESL promotional materials. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 172–188.Google Scholar
Keating, R. F. 1963. A study of the effectiveness of language laboratories. New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. 1988. Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied Linguistics. 9.329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafayette, R. C. and Buscaglia, M.. 1985. Students learn language via a civilization course—A comparison of second language classroom environments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 7.323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, L. 1972. Comparative studies in foreign language teaching: The GUME project. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1984. Process and product in ESL program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly. 18.409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, B. 1990. A context-adaptive model for program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly. 24.23–42.Google Scholar
Mason, C. 1971. The relevance of intensive training in English as a second language for university students. Language Learning. 21.197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthies, B. F. 1991. Administrative evaluation in ESL programs: How'm I doin'? In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 241–256.Google Scholar
Middlebrook, G. C. 1991. Evaluation of student services in ESL programs. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 135–154.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. and Eisenstein, M.. 1985. Real reality revisited: An experimental communicative course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly. 19.317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T. H. 1971. The effectiveness of two learning models: The audiolingual habit theory and the cognitive code-learning theory. In Pimsleur, P. and Quinn, T. (eds.) The psychology of second language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 113–122.Google Scholar
Newmark, L. D. 1971. A minimal language-teaching program. In Pimsleur, P. and Quinn, T. (eds.) The psychology of second language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 11–18.Google Scholar
Olsson, M. 1973. Learning grammar: An experiment. English Language Teaching. 27.266–269.Google Scholar
Pal, A. 1982. An applied psycholinguistic experiment in remedial teaching of English grammar. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 20.152–160.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. 1992. Issues in evaluating input-based language teaching programs. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A. (eds.) Evaluating second language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, M. C. and Young, A. L.. 1991. Procedures and instruments for faculty evaluation in ESL. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 191–205.Google Scholar
Pitiyanuwat, S. 1986. On-the-job behavior of trainees as a function of their reaction to the training program and learning achievement. In Wangsotorn, A., Maurice, A., Prapphal, K. and Kenny, B. (eds.) Trends in language programme evaluation. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. 142–154.Google Scholar
Ponder, R. and Powell, B.. 1991. Creating and operating a statistical database for evaluation in an English language program. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 155–171.Google Scholar
Postovsky, V. A. 1974. Effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of second language learning. Modern Language Journal. 58.229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, T. 1986. Changing models of language program evaluation: A case study. In Wangsotorn, A., Maurice, A., Prapphal, K. and Kenny, B. (eds.) Trends in language programme evaluation. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. 101–123.Google Scholar
Rollman, M. 1977. Artificial versus real communication in elementary foreign language classes. Hamilton, ONT: McMaster University. MA thesis.Google Scholar
Rollman, M. 1994. The communicative language teaching “revolution” tested: A comparison of two classroom studies: 1976 and 1993. Foreign Language Annals. 27.221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. 1992. Program-defining evaluation in a decade of eclecticism. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A. (eds.) Evaluating second language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomone, A. M. 1994. French behind bars: A qualitative and quantitative examination of college French teaching in prison. Modern Language Journal. 73.169–177.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. 1972. Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Scherer, G. A. C. and Wertheimer, M.. 1964. A psycholinguistic experiment in foreign language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Scott, V. M. 1989. An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. Modern Language Journal. 73.14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. Jr, 1970. A comparison of the cognitive and audiolingual approaches to foreign language instruction: The Pennsylvania Foreign Language Project. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Snow, M. A. and Brinton, D. M.. 1988. Content-based language instruction: Investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly. 22.553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. M. 1987. Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language teaching. Applied Linguistics. 8.137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiele, A. and Scheibner-Herzig, G.. 1983. Listening comprehension training in teaching English to beginners. System. 11.277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, G. R. and Cziko, G. A.. 1978. The role of evaluation in bilingual education. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.) International dimensions of bilingual education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 423–446.Google Scholar
Upshur, J. 1968. Four experiments on the relation between foreign language teaching and learning. Language Learning.18.111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Baalen, T. 1983. Giving learners rules: A study into the effect of grammatical instruction with varying degrees of explicitness. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin. 7.71–100.Google Scholar
Villar, S. M. and Meuser-Blincow, F.. 1993. Proficiency requirement-based and nonproficiency requirement-based second language programs: How do students rate? Foreign Language Annals. 26.49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Elek, T. and Oskarsson, M.. 1973. Teaching foreign language grammar to adults: A comparative study. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. J. and Tilney, G.. 1983. The effect of ‘superlearning techniques’ on vocabulary acquisition and alpha brainwave production of language learners. TESOL Quarterly. 17.5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. K. and Heiser, P.. 1992. ESL student bias in instructional evaluation. TESOL Quarterly. 26.271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winskowski-Jackson, C. 1991. Evaluation of culture components in ESL. In Pennington, M. C. (ed.) Building better English language programs: Perspectives on evaluation in ESL. Washington, DC: NAFSA. 98–117.Google Scholar
Wolfe, D. E. and Jones, G.. 1982. Integrating total physical response strategy in a Level 1 Spanish class. Foreign Language Annals. 15.273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar