Baseline information
LTSN Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies

Baseline information for the LTSN Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to describe the learning and teaching context in the three disciplinary areas around the time of setting up the LTSN Subject Centre in January 2000. It has been compiled at the request of the LTSN Executive, and aims to establish a baseline account by which future progress can measured.

Contents

The Subject communities	3
The programmes offered	4
Broad issues in the Subject Areas	6
Quality issues in the Subject Areas	9
Subject Centre Needs Survey	11
The Response of FDTL	12
The role of C&IT in learning and teaching	17
Initiatives in C&IT for language learning	18
Availability of pedagogical research	20
Issues in pedagogical research	21

	
Baseline document compiled by Michael Kelly (Director), with contributions from other members of the Subject Centre team.
January 2002

The Subject communities
As its title suggests, the Subject Centre serves a diverse community of staff involved in three main disciplinary areas, each of which is in turn a complex of constituent communities. Prior to the establishment of the Subject Centre, there was considerable interaction between them, but they did not consider themselves to be a single disciplinary area, and it is unlikely (and not doubt undesirable) that they should be considered as one.
The Languages communities are frequently identified in terms of a specific language or culture. Each of the most widely taught languages or language groupings (French, Hispanic, Germanic, Italian, Slavonic, English as a foreign language) has a strong subject identity and traditions, and is typically catered for by several learned or professional associations. Less widely taught foreign languages and the main UK heritage languages (Welsh, Scots, Irish) usually have a single association, while other indigenous languages (community languages, sign language) are more strongly identified with the voluntary sector than with academic institutions. In addition, there are several associations catering for particular types of programme or sector. The University Council of Modern Languages acts as an umbrella body for most of these associations, and represents the subject grouping at national policy level, e.g. in negotiations with Funding Councils. The constituency is closely connected to several international associations (e.g. ELC, CERCLES, EUROCALL). . Most of the constituent communities receive various levels of support from UK government agencies (e.g. British Council, CILT, Scottish and Welsh devolved authorities) and in many cases enjoy support from a range of foreign embassies and cultural institutes concerned with promoting a particular language or culture.
The Linguistics communities have traditionally assembled into two main groupings: pure (or theoretical, or general) linguistics, and applied linguistics. This is reflected in the two largest learned associations: the Linguistics Association of Great Britain and the British Association of Applied Linguistics. However, each of these groupings has sub-groups, and there are areas, such as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, or computational linguistics, that do not fall conveniently into one or the other grouping. Consequently there is a range of associations catering for particular specialisms in linguistics (including phonetics, language learning, and the linguistics of individual languages or groups). Most of these have strong links with the powerful international research community in linguistics.
The Area Studies communities are highly diverse, and take their identity either from the specific country or region of study, or from the particular discipline which they apply to that study. The notion of Area Studies originated in the U.S. in the postwar period, when the division of the world into distinct spheres of influence sparked academic studies of those areas, characterised by an emphasis on policy issues. In the UK, the term covers both the teaching of interdisciplinary programmes focused on a particular country or area, and the strand within languages that focuses on the socio-political aspects of the countries where the language is spoken. The three most widely taught areas are Europe, America and Iberia/Latin-America. But there is also a wide variety of programmes dealing with other areas, including the Middle East, South and East Asia, and Africa. The main areas have one or more learned associations that cater for them (e.g. UACES, BAAS, BRISMES) and the Co-ordinating Committee for Area Studies Associations has provided a loose umbrella group for the smaller bodies, excluding European and American studies.

The programmes offered
There are a large number of varied programmes available at degree level in the three subject areas, in addition to the many units that students may choose as an elective or a minor portion of their degree There is considerable overlap between the three areas, since programmes in a particular language or group of languages will normally include study of the related cultures and societies. Similarly, studies of a particular country or region will often include study of the relevant language(s). Many programmes in languages include a significant component of linguistics, and linguistics programmes will often include a component of language learning. The following survey of programmes is drawn from named degrees or degree components advertised by UCAS as available for students entering university in October 2000. Figures in brackets indicate the number of institutions listed as offering programmes under that heading.
Programmes in Languages
Language studies are very widely taught (126 institutions), and some 54 languages can be studied in UK universities. The most widely offered individual language programmes are French (121), German (121) and Spanish (106). A large number of programmes are available in Italian (66) and Russian (48). There is also significant provision in Japanese (31), Welsh (21), English as a Foreign Language (16), Portuguese (16), Arabic (13) and Chinese (13). Beyond these eleven major languages, 22 other language programmes are offered by more than one institution: Catalan (5), Croatian (2), Czech (4), Danish (3), Dutch (4), Gaelic  (9), Modern Greek (6), Hebrew (7), Hindi (4), Indonesian (2), Irish (7), Korean (3), Oriental Languages (4), Polish (3), Scandinavian languages (4), Serbian (2), Slavonic languages (2), Sign language (2), Slovak (2), Swedish (4), Thai (2), Turkish (5), Urdu (2). And 21 languages are offered by only one institution: Amharic, Aramaic, Bengali, Bulgarian, Burmese, Finnish, Georgian, Gujarati, Hungarian, Icelandic, Iranian, Nepali, Norwegian, Occitan, Proakrit, Romanian, Swahili, Tamil, Tibetan, Ukranian, Vietnamese.
Outside these degree programmes, there is a considerable volume of teaching of languages to students on other programmes. The precise contours of this provision are difficult to map, owing to the shortage of robust information. However, in 1998-99 the HESA returns showed approximately 124,000 students to be studying at least one unit of language. Of these 61,000 (48,000 FTE) were following degree programmes that include language study. It is a reasonable conclusion that approximately half of the students studying a language are doing so as an additional subject, outside their main discipline, and several surveys have shown this to be a growing trend. By far the largest proportion of this provision is aimed at the early stages of language learning, from ab initio to approximately A-level. And it is also largely focused on the most popular languages: French, German, Spanish and Italian. The figures do not include the numbers of students studying a foreign language as a non-accredited unit, or those studying English as a foreign language in pre-sessional and in-sessional courses, though such provision is available most institutions.
Programmes in Linguistics 
Some 34 programmes are available in Linguistics, including programmes in Computational linguistics, psycholinguistics and socio-linguistics. To these may be added programmes in speech studies or sciences of various kinds (15), translation and interpreting (10) and programmes in the teaching, as distinct from the learning, of English as a foreign language (14). Linguistics is also widely taught as a component of other programmes, especially but not exclusively in language degrees.
Programmes in Area Studies
There are no degree programmes in Area Studies, though there is one Diploma level programme, and its close cognate Regional studies (3) is occasionally mentioned in programme titles. Instead, programmes are generally identified by the name of the particular area, or of the linguistic or cultural group studied. The most widely offered programmes are in (Contemporary) European Studies (78) and American (or US) Studies (46). Hispanic and Iberian Studies (19) and Latin American (or Spanish- or Ibero-American) studies (16) are also widely taught. Regional studies of the British Isles are offered in several universities as Scottish (9), Irish (7), Celtic (7) and British (4) Studies. Similar numbers offer Central (4) and East European (or Soviet) Studies (7), Islamic Studies (9), Jewish (or Israeli) studies (9), Middle Eastern (or Near Eastern) Studies (8), Persian Studies (7), African studies (4) and various Asian studies - Asian (3), Asia Pacific (3), South and South East Asia (5), East Asia (2), Black and South Asian (1). One or two programmes are also available under each of Afro-Portuguese, Australian, Brazillian, Canadian, Caribbean, Commonwealth, Sikh and Sinhalese Studies. In some respects Development (or Third World) studies (39) may be included as a cognate area.
In addition to specified degree programmes, area studies units are widely taught as part of degrees in other subjects, especially in modern languages and English, but also in Geography, History, Economics, Politics, International Relations, Sociology.

Broad issues in the Subject Areas 
Teaching and learning in the subject areas takes place in a broader social context, which always has an effect on the development of the academic discipline, sometimes a direct and measurable effect. In recent years, languages and area studies have been particularly affected by the international context, and by domestic responses to it. But they and linguistics have also been affected by specific government initiatives. As a result, the academic communities in these areas have felt a strong need for support in responding to broad issues, which cannot be addressed at the level of a single institution. Subject associations have done a good deal to provide leadership and opportunities for reflection, but in general lack the resources and organisation for long term concerted action. 
Recruitment
The numbers of students applying to study language degrees and area studies degrees have shown a disturbing decline since the mid-1990s. This has not affected all degree programmes or institutions equally. For example, there has been some buoyancy in Spanish and in American Studies, and the older universities have been less dramatically affected than post-1992 institutions. It has proved difficult to document the pattern with precision, though HEFCE undertook an analysis of recruitment and provision in language degrees, which was circulated to Vice-chancellors in December 1999. The steady decline in overall language A-level entries since 1996 is well documented, and is directly linked to falling applications to most language programmes and modern language-oriented area studies, such as European Studies.
The reasons for this development have been traced to several factors, including the growing international role of English language, the long predominance of Euroscepticism in national attitudes, and changes during the 1990s in the structure and content of secondary school programmes. Economic factors may also be significant, for example, in making it less attractive to incur the additional costs of four year programmes, or in casting foreign languages and cultures as a subjects better studied as ancillary, for their key skill value, rather than subjects of study in their own right. These points would be supported by the commensurate expansion of demand for languages as subsidiary or optional components in degrees in other subjects.
Employability
Students have become more conscious of the career implications of their studies, and programmes have increasingly recognised the need to provide career benefits. In languages and area studies, it is clear that the international developments associated with globalisation have clear implications. To a large extent, universities have responded by emphasising the value of key skills embedded in these programmes, particularly language and communication skills, intercultural competence, and personal resilience in mobility. This has been emphasised increasingly in the attempt to stem the decline in recruitment, and the strong position of languages in employment after graduation emerges clearly from graduate first destination statistics, confirmed in the ‘Moving on’ survey of students three and a half years after graduation. Perversely, this emphasis appears to have reinforced the move away from languages as a specialist subject. A contributory factor may be the lack of specific professional career outcomes, apart from teaching (which has tended to become less attractive to graduates) and translation and interpreting) which are relatively small and specialised professions.
Identity
Propelled by falling student numbers, languages and area studies academics have been very active in innovating and in re-defining their subject. As a result, the programmes offered show great diversity and inter-disciplinarity. However, there is less certainty about where the core area of the subject lies. This development is reinforced by the tendency of cognate disciplines to move away from area-specific or applied studies towards more theoretical and generic studies. For example, where the ‘theoretical turn’ in literary and cultural studies is an established factor in degrees with a strong focus on literature or film, it has accelerated links with Anglophone studies, often displacing the focus on foreign languages and cultural contexts. Or, where programmes in area studies draw on multi-disciplinary staff from different departments, it has become less easy to maintain the co-operation as staff increasingly focus on the more theoretical aspects of, for example, economics, politics, or geography. Conversely, where student numbers are in decline in specialist programmes, staff in languages and area studies may contribute more extensively to generic programmes in cognate disciplines.
International developments 
The internationalisation of trade has given greater importance to the skills and knowledge provided in languages and area studies. However, globalisation has also reinforced the dominance of English-speaking American influence in the economic, political and cultural spheres. At the turn of the millennium it was clear that the interplay between globalisation and localisation provided both opportunities and threats to these subject areas. The academic communities were anxiously looking for ways to develop their programmes that would take advantages of the opportunities and avoid the worst consequences of the threats. 
Government policy directions 
Government intervention in the content of academic programmes has traditionally been light touch, typically offering marginal incentives to take advantage of opportunities, for example, to increase the links with industry or to give greater emphasis to encouraging enterprise. In languages and area studies, there have also been intermittent initiatives aimed at protecting or increasing the provision of some subjects, for example the less widely taught languages and cultures, and subjects regarded as having strategic importance, such as Russian or more recently Chinese studies.
During the later 1990s, government policies in several areas began to require greater input of advice and consultancy from academics, with both direct and indirect results in giving areas of government priority greater salience in academic programmes. For example, the development of the national curriculum in schools, the literacy strategy and the development of key skills, have all drawn strongly on the advice of theoretical and applied linguists. In the medium term, this will affect the profile of students entering university, but in the meantime it is giving momentum to relevant areas of interest in teaching and research, for example, giving a new impetus for academics in linguistics to work on grammar, and on second language acquisition, with associated units appearing in taught programmes.
The Nuffield Report
A particular initiative in the policy area in respect of languages was the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. This eighteen-month inquiry sprang from a proposal from the languages community. Sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation, with tacit support from government, it had a membership of prominent public figures, jointly chaired by Sir Trevor McDonald, and Sir Robin Boyd. In September 1998, it produced a preliminary consultative report, Where are we going with languages? This looked at the European and global contexts for languages, at the particular role of English as an international language, at patterns of language learning in all levels of the education system, and at languages for business and for leisure. It contained a chapter on Higher Education, written by Prof. Richard Towell, which provides a baseline statement for languages in higher education at that date. A copy is appended (Appendix A). The consultative report promoted wide discussion. Many individuals and organisations made formal submissions to the Inquiry. Its Final Report was compiled during 1999, and was published in May 2000. It has since fed into government and EU policy on languages. The section of the Report dealing with Higher Education provides a baseline statement for key aspects of the area of languages at that date. A copy is appended (Appendix B)

Quality issues in the Subject Areas 
Most areas of the subjects have been examined within the QAA Subject Review programme. Where areas have not been covered, for example teaching of English as a Foreign Language, it is because they have been specifically excluded from review. 
QAA Subject Overview statements are available for the following subjects within the LLAS area:
French
German and related languages
Iberian languages and studies
Italian
Russian and Eastern European languages and studies
Linguistics
East and South Asian studies
Middle East and African studies
American studies
In addition, subject reviews were conducted in combined languages, Celtic, Dutch and Scandinavian.
The reports, and particularly the overview reports, identified very many positive achievements in learning and teaching in the subjects, as well as issues of concern on which further improvements were needed in at least some institutions. The following issues emerged as areas of concern in several subject areas.
Impact of student numbers. Especially in smaller units, the decline in student numbers was impacting on their ability to deliver a wide enough curriculum.
Year abroad. This valuable aspect of programmes was often not sufficiently integrated into the overall curriculum.
Teaching to non-specialists. This was a widespread phenomenon entailing pedagogical issues which required further examination.
Pedagogical research. Though this was found in some areas, it was seen to be an area where insufficient work was available, or where teaching staff were insufficiently aware of what did exist.
Modularity. Highly modular programmes did not always give sufficient attention to student progression.
Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary issues. Many programmes were composed of contributions from different disciplinary areas, raising issues of programme coherence, discipline-specific preparation of students, explicit linking of different disciplines, and adequate quality assurance. See also Dispersal of staff, Mixed teaching, Staff expertise.
Dispersal of staff. Teaching staff were often located in units dominated by a cognate discipline, with risks of marginalisation, or in a number of units contributing to a particular programme, with risks of fragmentation.
Mixed teaching. Teaching to student groups of different attainment levels, different disciplinary backgrounds, or different personal backgrounds (non-UK, mature, part-time students etc) is widespread, and work was needed to address the difficulties to which this gave rise.
Staff expertise. Especially in small units, the availability of requisite staff expertise was not secure, resulting in significant failures in ability to deliver an adequate range of teaching, or discontinuities in what could be delivered from one year to the next.
Specialisation. Staff were tending to specialise in narrow areas of their discipline, with potential lack of overview and obstacles to communication between staff from different parts of the disciplinary area.
Research. In some cases, the relationship between research and teaching was unclear or underdeveloped. 
Assessment. In some cases, the relation between the programme and means of assessment was underdeveloped, and procedures for feedback to students required more attention.
Key skills. These were often advertised, but not always adequately embedded into programmes. In particular, there was sometimes inadequate provision for higher level skills, for example in final year research-  or project-type work.
Target language policy. Great variation was observed in teaching through the target language, and many units did not articulate a coherent policy in respect of it.
Resources centres. Though independent learning was widely encouraged, programmes in some cases did not integrate the use of resources centres, and some universities had inadequate provision for them.
Breadth and depth. An appropriate balance was sought, but some programmes were observed to favour breadth excessively, resulting in less challenging provision, while others, favouring depth, offered too narrow a range of areas of study, or too limited learning experiences.
Retention. In a small number of cases, problems were identified with high levels of student withdrawals before completion of courses.
Informality. In smaller units especially, it was often observed that high quality teaching was achieved by largely informal arrangements, but that these were not robust when circumstances changed (staff changes, less staff-student contact, incorporation into larger organisational units etc), and formal arrangements for quality assurance were required. In extreme cases, this was even undermining the working of the external examiner system.
IT provision. For the most part generic IT facilities were generally well provided, but in some areas there was a lack of subject-specific IT materials, or a lack of staff expertise in IT approaches.

Subject Centre Needs Survey
In mid-2000, a preliminary needs survey was carried out by the Subject Centre, based on a list of departmental correspondants. They were asked to comment on two items: the key learning and teaching needs for their subject area and the most useful Subject Centre activities for their subject area. Space was given for further comments. Some 60 responses were received. A graphic summary of the responses is attached (Appendix C).
The responses to the first question regarding key learning and teaching needs highlighted a marked preference for sharing of expertise across institutions (49) and e-learning (44). Other issues that were identified as important by a third to a half of respondents were teaching methodology (35), research into learning and teaching (40), finding or producing teaching materials (31), managing independent learning (29). Issues that were given least importance were developing distance learning courses(12), differentiation (10, although one respondent commented that mixed and differing ability classes were a problem), evaluating learning materials (17) and assessment (13).

Of the Subject Centre activities that would be most useful, free learning and teaching workshops was considered most useful (52) with other popular choices being the provision of downloadable teaching resources (50) along with a searchable resources database (44). Another activity considered useful was advice on funding for learning and teaching projects and research (45) and the Subject Centre is not only seeking to provide this advice but also to obtain further sources of funding to support small projects. Least popular services were consultation visits (17), work in progress seminars (25), assistance with materials production (21) and searchable databases of expertise (27). Having noted a difference in popularity, however, it is worth noting that none of the suggestions rated lower than 17 and most attracted a response from a quarter or more of the respondents. 

Breaking the results down by subject area similar results are obtained for the highest rating needs and activities (e-learning, downloadable teaching resources, sharing of expertise across institutions, searchable resources database, free workshops etc.). However for linguistics there appears to be a greater interest in quality assurance issues than for the other areas and education shows the highest proportion of respondents who consider research into learning and teaching as a key need. It is also worth noting that teaching methodology and differentiation scored proportionally higher among respondents from education.

Comments were received on a small number of questionnaires and these included an interest in intercultural learning, minority languages, key skills, small group teaching, visual materials for learning and teaching, teaching mixed level and mixed L2/L3 students, using audio files in CALL. The only extra activity requested was help with research methodology training for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

The results obtained from this survey are useful mostly as a measure of current thinking on a few general issues and as a means of informing/strengthening Subject Centre activities. It is interesting to see how little importance was given to assessment issues and to distance learning while e-learning and materials design was given quite a high priority. It is also very encouraging to see how much enthusiasm there is for sharing expertise across institutions but rather discouraging to see that there is not a similar enthusiasm for cross-disciplinary sharing, as this is something that has already been identified as valuable from within the Subject Centre. The high interest in a resources database and downloadable teaching materials may indicate that we should concentrate our efforts on setting this up, while some of the areas for which there is an apparent lack of concern should probably be investigated further to discover if this is lack of interest, information or an issue for which the Subject Centre may not be the first port of call (as yet). 

The Response of FDTL 
As a means of following up the QAA assessements, the higher education funding bodies for England and Northern Ireland (HEFCE and DENI) established a fund for the development of teaching and learning (FDTL), intended to be a means for disseminating good practice, and organised as a fund against which consortia of universities could make bids. 
Following the 1995-6 assessments nineteen consortia in England and Northern Ireland made bids in the area of languages, from which ten were successful, obtaining a total of £2.5m over 3 years. These teams took the initiative of coming together to form a Co-ordinating Group for Languages-FDTL, chaired by Michael Kelly on behalf of the University Council of Modern Languages, the UK umbrella organisation for languages in higher education. Combining forces also allowed them to fund a professional dissemination team and secretariat, based in London at CILT (Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research), the government sponsored agency for promoting modern foreign languages. 
The aim of the Coordinating Group was to combine the efforts of the projects and give them a greater impact than they might have separately. Together, they involved almost every institution of higher education in England and Northern Ireland. The Group was a focus for drawing in other projects and was subsequently joined by a further project in this area of autonomous learning, funded under the TLTP initiative, and a small project in Chinese language teaching under the following round of FDTL. It also fed strongly into thinking about language learning and about teaching development at national level, and helped to shape the proposals for the Subject Centre.
The language projects were explicitly conceived in response to the main issues which emerged from the quality assessments, and those which received funding were chosen with a view to the strategic areas of need in languages. There were four projects dealing with independent learning, three with residence abroad, two with staff development, and one each with student assessment, and the teaching of transferable skills. All of the projects had the resources to hire full-time project workers and support staff, and the result was a vigorous upsurge of activity in mapping the field, holding briefings, workshops and colloquia, and setting up websites and communication channels. A brief description of the projects follows.
Independent learning
Independent or autonomous learning is one of the most rapidly developing areas in higher education generally, driven by the challenge to build a ‘learning society’, to extend access to education, and to gain the widest possible impact from scarce resources. Language learning is a prime target for investment in it, and the projects which shared this theme were able to build on a substantial body of earlier work.
The WELL project (Web-Enhanced Language Learning) aimed to disseminate good practice in the use of Web-based resources and communication for teaching and learning languages across the HE sector. Its main outcome was enhanced awareness and more effective use of Web resources for modern language teaching across higher education. This was achieved through a programme of workshops; supported remission for staff in the four consortium centres and thirty other Departments to embed the use of Web in their teaching; extensive dissemination through newsletters; a collection of case studies; a mailbase discussion list; and a conference. The project was built round a series of Web pages with pointers to specific resources for a range of languages and guidance to teachers and learners on when and how best to use them. They are now accessible to users in all sectors of education across the UK and internationally. 
The CIEL project (Curriculum and Independence for the Learner Support Network) promoted independent learning and its integration with the curriculum. It focused on six key areas: policy making, management, staff development and support, learner training and support, curriculum design, and self-access learning resources. Through three regional support networks based in London, Leeds and Southampton, the project partners offered on-site staff development workshops, work shadowing and training attachments together with a programme of regional meetings and workshops which acted as a local forum for discussion and exchange of ideas. A telephone/e-mail HelpLine provided on-line support and advice and answers to practical questions ranging from copyright to selection of equipment and materials. A Swapshop, accessible through CIEL web pages, gave information about the wide range of in-house language materials being developed across the higher education sector. 
The SMILE project (Strategies for Managing an Independent Learning Environment) was designed to bridge the gap between the provision of open learning facilities for languages and student use of these facilities in practice. It disseminated best practice in the effective integration of learning resources, learner needs and student support. It drew on the experience gained and the tools developed through collaboration between the language departments and the open learning advisory service for languages at several universities with a wide spectrum of resources, learners and courses, with the aim of refining these tools to make them usable by institutions throughout the higher education system. SMILE targeted staff and learners, with particular focus on language advising and learner training. The project, which started in September 1997, had practical outcomes, including templates for staff and learner training, an electronic support network, tailor-made workshops, the creation of a database of language advisers in the UK, support to existing activities in the area of language advising and independent learning in and out of the classroom. 
The ALLADIN project (Autonomous Language Learning for Art and Design students through Interactive Networks) was funded by the Teaching and Learning Technology programme for higher education (TLTP). It aimed to promote and extend the integration of computer-based resources into language teaching and learning programmes in an art, design and media context and to provide a model for the take-up and use of resource-based learning course design in all language teaching and other disciplinary areas in higher education. It identified the institutional and other contextual critical success factors which lead to the beneficial use of these materials, auditing the learning needs of art, design and media students and creating a needs analysis tool and software evaluation instrument. In addition to disseminating comprehensive information via the Web and through publications, it undertook a programme of site visits, focus days with practitioners, workshops and training sessions.
The focus for these four projects was not primarily on the development of materials for learning, but on enabling teachers and students to make effective use of the resources which are already available. They have played an important role in helping to close the gap between the dazzling vision of what is now technically possible and the very patchy reality of how much use is actually made of the new opportunities.
Residence abroad
Language and area studies departments have traditionally emphasised the need to study or work in a relevant environment abroad and most universities have provision for students to spend up to a year abroad during their studies. In recent years there have been suggestions that this is an expensive luxury, since students take an extra year to complete their first degree, and strenuous efforts have been made to ensure that residence abroad is integrated into the curriculum, rather than being seen as a ‘year out’. Specifically, its role in the process of learning a language and an associated culture has come under close scrutiny, and it has been shown that there is very wide variation in expectations and practice. The three projects dealing with this area worked together to provide comprehensive information and to disseminate good practice.
The Inter-culture Project identified examples of intercultural and socio-linguistic 'dysfunction' experienced by students while studying and working abroad. It described and evaluated the guidance and support in the intercultural and socio-linguistic spheres provided by a representative sample of HE institutions, and it tested and selected instruments and learning activities designed to raise the level of intercultural competence amongst students prior to periods of residence abroad, offering ways of developing teachers' expertise in their application. It gathered data using a combination of methodologies, including questionnaires, interviews, student and staff focus groups, tests and workshops. The methodologies were progressively refined over the three years of the project and the information collected was disseminated through developmental workshops, email, newsletters and conferences. 
The LARA project (Learning and Residence abroad in Modern Languages Degrees) aimed to identify best practice in curriculum design and student support for the period of residence abroad in languages degrees and to find ways it can be disseminated to all higher education institutions. In the first stage, the project jointly produced a database on the World Wide Web, detailing current practice in the UK and highlighting where good practice, as identified in the HEFCE Quality Assessment Reports, already exists. Subsequently the consortium worked with institutions across the country to elaborate models of good practice which could be disseminated nationally. It worked with a number of sub-projects concerned with the integration of residence abroad into the curriculum, intercultural preparation, learning contracts, work placements, and accreditation and assessment.
The third project, entitled simply the Residence Abroad Project, aimed to identify, define, disseminate and promote best practice with regard to all aspects of residence abroad. Together with the LARA project, it established a National Residence Abroad Database (NRAD), designed to give a detailed picture of current practice throughout the UK on the basis of a national survey and HEFCE Teaching Quality Assessment reports. Categories covered by the Residence Abroad Project included personal, academic, linguistic and work-related objectives; studentships, assistantships, work placements; linguistic, practical, cultural and academic preparation; learning contracts, diaries; support and monitoring; work carried out while abroad; curriculum integration; assessment; and related research. Models of good practice were evaluated by institutions within and beyond the consortium, and materials and methodologies have been made available to all institutions. 
Working together the three projects dealing with the year abroad contributed greatly to what is known about current practice. Their joint programme of workshops in different regions on the theme of ‘Residence abroad matters’ raised consciousness on the issues, and they have had a significant impact on practice.
Staff development
The extent of change which is happening places a growing demand on teaching staff, and at national level universities and the ILT have begun to introduce accredited teaching qualifications for university staff. More than many subjects, languages are also dependent on a range of part-time and temporary staff, including teaching assistants and language assistants (lectors), who are often only offered limited training and induction. At all events, the need to develop the teaching skills of staff in languages now has a high political and practical priority.
The DOPLA project (Development of Postgraduate and Language Assistants) developed a teacher training programme for modern languages that is student centred, modular, adaptable, cost-effective and accreditable. It is based on a five-day course linking initial training and related activities, followed by a period of teaching practice, with a further taught element combining reflection and additional training. Novice teachers leave each element of the programme with a dossier of practical strategies for language teaching as well as techniques for classroom management. It is a highly participatory course, readily applicable to a mixed group of teaching and language assistants from any of the modern foreign languages. Tutors who have run the course have found the mix of students, the range of languages taught, as well as the different aspects and levels of those languages, to be a stimulus for the creation and dissemination of imaginative teaching strategies across modern language groups. The consortium members offered support and advice through national conferences, regional workshops and consultative visits. 
The DEVELOP project (Developing Excellence in Language Teaching through the Observation of Peers) was concerned with the dissemination of good practice in the use of peer observation for staff development purposes in modern languages. The project built on the use of peer observation in other disciplines and applied this to a languages context. An Action Research approach to reflection on teaching practice supported the adoption of peer observation schemes, and materials were widely disseminated. The materials were trialled by a Focus Group to ensure the relevance and applicability of materials to a wide range of contexts, and case studies have been published, reflecting critical success factors in specific institutional contexts. 
Though they only touch on two aspects of staff development, the two projects have had the effect of raising awareness of the issues, and their impact is increased by the growing pressure to adopt a more professional approach to teaching in British universities.
Key skills and assessment
As part of the learning society process, universities are being required to focus on the generic skills which can be transferred from degree-level study and applied to a wide range of career contexts: now referred to generally as Key Skills. The TransLang project (Transferable Skills Development for Non-specialist Learners of Modern Languages) addressed the needs of Institutions of Higher Education wishing to introduce or strengthen the provision of programmes of language learning for non-specialist students. It provided staff training and consultancy activities for lecturing staff with the aim of embedding a range of Transferable Skills in their non-specialist provision. To achieve this, Task Groups in 3 areas - Curriculum Development, Learner Autonomy, and Assessment - produced staff development activities and supporting materials for end-users. The project used a survey to map non-specialist provision in UK institutions, and undertook a series of visits to share best practice, and discuss training and methodology for incorporating transferable skills.
With the rapid expansion of numbers over recent years, students are now much more varied than in the past, and both they and the wider community have a greater concern for performance to be assessed with fairness and comparability. There was therefore a great deal of interest in the project dealing with Effective Practices in Assessment in the Modern Languages: A German Language Perspective. This project focused on the collection, analysis, description, dissemination and advocacy of best practice identified in the assessment of students in modern European languages, from the perspective of German language courses. It aimed to identify best practice in assessment in two categories: summative assessment of student learning, and formative assessment for student learning. Following a content analysis of reports on the Quality Assessment, it began visiting selected language subject teams, and identified criteria on which to judge good practice in assessment. It invited languages departments to contribute case studies, and prepared an analysis and evaluation which was intended to be published and disseminated widely. Regrettably, the project fell victim to staff changes and other contingent factors which curtailed its effectiveness.
Linguistics
FDTL2 funded two projects in the area of linguistics. They were invited to join the co-ordinating group for languages, but declined to do so.
The Resource-based data sets project developed materials in various media to assist students in carrying out analysis of linguistic data. The main areas developed were quantitative data, which could be subjected to statistical analysis, and qualitative data, such as interviews or classroom observation.
The Web-based phonetics training and assessment project (Siphtra) provided a range of online exercises and links to useful websites, designed to provide students with a clearer understanding of the basics of phonetics.
American studies
No Area studies project was funded under FDTL2, but in the following round, FDTL3, a project was funded in Amercanisation and the teaching of American studies (AMATAS), running for two years and beginning in September 2000. It has developed a website and a programme of workshops and seminars, in the cultural studies area, focused on the influence of American media and popular culture.

The role of C&IT in learning and teaching
Recent surveys (FDTL CIEL project, May, 2000) show that the majority of UK HE language learners now have access to C&IT based resources. These include:
•	dedicated language learning software in a range of media (often referred to as CALL - Computer Assisted Language Learning)
•	language tools (e.g. dictionaries, foreign language wordprocessors, translators, email)
•	foreign language resources (e.g. foreign language newspapers on CD Rom, and on the internet)

A few universities have computer-based language laboratories which can be used for both face-to-face and virtual class teaching. But the majority of learners use IT resources as part of their independent study, outside formal class time. 

There is a significant tendency for students to move from conventional materials (books, newspapers, tapes, videos etc) to using computer-based self-access tools and resources for language learning. The CIEL survey estimates that over one fifth of students already use more C&IT than conventional materials. This trend is likely to increase with the emergence of more web-based resources which can be used for language learning. These include digital TV/radio, and online newspapers from around the world. 

The availability of up to date authentic target language materials (giving access to both language and culture) is growing dramatically through access to the internet. But the development of appropriate dedicated computer-based learning materials and activities is not keeping pace – notable exceptions online are those produced by TV5 in France and Inter-Nationes in Germany. This is a particular problem in the beginning and intermediate stages of language learning where learners need more support and will not benefit so much from unmediated engagement with authentic materials. 

The use of C&IT for assessment in language learning is still in its infancy but the demand for useful and useable materials is growing with the need to monitor and support a growing and needy student population. The need for materials in languages is particularly great since language learning is a time intensive process, teacher contact time is limited, and topic-based materials go rapidly out of date.

Initiatives in C&IT for language learning
The HE funding bodies have invested over some ten years in a range of initiatives in the use of C&IT in learning and teaching. Languages have been particularly active and successful in taking advantage of these opportunities.
CTI
The CTI Centre for Modern Languages based at Hull was established in 1989 as part of the Computers in Teaching Initiative. It is generally regarded as one of the most successful of the CTI centres, and has provided advice and information on the use of C&IT throughout the sector over ten years. It was incorporated as the C&IT Centre of the Subject Centre in April 2000. The Centre has developed a large library of C&IT materials, an online software database and web links. It is planned that all of these will be developed further within the Subject Centre. The online database identifies significant numbers of language learning software titles, for example: English 491, French 431, German 302, Spanish 289, Italian 182, Russian 102. However, by far the majority of these titles are aimed at secondary school pupils and are often not suitable for higher education.

The Hull CTI Centre was also at the forefront of international developments in CALL. It is the base for an MA in language learning technology; a refereed journal, ReCall, which is now published by Cambridge University Press; and the European association EUROCALL, which holds an annual conference on research and development in C&IT in language learning.
TLTP
The Teaching and Learning Technology Programme was launched soon after CTI. TLTP phases 1 and 2 (1992 –1996) aimed ‘to encourage the higher education sector to work collaboratively and explore how new technologies could be exploited to improve and maintain quality within teaching and learning’. Among the total of 76 funded projects in all subjects, there were three language projects (funded at around £2 million overall). These were:

•	The Technology Enhanced Language Learning (TELL) consortium, led by CTI Modern Languages, was much the largest project, and developed the greatest range of materials. TELL produced a number of packages (tools, resources and courses) aimed at various levels of competence in French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. Many of these were published by Hodder and Stoughton. Other languages are in development with European funding. The formative and summative evaluation reports on the project, co-ordinated by Diana Laurillard from the OU, have been influential in informing subsequent software evaluation and design processes across the sector.

•	The CKS (Cambridge, Kent and Southampton) project which developed a number of multiple media (print, video, and computer-based) self-access language learning dossiers in French and German for science and engineering students at 3 levels. 

•	The Astcovea Grammar Project (Aston, Coventry and UEA) which developed a grammar awareness program with texts marked up for grammatical and topic content.

The great value of this first development initiative lay in the large-scale investment in materials development for languages other than English and in the fact that they were freely available to HE. They could be made widely accessible across institutional networks at little cost, thus influencing take up and use.

While the development projects produced a good deal of software, it became apparent that take up and use of the products remained relatively slow. As a result TLTP Phase 3 (1998-2001), adopted a focus on ‘embedding the use of new technologies more firmly into higher education and evaluating its effectiveness’. There is one language project under TLTP3, the ALLADIN project (see above), which aims to evaluate and disseminate good practice in the use of C&IT for language learners who are art, design and media specialists.
FDTL
In the 1997 FDTL round (see above), ten projects were funded in languages for a three-year period, 1997-2000. Organised in a number of consortia of universities, several of the projects have produced C&IT-based materials for staff and students. For example, the Residence Abroad Project has developed Web-pages, email and bulletin boards to support students working or studying abroad. All projects have developed Websites, though the main focus has been on the dissemination of good practice in areas other than C&IT. 

However, the FDTL projects have identified a tremendous need to support language practitioners in their use of C&IT, and have attempted to respond to it. In particular:
•	the CIEL project, focusing on curriculum and independent learning, ran 5 regional C&IT workshops between May 1999 and May 2000, which over 300 practitioners attended; 
•	the WELL (Web Enhanced Language Learning) project ran over 50 institutional workshops between January 1999 and July 2000 on the use of the web for language learning, and their discussion mailbase list was very active with some 450 members. WELL answered the need for 'content' through the development of a databank of exercises in French, Italian, Spanish, and German (contributed by the practitioners across the sector) which allows tutors to construct objective language tests with immediate feedback. It also repurposed some of the TELL multimedia materials.

Other projects
A number of other projects and initiatives across the sector have looked at the use of C&IT for language learning. They have generally been funded by small local pump-priming grants, and a npon-exhaustive list includes, for example:
•	the use of videoconferencing for collaborative learning (Southampton, Cambridge); 
•	the use of text-conferencing systems to advise language learners (Hull);
•	the use of the Web for supporting grammar reference and practice (Manchester Metropolitan);
•	the use of audio and text conferences between learners and tutors (Open University).

There is also widespread use of the international 'tandem' email project, based at Bochum University, Germany, which promotes email exchanges between pairs of students of different languages for mutual learning. 

These are relatively small-scale projects, which focus on improving methods of delivery. There are some attempts to develop course content, but these are at present small-scale and random in languages. It is likely that the area of appropriate 'content' is where the major pressure for future development will be felt.

Availability of pedagogical research
In some respects the subject areas are well provided with pedagogical research. Much of the available research on generic issues of teaching and learning is readily adaptable. This is particularly true of approaches based on lectures, small group teaching, and IT applications. But in addition, there are several areas where subject-specific pedagogical research is also readily available.
Language learning and teaching is one of the most extensively researched areas, and, because it is a core subject in school it composes an important sub-field of applied linguistics as a discipline, and a key area of education research and development more generally. CILT is a national agency with the remit of promoting and disseminating work of this kind. The Council of Europe has also taken a leading role in promoting research into language learning, including the presentation of an influential Common European Framework for modern languages, which systematises research into a range of skills and levels of attainment in language learning.
Language acquisition and especially second language acquisition are now well-established sub-disciplines within linguistics, and can provide important insight into the processes of acquisition on which strategies of teaching and learning can be developed. Similarly, extensive contributions are available from work in the areas of lexicography, informing the use of dictionaries in learning, and testing.
The issues surrounding study abroad have been extensively researched at a European level, owing to the key role played by mobility in EU educational strategy. In particular, attention has focused on linguistic and cultural preparation, and processes of adaptation and integration into the host environment. Valuable work has been done in the UK over the past ten years to analyse the effects of residence abroad for language students, and devise ways of integrating it more effectively into the curriculum (see also the FDTL projects above). These issues have also been important in giving momentum to the development of research in the integration of intercultural communication and ethnographic approaches into the languages curriculum.
Key skills have been widely researched at a generic level, and some limited specific research has been devoted to their embedding in subject-specific programmes. In particular, this has been encouraged by the manifest potential of our subject areas for developing key communication skills, and the international and intercultural skills increasingly valued by employers with global perspectives.
The application of IT to teaching in language is well researched, with CALL (Computer assisted language learning) now forming an important sub-discipline in its own right, with influential national and international associations focused on research.

Issues in pedagogical research
Despite the strengths in pedagogical research, a number of issues remain to be addressed. Not all areas of our subjects are well served in subject-specific pedagogical research, and it is clear that a considerable need is felt in linguistics (particularly theoretical linguistics) and in area studies.
Much of the teaching provision is highly interdisciplinary (or multidisciplinary). This is especially the case in area studies, but also applies to a lesser extent to languages and linguistics. There is as yet relatively little pedagogical research addressing the issues arising from this.
A key issue is the extent to which pedagogical research is recognised and rewarded within the sector. It is widely held that successive Research Assessment Exercises have discouraged research of this kind. Earlier RAEs appeared to exclude research related to teaching, while more recent exercises have given only a guarded acceptance to it. As a result, high-achieving departments have avoided submitting such research, and as often as not have discouraged their staff from pursuing it. Conversely, departments new to the research field have often used teaching related research, and action research, as a way of entering the arena. It is generally agreed that the results have been disappointing both in the quality of the resulting research and in the level of recognition it has received in subject-specific RAE panels.
Following from this, it has sometimes been thought that the Education RAE panel might provide a more welcoming home for pedagogical research, and the prospect of a more supportive environment. However, apart from the organisational issues of how far submissions reflect
Ultimately, the value of pedagogical research is realised in its practical application to teaching and learning. At present, the extent to which available research is actually applied within the subject areas is extremely patchy. The FDTL, CTI and TLTP projects have played a valuable role in disseminating existing good practices and some research insights. However, in the research-led parts of the sector, staff have frequently given low priority to enhancing their teaching in general, and in particular to familiarising themselves with the insights that pedagogical research can bring. There is some evidence that this is improving, partly under institutional pressure of QA, learning and teaching strategies and specialist development units, and partly under pressure of recruitment and retention of students. As of 2000, the emergence of ILT as a factor had not made a significant impact, and the overwhelming predominance of research achievements in career development continued to be a major obstacle both to pedagogical research itself, and to the willingness of academics to discover and implement its insights.