Chair: TUCKER, SUSAN A.
DAI-A 59/09, p. 3345, Mar 1999

The purpose of the study is to clarify an instructional delivery model represented by verbal symbolism, in the field of foreign languages. It is argued that such a model can be useful in the evaluation process of programs belonging to the National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs (NASILP). Various perspectives concerning the teaching and evaluation of foreign languages in the United States are presented. The nature of models is discussed. Statements of potential impact are presented, including how the evolution of a clear instructional delivery model could be viably evaluated in light of ongoing changes in technology. There are two macro research questions: RQ1: What are the indicators of the implied model of 'Text, Tape, and Tutor'? and RQ2: What NASILP model(s) exists, if at all, as
perceived by NASILP directors in practice? The methodology describes a grounded, qualitative case study attempting to elucidate a basic NASILP model and investigate how it relates to program directors' perceptions of working models. Basic assumptions of qualitative designs and case study are presented. Four research methods were used to collect data: document analysis, interviews, questionnaires, and direct observation. Data analysis methods included concurrent data analysis and reduction, hand coding, computer analysis using the QSR NUD*IST software, and researcher interpretation. The answer to RQ1 clearly shows the five components essential to any NASILP member program, and their indicators. It also shows how slogans can be deceptive and potentially confusing to new association members. The
answer to RQ2 confirms that there is an acknowledged obligation to follow the basic model, allowing for local adaptation of the indicator 'guidelines.' Investigation of a micro question comparing the NASILP 'theory in action' with SLA theory and cognitive learning theory reveals an intrinsic association among all three. Twelve emerging issues are discussed, including one concerning language usage differences between theorists and practitioners. Recommendations for instructional designers, evaluators, and foreign language practitioners are provided.