You are on page 1of 22


HEIDI BYRNES, Associate Editor Georgetown University

THE ISSUE The Role of Foreign Language Departments in Internationalizing the Curriculum
A FOCUS ON THE ROLE OF FOREIGN language departments in internationalizing the curriculum, the topic of this issue of Perspectives , would seem to be tantamount to (re-)asserting the most obvious of the obvious. Of course, foreign language (FL) departments have a central role in an educational effort that has been on the education talk circuit for quite some time now and, indeed, has become so ubiquitous that concise meaning has given way to a convenient mantra and me too assertions on the part of many an institution of higher education. So, in what sense might the topic be worthy of another look? What changes in the notion of internationalization might powerfully have crept in as it gained the status of a mainstreamed educational goal? What has that development meant for FL departments as academic units? More probing, what has it meant for them as academic units representing a disciplinary environment in higher education that inherently does internationalization? Alternatively, with an even more questioning stance, has it really meant much of consequence, both for their self-understanding and for their relationship to the remainder of the academy, which makes its own unmistakable claims to participating in that movement-like effort? Should it have had or should it presently have such far-reaching consequences? Finally, to echo a phrase that has much resonance in our eld: Who owns internationalization (not just language x), anyway? You may have noticed that, as phrased, the theme for this issue has specied no particular verbal action. That leaves open whether FL departments already have a rmly established role; do or might play a role that yet awaits stage directions; can or should afrm their particular role in the ensemble of educational actors, in the process gaining a much better understanding of their disciplinary persona; or, perhaps, must rst assert such a role for themselves so as to shape the performance of internationalization. Various takes of this kind and a sense that there is considerably less certainty about them than might rst appear led to the MLJ Editorial Boards choice of topic. Not surprisingly, such perspective-taking characterizes the six contributions of the column. Not surprisingly, too, they offer further clarication of the issues and challenges to some long-held notions that implicate FL departments in the project of internationalization of higher education curricula and do so potentially right to their core. As president and chief executive ofcer of the Institute of International Education (IIE), the leading not-for-prot organization in the eld of international exchange and development training, Allan Goodman highlights both the remarkable need, within U.S. education, for a strong international orientation and the efforts already exerted and yet to be undertaken to assure a gradual closing of the stark gap between that need and actual capacity. Such efforts would go way beyond the purview of FL departments if, as Goodman proposes, every student should have a passport and use it over the course of her/his undergraduate experience. At the same time, such a mandate goes right to the heart of the work of FL departments if that projected overseas sojourn is to involve an immersive, intensive foreign language experience. The complexity of fullling the mandate within the educational and scal realities of contemporary higher education is well laid bare in the mismatch between the language and cultural area expertise that is now in demand, particularly for the less commonly taught languages

The Modern Language Journal, 93, iv, (2009) 0026-7902/09/607627 $1.50/0 C 2009 The Modern Language Journal

608 and cultures, and the scholarly expertise, experience, and institutional stature and status that currently characterize those units, along with the fragile presence of any FL learning throughout the U.S. educational system. That the demands should in large measure be framed by and, therefore, nanced by security-related interests and that other funding resources are largely external, limited in scope, and unpredictable complicates matters considerably. For, deep down, the demands and forms of resource allocations show little regard for the long-term commitments academic FL departments must be able to make to escape the dangers of service unit trivialization, a sine qua non for substantive contributions to what is, after all, a core educational concern inasmuch as language and cultural learning or knowing in general are intended. There is little doubt that business as usual is an insufcient response on the part of FL departments. However, there is also considerable irony in the fact that the task of internationalizing the curriculum in terms of FL departments unique educational contribution frequently presents itself to them under alien, if not to say, alienating circumstances and, furthermore, does so within an environment that is deeply marked by the status of English as the go-to international language that both supersedes and potentially even distorts the presence and role of other languages. Small wonder that diverse responses exist to that situationmore or less provocative, more or less probing of the conduct of FL departments, more or less tactical or strategic, more or less delimited or expansive in suggesting courses of action. Thus, Ryuko Kubota of the University of British Columbia refers to the same data Goodman highlighted to illustrate the enormous need for internationalizing curricula but foregrounds paradoxes in how that need is customarily framed and the kinds of responses it tends to receive. Surveying political, economic, academic, and sociocultural dimensions she nds two major paradoxes: (a) the paradox that the need to study another language seems less and less compelling in light of the international lingua franca status of English and the fact that those who take on FL study are disproportionally members of an elite, rather than a minority group, who are being trained to speak with the elites in other countries, themselves inuenced by Anglocentric norms and (b) the paradox that internationalization turns into a one-way street where international students studying at U.S. universities are expected to do all of the accommodating with frequently limited support, under the undisputed

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) regime of an increasingly homogenized Englishbased academic culture. Either way, it is difcult to attribute the intended benets of internationalization to practices that curtail the experience of foreignness abroad and the experience of diversity at home. As a result, the educational goal of internationalizing the curriculum takes on decidedly moral dimensions in the charge to remove barriers to economic, racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic inequalities. Whereas stating matters in this lofty policy fashion may all too easily appear to aid and abet unlofty inaction on the part of FL departments, James Gehlhar, Associate Vice Chancellor for International Affairs at East Carolina University, unmistakably makes the opposite argument: FL departments must get engaged with colleagues across their respective campuses and must do so with a focus on where their interlocutors come from in terms of their teaching, researching, and dispositions. This is true regardless of the institutional makeup, be that a long-established research institution or an institution serving student populations that are often career and practice oriented, precisely because such careers and practices are themselves taking place in an internationalized context. His eight suggestions for realizing such a stance would go a long way toward making FL departments and their faculty members work relevant to others. That this seemingly no-brainer approach should have been so difcult to take on for too many years is cause for reection; that it should surface with such urgency during times of serious scal duress is surely cause for action, late in time though it may be. Part of that called-for reection is taken up in the comments by Carol Klee, who can look back on extensive department chair experience in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese Studies at the University of Minnesota and extensive experience in working on exactly the issues of internationalizing the curriculum. She now serves as Assistant Vice President for International Scholarship and Director of the European Studies Consortium at her institution. She rightly points to the intellectual and academic-structural vicinity of the current internationalization drive to a vibrant initiative roughly two decades agonamely the Languages Across the Curriculum (LAC) movementand lays out the lessons we learned or might have learnedfrom that experience. Among these are (a) the perennially thorny issue of the relation between FL language and content learning, alongside the use of English; (b) the equally vexing questions of course creation and faculty preparation, including graduate

Perspectives student preparation, in light of stated course goals and objectives; (c) appropriate course models in a particular institutional setting; (d) the special challenges of incorporating the LCTLs (less commonly taught languages); (e) needed institutional anchors; and (f) the broadening of the palette of decision making afforded by including technology. Giving yet another twist to the repeated refrain of the enormous power of English, Tracy Strong, UCSD Distinguished Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego, leaves little doubt that any dreams of FL study being a natural for substantive disciplinary work are over, not only in the natural sciences (where German, in particular, had previously claimed a special sinecure) but also in the social sciences: Scholarly value and esteem has decidedly moved toward rational, even mathematical models that gain their power precisely because of a claim to nonhistorical, noncontextualized, non-culture-laden validity. There is surely an interesting parallel here to the heated debates about cognitive-mentalistic or socioculturally informed approaches in applied linguistics in general and second language acquisition research in particular. It seems fair to say that those debates have opened up the conversational space in applied linguistics, but the social sciences seem to have taken the opposite route, casting their lot with the power of an acultural rationality that effectively excludes language study as a useful, much less necessary tool for theorizing and empirical research. Assuming that the social sciences, along with the natural sciences, wield considerable power in the construction of curricula across campuses, any hopes for internationalization that involve FLs translate into a surfeit of expectations being loaded onto study abroad. In other words, not only is a crucial look necessary at what happens in that context (see the recent MLJ monograph on just that topic by Celeste Kinginger, 2008), it is just as important to look at what happened before and what can and should happen thereafter. Seen from that vantage point, Strongs recommendation provides ample food for thought. As a scholar in political philosophy, he recommends that language

609 instruction take what he calls an anthropological perspective, the ability to gain a perspective on ones world, not with the argument typically proffered in the humanities but rather to foster the all-important capacity for representative thinking that is at the heart of democratic political understanding. In a nal take on who owns the educational imperative of internationalization and on the consequences for the FL eld of reassigned property rights, H. Stephen Straight of Binghamton University leaves little doubt that internationalization of the curriculum is not and cannot be owned by FL departments, even though they have crucial roles to play in its formulation and realization. Picking up the LAC thread mentioned in Klees contribution, he points to a successful program that follows the implications of such an approach at his institution, where he has just completed a 10-year stint as Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and International Affairs. As is often the case in such projects, the need for changed assumptions and actions does not just rest with one group, and most certainly not with them who have it all wrong! As Straight points out, faculty in all disciplines and in their respective curricula must be engaged in the project of dramatically reshaping both the FL and the non-FL enterprise so that education might gradually approach what he calls a cultures and languages across the curriculum understanding of internationalization that would truly serve and enhance the kind of globalized social activity that characterizes our times. That faculty in FL departments are called on to consider internationalization in that light amounts to taking on commitments and responsibilities that only few have thus far considered to be in their purview or in their power to affect and realize. I thank all writers for their thoughtful contributions.

REFERENCE Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92 (S. 1).


The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)

THE COMMENTARIES Language Learning and Study Abroad: The Path to Global Citizenship
ALLAN E. GOODMAN, President & CEO, Institute of International Education Those of us in the eld of international education frequently forget just how poorly informed most Americans are about the world. Seventy percent do not have a passport, about the same percentage of college-educated Americans cannot locate Iran, Israel, or Indonesia on a map today, think that Sudan is in Asia, and do not know the name of the president of Russia. Less than 1% of all American college and university students are studying abroad in a given academic year. The net effect of all this was highlighted by Doris Lessing when she accepted the Nobel Prize in Literature: It is common for young men and women who have had years of education to know nothing about the world. What is the remedy? When visiting a campus or speaking to conventions of educators, I am often asked how I would change curricula to prepare the next generation for global citizenship. For many years, I took the bait and discussed tinkering around the edges. However, a recent survey by the American Council on Education (ACE)along with the statistics cited abovesuggests that more radical action is needed. Shortly after 9/11, ACE asked its members if some aspect of preparing for global citizenship were a part of their mission statement. About 28% replied afrmatively. When ACE re-did the survey 5 years later, the number had increased, but to only 38% (www.acenet. edu//programs/international/mapping2008). So if I were president of a university today, I would require all entering students to arrive on campus with a passport and then use it during the course of their degree. I would not specify what they should study or where they should go, hoping that well-meaning and increasingly globally minded faculty and student advisors would assist in identifying what might make the most sense and when. Presently, only a handful of universities in America have the requirement to study abroad, although there are signs that more may be interested. In the few months since the launch of the Institute of International Educations (IIE) Get a Passport: Study Abroad campaign (, more than 80 colleges and universities in 35 states have joined as Partner Campuses. They are hosting passport days on campus, sending passport applications out with new student packets, and subsidizing passport application fees for students who study abroad, among other excellent activities. However, getting a passport is actually not my radical idea. The radical idea is that I would also require all graduates of the university where I served to have an immersive, intensive foreign language experienceto learn to speak and work in at least one foreign language. So why is a card-carrying political scientist (who failed the French exam for his PhD seven times and who is deeply grateful that he was allowed to count statistics as a second foreign language) now saying that foreign language is central to higher education and preparing citizens for global citizenship? Additionally, why am I recommending this at a time when many colleges and universities are dropping language from their undergraduate entrance requirements and where language study may be at its lowest point in the nations history? For one, I believe that approaches to educating global citizens that deemphasize the role of foreign languages ultimately fall short of the goals they are intended to achieve. I am not willing to settle for offering students a megacourse on globalization with most if not all readings in English. I greatly respect the efforts of my colleagues to solve these problems with the resources at their disposal, but one or a few courses or even a short trip abroad are not enough. In his book From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life , the historian Jacques Barzun wrote, It is a noteworthy feature of 20th century culture that for the rst time in over a thousand years its educated class is not expected to be at least bilingual (2000, p. 45). Not to address this would be a costly mistake. Learning and using anothers language above all reminds Americans that we are not alone. It is as simple as that. We share the world and its problems. We cannot solve them all on our own no matter how many Indians and Chinese speak English. Languages convey much more than facts; they enable people to reach conclusions in different ways and are the standard bearers of cultures and histories. It has never been more important for Americans to know and remember that. Who

Perspectives knows, maybe someone elses way of reaching a conclusion or stating a fact will change what Americans think, as well as the world we share. Thankfully, there is a growing number of resources to help. Under the auspices of the National Security Education Program, The Language Flagship is creating an entirely new approach to language learning, building an innovative partnership among the federal government, education, and business to produce global professionals with a superior prociency in critical languages. Over the past 8 years, The Language Flagship, working with more than 20 domestic and 9 overseas institutions, has developed programs in African languages, Arabic, Central Asian Turkic languages, Chinese, Russian and Eurasian languages, Hindi/Urdu, Korean, and Persian. Language learning is offered to undergraduates as an integral part of their majors, allowing them to take general education or core classes in their majorschemistry, business, or political science, for examplein the foreign language. Foreign language learning becomes integral to the students education as they speak, read, write, and listen to the language in the context of their broader academic interests. Programs include rigorous language study at home, content courses taught in the target language, and an articulated program of at least 1 year overseas that includes an internship and/or community service experience, designed to ensure that the student can negotiate academic and workplace culture and solidify professional-level language skills. In this new model, language teachers can play a greater role in internationalizing the curriculum and the campus, preparing graduates to succeed as professionals operating in the language in which they have achieved prociency. Programs such as The Language Flagship suggest expanded roles for language professors to operate at the intersection of language study, education abroad, and other international cultural experiences. Language teachers can engage in building innovative models on their campuses that combine language learning with international experiences. They can seek to develop other programs that incorporate language study on the home campus with study abroad opportunities. They can also help develop innovative partnerships with overseas institutions. These can range from joint- and dual-degree programs to smaller, targeted linkages that offer distance learning or other technologically facilitated means to study languages and cultures and interact with students and professors overseas.

611 Language teachers can also play a key role in encouraging students to take part in the wide variety of study abroad programs that is now available to students, through their home campuses or through a range of other university or private providers or consortia. They can work to increase the number and diversity of American students who go abroad, by helping them to seek out and apply for funding opportunities such as the U.S. Department of States Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program, which offers scholarships for students with nancial need who have been traditionally underrepresented in education abroad. More than 80% of Gilman Scholarship recipients study a language overseas. Additionally, the State Departments Critical Language Scholarships, which provide opportunities for overseas language study in 12 countries during the summer, are another important resource. Language teachers can encourage study in languages and geographic locations that are of growing strategic importance to the United States and to the students future careers. The National Security Education Programs David L. Boren Scholarships and Fellowships provide funding for U.S. undergraduates and graduate students to spend signicant time overseas studying less commonly taught languages in parts of the world that most Americans do not visit. Whereas less than 5% of U.S. students abroad go for a full academic year, more than 70% of Boren Scholars do so. Time abroad directly affects the language prociency level one achieves. Ten years of language testing demonstrates that Boren Scholars are nearly twice as likely to achieve advanced-level prociency if they study abroad for 6 months or more than they are if they only study abroad for 3 months. Faculty can also play a critical role in engaging study abroad students in continued language study and cultural exploration after their return to their home campus. Language faculty are well positioned to encourage students and campus policymakers to ensure that study abroad of any duration is integrated into the students longer term academic goals and curricula. Neither language learning nor study abroad should occur as standalone experiences, and language departments should be looking closely at ways to integrate these experiences with the goal of developing multifaceted global citizens. For students who can only go abroad for a short-term experienceor who cannot go abroad at all for one reason or anotherinnovative language teaching and cultural experiences on campus can play a critical role in gaining exposure to other cultures. The Fulbright Foreign Language

612 Teaching Assistant (FLTA) Program, in particular, offers opportunities for students to interact with native language speakers on their own campuses. The FLTA program enables institutions to expand or enhance their foreign language offerings. In academic year 20092010, more than 400 FLTAs will live, study, and teach at American colleges and universities all across the United States. Language faculty on these campuses can play a key role in assisting student teachers to assimilate into their campus and community and in mentoring novice teachers, facilitating the exchange of knowledge and ideas between these young teaching professionals and their students. The teaching assistants who participate in this program have the chance to learn American teaching methodologies that can be implemented in their language teaching in their home countries. They also have a valuable opportunity to experience the American way of life rsthand, using and improving their English language skills daily. The language teachers at U.S. colleges and universities that host these teaching assistants from more than 40 countries play an important role in helping them to become truly global citizens and contribute to mutual understanding.

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) The recent nancial crisis has demonstrated once again just how interconnected our world is. In the belief that global problems need the global exchange of knowledge to forge solutions, the institute where I am president remains deeply committed to promoting international dialogue and collaboration. Sponsored by government agencies, foundations, and corporations, IIE programs enable future leaders from all backgrounds and in all sectors to gain access to world-class education and international experiences that will help prepare them to be global citizens. These programs are especially reaching out to minority and marginalized individuals in the United States and overseas to involve more people than ever before. We welcome the active participation of foreign language professionals across the country in this important endeavor.

REFERENCE Barzun, J. (2000). From dawn to decadence: 500 years of Western cultural life, 1500 to the present . New York: HarperCollins.

Internationalization of Universities: Paradoxes and Responsibilities

RYUKO KUBOTA, The University of British Columbia As globalization advances, internationalization is becoming an important initiative for many universities around the world. Although the 2008 report by the American Council on Education (ACE) stated that internationalization still remains a low priority in many U.S. universities (Green, Luu, & Burris, 2008), my experience as a faculty member was the opposite. From 1995 to 2008, the U.S. research university where I taught engaged in such activities as revising its curriculum, increasing the number of students participating in study abroad, and upgrading facilities to showcase global education. At my current institution in Canada, internationalization is also a major initiative to be implemented through academic integration of global issues and raising the universitys international prole by increasing international student enrollment. An integral aspect of internationalizing higher education is developing language and cultural competency. In reanalyzing the 2003 ACE data reported in Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses , Green (2005) presented an index for measuring the level of internationalization of research universities. Whereas the benchmarks for academic offerings include questions related to foreign language learning, such as whether a foreign language is required for admissions and graduation, how many foreign languages are offered, and whether academic credits are granted for study abroad, there is no mention about the degree to which academic support is provided to international students according to their linguistic and cultural needs.1 Insufcient attention to academic English language support for international students is indeed what I witnessed in working on two different campuses that strive to internationalize education. I argue that this gap signies the paradoxes of the current internationalization initiatives that are heavily inuenced by market-driven neoliberal and neocolonial politics supporting free trade in services, competition, and Anglo dominance of language, culture, and academic knowledge, which ultimately hinders the development of translingual and transcultural competency in

Perspectives foreign languages for English-speaking students promoted by the 2007 report by the Modern Language Association (MLA Ad hoc Committee on Foreign Languages, 2007). This essay surveys the political and economic contexts of internationalization of higher education and discusses paradoxes and responsibilities posed to foreign language professionals. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACETS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION In exploring issues of internationalizing higher education, two questions arise: Why do we need to internationalize higher education and how has the current initiative come into being? To the former question, de Wit (2001) offered four rationales: political, economic, academic, and social/cultural (see also Bassett, 2008). Of the four rationales, the latter two would have direct relevance to foreign language learning; obviously, it is assumed that learning a language broadens students intellectual horizons and fosters an understanding of diverse cultures and societies. Conversely, the rst two rationales seem less transparent. The economic dimension, especially the recent marketization of higher education and a neoliberal competitive paradigm, is pertinent to the discussion of how the current internationalization initiatives have developed. Related to the economic dimension are emerging rationales, such as international branding and income generation, at both institutional and national levels (Knight, 2008). One contentious issue since the early 2000s has been the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), an initiative of the World Trade Organization to diminish trade barriers of service industries, including higher education, which potentially increases academic mobility by allowing institutions to operate their educational services overseas through distance education, offshore campuses, or faculty traveling abroad (Bassett, 2008; Knight, 2008). Most professional organizations of higher education in the United States are against GATS, fearing increased federal control (because the trade agreements are made at the federal level) and diminished quality assurance. However, this does not mean that they are against international trade in services. In 2001, ACE and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation two major organizations in the United Statesas well as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the European University Association signed the Joint Declaration on Higher Education and the General Agreement on Trade

613 in Services,2 in which they made a commitment to reduce obstacles to international trade in higher education, not by means of GATS but through improving communication and quality through institutional agreements. One of these commitments is internationalization of higher education, including recruiting international students, promoting faculty and student exchanges, and cooperating in research. Despite these commitments, the events of 9/11 negatively affected the enrollment of international students in American universities. Fearing the negative impact on national interests, the U.S. government invited 120 college leaders to a summit in 2006 in which new scholarship initiatives and relaxation of visa restrictions were announced. For the rst time, international student mobility was identied at the federal level as an area of intense competition with the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, which could pose a threat to the economic and political interests of uz, 2008). the United States (Gur This brief overview suggests that the increased emphasis on internationalizing higher education in the past decade has been inuenced considerably by a global trend toward expanding trade in services and increasing international competition for human resources in a knowledge economy. The importance of internationalization is indeed increasingly discussed in economic terms. Student mobility and language learning are caught in this trend. For instance, in advocating for increasing the number of international students in the United States, the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) discussed the economic benets that tuition fees and living expenses paid by international students bring to the U.S. economy approximately $15.54 billion during the 2007 2008 academic year.3 Additionally, advocates of foreign language learning typically refer to personal and broader economic benets, such as obtaining a better job and raising local business prots (Kubota, 2006). Although one can hardly escape economic realities in the capitalist world, a heavy focus on economic ends obscures the educational signicance and sociocultural meaning of language learning. Furthermore, neoliberal global competition implies that there will inevitably be a winner and a loser. Yet, the players in the competition are not on an equal playing eld in the rst place. Rather, they are positioned hierarchically in the economic, political, racial, cultural, and linguistic relations of power in the globalized world, which create traps of recolonization (Mok, 2007, p. 438). Although internationalization of higher

614 education sounds amicable to advocacy of foreign language learning, these global conditions create serious paradoxes. PARADOX ONE The rst paradox stems from the undeniable fact that English already is the dominant language in various sectors in the world and is spreading that dominance even further, as evidenced in higher education. This poses a challenge for advocating foreign language learning and internationalization efforts in general. Coupled with intensied competition for international ranking of universities, academics outside the Englishspeaking world are ever more pressed to publish in high-impact English language journals, rather than publishing in local languages or national venues (Mok, 2007). Although the MLA report mentioned the decline of non-English research sources in citation indexes as limiting American students intellectual engagement in foreign languages, this trend is simultaneously deeply implicated in the global spread of English and the neocolonial hegemony of an Anglo-oriented knowledge economy. Additionally, English, as an international language, is increasingly becoming the medium of instruction for many, if not all, courses in those countries (de Wit, 2001; Mok, 2007). Just as globalization is often associated with Americanization, the internationalization of higher education globally has intensied the homogenization of academic culture through Anglobased academic standards and ideologies (Knight, 2008; Mok, 2007). This creates a challenge for encouraging English-speaking students to learn foreign languages through study abroad, not to mention the fact that one quarter of American students already choose English-speaking countries as their destination for study abroad.4 Although the MLA report envisioned that American students will function as informed and capable interlocutors with educated native speakers in the target language, those educated native speakers are often Englishspeaking global elites. What kind of cultural and linguistic experiences would English-speaking students gain from interacting with these individuals? How should they be prepared to negotiate the linguistic repertoires and cultural identities of the interlocutors who are likely to be inuenced by Anglo-American hegemony? Furthermore, it is striking that the MLA report paralleled the neoliberal market-driven worldview that neglects the worlds underprivileged populations. If we envision bettering the global community by critically addressing economic,

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) racial, ethnic, and linguistic inequalities, would it not be important to develop strategies to communicate with undereducated people in the target society? At home, those who participate in study abroad are still predominantly White students. Whereas students of color made up of 29% of all students on Americas campuses in 2006,5 they made up only 18% of all U.S. students who studied abroad.6 Under the internationalization initiative, would foreign language learning continue to help the racially and economically privileged accumulate a larger amount of cultural capital? How does the practice of exporting Whiteness via study abroad impact the racial and cultural politics of the world? PARADOX TWO The dominance of English affects not only native English-speaking students but also international students in English-speaking countries. According to my observations from teaching at two research universities, there is an elitist assumption that international students should already come with perfect English language prociency and that the university has little obligation to further support their academic development in their second language. Foreign language professionals would agree that language learning is a long-term process and that continuous languagefocused development is benecial, as the MLA report promoted. The sink-or-swim situation that international students confront in academic content courses is exactly what the report criticized. Yet, the prevalent view is that English language support is remedial rather than developmental, that experiencing foreignness abroad is more valuable than engaging in diversity at home, and that foreign language learning for socioeconomically privileged monolingual English speakers is to be commended, whereas English language learning for international or bilingual students is no more than expected, all of which reect elitist double standards (Kubota & Abels, 2006). The underlying assumption is that academic internationalization is intended to benet already privileged domestic students only, which ts the current economics-based discourse of the internationalization of higher education. More specically, this discourse reduces the full-tuition-paying international students to commodities that are exploited to benet the university nancially and to increase its international branding and prole. Conversely, institutions in non-English-speaking countries typically provide American students, for instance, with educational services by creating academic programs to cater to their needs. Trade in

Perspectives educational services for internationalization neither presumes nor produces equal partnerships the principle of competition under a neoliberal economic paradigm clearly contradicts an equal share of power as a result of the trade. All of these observations indicate that the internationalization of higher education may actually be promoting academic neocolonization both at home and abroad. RESPONSIBILITIES In referring to the free trade in academic mobility, Altbach and Knight (2007) commented, Current thinking sees international higher education as a commodity to be freely traded and sees higher education as a private good, not a public responsibility (p. 291). If foreign language departments are only concerned with private goods, they might continue to improve and expand academic offerings and study abroad experiences. After all, they already exhibit a visible prole in internationalizing efforts. However, if they are concerned with public responsibility at both domestic and global levels, they might critically reect on the political and economic dimensions of internationalization and examine how they are implicated in unequal relations of power among languages and cultures and how they may affect language ideologies, linguistic expectations, and educational practices both domestically and internationally. Foreign language professionals might examine the academic, linguistic, and cultural experiences of both domestic and international students within and beyond their academic unit and ask whether any gap exists in the institutional support for academic development, how the gap can be narrowed, and how translingual and transcultural learning can be promoted across diverse linguistic and cultural groups on campus. Fostering translingual and transcultural competence is an integral part of the academic and social/cultural dimensions of internationalization. Yet, in the current paradigm, these dimensions may not carry the same weight as economic and political rationales (Knight, 2008). The foreign language professional community exists within a larger community of higher education that is increasingly pursuing an economic interest of income generation by bringing in diverse students from abroad. Foreign language professionals are confronted with the question of whether they can afford to simply promote the translingual and transcultural competence of domestic students without taking into consideration the political and economic power dynamics in the globalized world

615 that are transforming cultural, linguistic, and academic practices. It is necessary for the foreign language professional community to ask whether it should only contribute to fullling institutional and national interests in accumulating economic and symbolic capital, or whether it should take on responsibility for creating a more morally attuned global and localor glocal society by removing barriers to economic, racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic equalities.

more recent ACE survey on internationalization of various types of institutions of higher education does include a question about individual academic support for international students (70% of the institutions answered in the positive; Green et al., 2008). 2 See 2001/gats_10_25_e.pdf. 3 See http : / / www . nafsa . org / public _ policy. sec/ international_education_1/eis_2008. 4 See 5 See http :/ / www / AM/ Template .cfm ? Section = Search & section = Publications2 & template =/ CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=5786. 6 See

1 The

REFERENCES Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 290305. Bassett, R. M. (2008). The WTO and the university: Globalization, GATS, and American higher education . New York: Routledge. de Wit, H. (2001). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Green, M. F. (2005). Measuring internationalization at research universities . Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Green, M. F., Luu, D., & Burris, B. (2008). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: 2008 edition . Washington, DC: American Council on Education. uz, K. (2008). Higher education and international stuGur dent mobility in the global knowledge economy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization . Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Kubota, R. (2006). Teaching second languages for national security purposes: A case of post 9/11 USA. In J. Edge (Ed.), (Re-)Locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 119138). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kubota, R., & Abels, K. (2006). Improving institutional ESL/EAP support for international students: Seeking the promised land. In P. K. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), Politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land (pp. 7593). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)

MLA Ad hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession 2007 , 234245. Mok, K. H. (2007). Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical reections. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 433454.

Of Course They Want Us at the Curriculum Internationalization Table

JAMES N. GEHLHAR, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC Virtually every educational institution in virtually every land nowadays proudly declares its unshakable commitment to the internationalization of its curriculum and, thereby, to the preparation of its graduating seniors for signicant, seamless participation in a world of ever-fuzzier borders. The publicly stated goals of my own educational institution, where I serve as Associate Vice Chancellor for International Affairs, are representative of many across the land that strive to position their graduates well to compete successfully in the complex marketplaces of todays world. Given that achieving a rm, working grasp of a second, or even third, language would provide the obvious foundation for anyone hoping to acquire a true understanding of the world beyond or even withinour borders, the pivotal role of language departments in shaping and informing campuswide curricular internationalization must certainly be obvious to all. However, is such a notion indeed obvious to all? Do language department chairs and faculty routinely (and with great consternation) discover that their email inboxes and their phone answering devices are yet again clogged with requests from colleagues across their institutions disciplinary spectrum for counsel about how best to infuse or incorporate the world at large into their courses and curricula? More to the point, do professors in other units truly know any more about their foreign languages department than that it falls somewhere between football and fraternities in published directories? Do they realize, for example, that Russian Prof. X on their very own campus has won world renown for her research into the 19th-century novel or that Italian Prof. Y is constantly on the international lecture circuit because of his groundbreaking studies of certain aspects of medieval poetry? That the landscape of colleges and universities consists of silos is by now a clich e, albeit one that rings much too true. (Perhaps ivory towers within ivory towers would be more apt.) Across the board, however, denizens of those academic bastionettes seem generally to be quite happy with the situation, at least until tight budgets or other outside forces threaten to impose change. Regardless of their academic discipline, all departments and professors would do well to establish closer relationships with colleagues across their entire campus and inform themselves about who those colleagues are and what they are teaching, researching, and thinking. Additionally, it particularly behooves members of language departments to do so. Language professors, whose ramparts are oft perceived as being among the most unassailable on any campus, have so very much to offer their colleagues and institutions in their internationalization efforts that a concerted effort on their part could produce very far-reaching effects. It may indeed be in their own best interest to do so. Faltering economies and uncertain investments are currently forcing institutions across the globe to make uncomfortably fundamental budgetary and personnel decisions, even about which departments, programs, and subjects will survive. Departments that have not actively made their value to the academy known or worked to establish recognition for their work may not be seen as sufciently relevant when important determinations are made. I offer the following suggestions to language departments and faculty wishing to ensure their relevance and centrality to all deliberations about how the curriculum is to be internationalized. All of the suggestions demand establishing new pathways beyond their ofces and accustomed classrooms. 1. Engage yourself fully in the life of the academy. Despite already having an overwhelming schedule both on campus and off, faculty must be activeeven indispensable participants in committees, task forces, and events that involve people from across campus. Doing so is always both

Perspectives a great learning experience and a great outreach opportunity. Faculty who thus venture out gain a true appreciation for the rich fabric of individuals, subjects, and ideas that make up a modern-day educational institution. Further, anecdotal evidence abounds that professors who do so enjoy much greater long-term job satisfaction and feel more connected to the institution as a whole. 2. Become a poster child for the word synergy. Actively seek opportunities to catalyze the classes, the research, and the aspirations of others throughout your institution, regardless of how esoteric your own specic area of academic specialization is or how far removed it may be from the understanding and appreciation of anyone else on campus (perhaps even including your departmental colleagues down the hall). The broader the range and variety of campus colleagues you have (as in my rst suggestion), the more interesting and potentially rewarding are the results. All too often, professors are reluctant to venture into academic relationships that take them beyond their immediate (and widely lauded) expertise, ones in which they may even be forced to ask foolish questions. 3. Become a key to your institutions achieving its published mission statement. A perusal of curricula, department by department across your campus, should quickly bring possibilities to mind. Offer, for example, to create language courses geared toward students in specic majorsfor example, Engineering French, Business Germanor those embarking on specic projects. You could also assist in organizing programs abroad for students or faculty in a certain subject area, sometimes assisted by outside funding such as Fulbright-Hays. With subject-specic national accreditation bodies increasingly pressing institutions to provide students with more intercultural opportunities, you could suggest capitalizing on the cultural expertise that you must have acquired over the years and collaborate on the creation of classes about cultures and peoples outside the United States in conjunction with language instruction tailored specically to, say, education or business students. To provide direct assistance to people on your campus who are trying to internationalize themselves and their research, offer a late afternoon noncredit class in your language expressly for faculty and staff. On these points a colleague has opined that although languages must continue always to be taught and studied just for languages sake, they must in any successful institutional internationalization effort also become adjunct to the teaching and learning in all disciplines. Language learning thus applied could become

617 integral to a host of subjects across campus rather than just another listed requirement that students and advisors must somehow complete. I recognize that the activities suggested here may, once again, require professors to stray quite far both from their acknowledged academic areas of expertise and from their own long-held ideals of what rigorous academic life must be. As someone whose PhD research centered on a stylistic analysis of the development of Persian and Ottoman Turkish as literary languages, I fully understand the possible reluctance of dedicated academics to step out of their comfortable and possibly lifelong niches. Broadening your horizons and applying your expertise in new and unexpectedly serendipitous ways, however, can prove to be exceptionally stimulating and rewarding. 4. Involve yourself in your institutions honors college or honors program. Where better for language departments to be actively, creatively, and inuentially engaged? Because they work with an academys presumably best and brightest students, honors colleges and honors programs tend also to gather the best and brightest professors on campus. An honors college, in its course offerings and surrounding activities, ought also to represent the ideal incarnation of the institutions mission statement and desire to internationalize. 5. Join scholarship selection committees or education-abroad screening committees. As with honors college work, serving on such committees puts you and the foreign languages department in touch with some of the most interesting and engaged students and faculty. Of greatest immediate interest to faculty wishing to internationalize the campus and curriculum would be those committees that screen student applicants for Fulbright, Boren, Rhodes, or Marshall awards, or ones that interview students who are intending a semester or year of enrollment in classes or credit-bearing internships abroad. Additionally, being on the selection committee for your institutions premier, full-ride scholarships provides you and your department with internationalizing inuence over top students, faculty, and administrators. 6. Teach courses that introduce rst-year students to your institution. The bridging courses that most U.S. institutions currently offer to entering students, designed to introduce them to campus opportunities and mores, afford language faculty yet another internationalizing opportunity. Faculty generally may either lead one section (often with a team-teaching option) for an entire term or offer a cross-cultural component during single sessions of sections led by other professors. Such

618 courses can situate you ideally to inuence students entire academic and career paths. 7. Get to know people in departments and ofces having international in their title. Such people have their ngers on the international pulse of your institution. They are already involved in many aspects of internationalization and so could be of great assistance in nding your best role in curricular and other matters. 8. Finally (now that you have laid this groundwork), join a committee or task force group actually working on internationalizing the curriculum. Sound language acquisition by students must be central to any educational institutions interna-

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) tionalization efforts. Although language departments will always lead in the formidable task of developing students understanding and appreciation of the languages and literatures of peoples within and beyond our borders, any genuine inuence over campuswide curricular matters may depend on the extent to which those departments and professors have succeeded in making themselves truly relevant to the academic lives of people and departments of every disciplinary stripe. In the current climate of uncertainty, with programs and budgets constantly under attack, language departments ignore this at their own peril.

Internationalization and Foreign Languages: The Resurgence of Interest in Languages Across the Curriculum
CAROL A. KLEE, University of Minnesota In the late 1980s, interest in internationalizing the curriculum of postsecondary institutions in the United States resulted in the development of a new initiativeLanguages Across the Curriculum (LAC)with support from a number of funding agencies, including the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), the Center for International Education at the Department of Education, and several private foundations, such as the American Council on Education. A variety of LAC models were developed, but all had as a primary goal the expansion of opportunities for students to use their language skills in courses outside language and literature departments. Although LAC programs evolved at a large number of postsecondary institutions during the 1990s, once external funding ended many LAC programs were forced to reduce the number and types of courses offered, and other programs ceased operating. Recently, in response to what the Modern Language Association (MLA, 2007) has described as the current language crisis that has occurred as a result of 9/11 (p. 1), calls for the development of LAC are once again prevalent. The MLA report on Foreign Languages and Higher Education (MLA, 2007) urged language departments to respond to the interests and needs of students from other elds, including students who have studied abroad, by developing courses that address more subject areas than are found in the traditional major, including interdisciplinary collaborative courses taught with faculty members from other departments. The report noted that such interdisciplinary courses are usually taught in English but could include a credit-bearing discussion session taught in the target language (p. 5), one of the most common LAC models of the 1990s. In a recent presentation on Future Directions for Title VI and Fulbright-Hays Programs William Brustein (2009), Vice Provost for Global Strategies and International Affairs at The Ohio State University, asserted that foreign language preparation has to extend beyond students matriculating in our departments of foreign languages and literature (p. 10). Although he agreed with the MLAs recommendation of a broader and more coherent curriculum that includes interdisciplinary courses in alliance with other departments, he proposed that the curriculum include courses in a variety of other elds, such as engineering, economics, and mathematics (p. 11)that is, courses not normally taught within departments of languages and literatures. To attain this goal, he recommended that universities facilitate foreign language (FL) training for faculty members in all disciplines and create new LAC programs. He afrmed that Title VI centers should have a major role in efforts to promote the development of students, as well as faculty members, prociency in a second language (L2). Bousquet (2008) has also noted that Title VI centers play a key role in innovative language teaching and learning, through funding of research, publications, instructional materials,

Perspectives pedagogical training for LCTL [less commonly taught languages] instructors, and intensive summer language institutes across the country (p. 304) and provided a possible model for a collaborative, integrated curriculum. Given the renewed interest in LAC, what lessons have we learned from earlier efforts that might guide new initiatives? What issues need to be considered by administrators interested in developing such programs at their institutions? First and foremost, the primary objectives of LAC programs must be dened, taking into account specic institutional contexts. At some institutionsfor example, State University of New York (SUNY)Binghamton, which has a successful Languages Across the Curriculum (LxC) programthe primary objectives are to provide opportunities for students to make meaningful use of (and enhance) their comprehension skills in languages other than English [ . . . and] to increase students understanding of the global networks that shape all cultures (LxC Language Resource Specialist application form). Students in LxC-supported courses offered in English complete LxC assignments in the L2 in place of assignments in English and participate in small group discussions led by international students, called Language Resource Specialists. Information on the program states that LxC is not a language-instruction program but rather a course-content enrichment program (LxC Web site: Likewise, programs at other institutions with onecredit discussion modules in another language attached to a course given in English make few, if any, claims regarding students language development in LAC modules given the limited amount of time on task (i.e., generally a maximum of 10 pages of reading and a 1-hr discussion in the L2 each week). Instead, the primary objective of these programs is to demonstrate to undergraduates who have completed at least four semesters of FL study the benets of using documents written in the target language for the perspectives and enhanced understanding they can provide of the course content. The hope is that students experiences in such courses will motivate them to seek further opportunities to use and develop their target language skills. Other programs, most notably those in which courses in a variety of disciplines are delivered in an L2, require at least 3 years of postsecondary language study. Generally, these programs, such as the Foreign Language Immersion Program at the University of Minnesota, focus almost exclusively on content learning and very little on the development of L2 competence. If one

619 of the objectives of these programs is to follow MLA recommendations and produce educated speakers who have deep translingual and transcultural competence (MLA, 2007, p. 3), then a better balance between content learning and language learning is needed, a topic to which I return below. This leads to the next major issue: Who should teach LAC courses and what type of preparation should they receive? At small liberal arts colleges, such as St. Olaf, Agnes Scott, and Goucher College, pairs of faculty, one a specialist in a discipline outside the department of languages and literatures and the other a faculty member specializing in the L2, co-teach LAC courses. This format, which is mentioned in the MLA report, provides students with cross-disciplinary perspectives, but it is time-intensive for both faculty members. At large public institutions, resources for team teaching are scarcer and discussion sections in the L2 are often led by graduate teaching assistants rather than by faculty. Given the transient nature of the graduate student population, ongoing teacher preparation is necessary to ensure that the teaching assistants know how to select appropriate L2 texts and help language learners process texts effectively in an L2. One of the most innovative programs in this regard is found at the University of North CarolinaChapel Hill, which not only provides ongoing teacher preparation in LAC, including a graduate-level course on Teaching Languages Across the Curriculum, but also offers a Graduate Certicate in Languages Across the Curriculum Instruction ( degreeprograms/lac-graduate-certicate.html). Some LAC models, notably the one described by Brustein (2009), involve faculty from a variety of disciplines teaching in the L2. At the University of Minnesota, we have found that some faculty members in departments outside of languages and literatures are quite adept in making the curricular and instructional adaptations necessary to teach in an L2, whereas others either become frustrated with the prociency levels of the students or are not willing to make instructional adjustments for L2 learners. For programs to be effective, ongoing faculty development efforts are needed, and the additional time needed to develop courses in the L2 must be compensated. There is a variety of models available for such programs, primarily from the eld of English as a Second Language. For example, at California State UniversityLos Angeles, an institution in which 70% of freshmen are nonnative English speakers and 82% place in developmental English, Snow

620 and her colleagues developed the Learning English for Academic Purposes program (Snow & Kamhi-Stein, 1993), which included training for faculty to guide them in introducing special instructional techniques to improve general education courses with the aim of helping students master both the course content and academic English. Languages Across the Curriculum programs that have been successful have intellectual institutional homes, often in a Title VI Center at larger institutions, which
facilitates maintaining other components important for continued success: on-going program administration, stable stafng and course rotations, institutionalization of incentives and recognition for participation for both faculty and students, and access to on-going nancial support and some degree of protection in times of institutional budget-cutting. (Klee & BarnesKarol, 2006, p. 33)

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) ity on applied linguists, who have the academic expertise to develop adjunct courses. The other major challenge for LAC is how to make courses in a wide variety of disciplines available to learners of LCTLs. Tom Adams, a retired Project Director of the NEH, has noted that most of the LAC success stories across the nation are for Spanish, a more commonly taught language with relatively robust enrollments at all prociency levels (personal communication, June 1, 2006). Because enrollments in LCTLs tend to be lower and, as a result, LAC sections offered in LCTLs often do not draw sufcient numbers of students, new solutions are needed to provide LCTL students with LAC opportunities. Fortunately, new technologies have emerged that can make LAC courses more viable in spite of small enrollments. Two developments in particular are encouraging in this regard. First, the Yale Center for Language Study has been developing software called CRAFT (Companion for Reading Authentic Foreign Texts; Gano & Garrett, 2005) that provides support for academic material in an L2 through the application of listening and interactive tools to this new context. In reading a history text, for example, as students move from page to page in the reading, a CRAFT toolbar remains open and accessible to provide them with vocabulary, denitions or visuals, translations of idioms, or explanations of difcult syntactic constructions they encounter in the reading. This software allows faculty to develop online reading materials for LCTLs that will allow self-study or small-group study, much in the way it is done at SUNYBinghamton, to supplement work in an English-language disciplinary course. Languages Across the Curriculum can also benet from distance learning courses, particularly the LCTLs, where such courses can be transmitted to several different institutions. Students in these courses can engage in activities with online partners, in synchronous and asynchronous environments, using the FL in negotiating and exchanging information to complete assignments. Students at different institutions can view and discuss course readings and/or lms and do selected interactive course activities together. Another model is used at Ohio States Chinese Flagship program, where each Chinese language learner is paired with a Chinese native-language mentor who is an expert in his or her chosen eld of study: business, political science, geography, or engineering. The two partners meet weekly for a year, as the learner does background research to create two Chinese language presentations about topics in his or her eld. These mentors must

The other characteristic of successful programs is the attention they give to the match between student language prociency and program requirements (Klee & Barnes-Karol, p. 33). Several challenges need to be resolved as new models of LAC are instituted in the coming years. First and foremost, more attention is needed to help students develop their language skills while they learn content, which has not been a focus of most LAC programs and is an issue with which most departments of languages and literatures continue to grapple. One model to support advanced language development in conjunction with LAC courses is the adjunct model developed at the University of Ottawa, where L2 speakers of French can take courses such as Introduction a ` la psychologie , Lhistoire du Canada depuis les d ecouvertes , or La sociologie de la famille , with native French speakers, along with a specially tailored French language course. Wesche (2000) noted that the adjunct language courses are organized around the language content and students functional language needs in the discipline course (e.g., specialized terminology and written genres, strategies for understanding lectures, practice in researching and writing term papers [in the L2]) (p. 202). This is the same model used in English as a second language programs for immigrants such as the Commanding English Program in the General College at the University of Minnesota (Murie & Fitzpatrick, 2009). This type of model does not require that specialists in disciplines outside of the department of language and literatures focus on language development, which is beyond their expertise, but rather places that responsibil-

Perspectives be trained to teach the Chinese language along with academic content, but this model has been extraordinarily successful. For LAC programs to function effectively, applied linguists are needed in departments of language and literature to guide these efforts. Brustein (2009) has correctly noted that language and literature departments at large research institutions have frequently resisted efforts to allocate tenure-line positions to applied linguists, as the national reputation of these departments correlates primarily with research publications on literary topics. However, the input and guidance of applied linguists is essential to address the language learning needs of advanced students, to provide in-service training for faculty and graduate students interested in LAC, and to develop software and curricula to deliver distance learning, content-based instruction in LCTLs. As postsecondary institutions increasingly recognize that language study is essential to the internationalization of higher education, LAC programs when thoughtfully designed, implemented, and supportedcan provide students with increased opportunities for L2 development as well as allowing for deepened understanding of other disciplines.

and new directions. Paper presented at Title VI 50th Anniversary Conference, Washington DC. Gano, B., & Garrett, N. (2005). Technology and the teaching of foreign languages across the curriculum. In R. Jourdenais & S. Springer (Eds.), Content, tasks and projects in the language classroom: 2004 conference proceedings (pp. 115121). Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International Studies. Klee, C. A., & Barnes-Karol, G. (2006). A content-based approach to Spanish language study: Foreign languages across the curriculum. In B. Lafford & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanish second language acquisition: State of the art of application (pp. 2338). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. MLA (Modern Language Association Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages). (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Retrieved on June 2, 2009, from Murie, R., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2009). Situating language and academic literacy development into a curriculum of rst-year college courses for generation 1.5. In M. Roberge, M. Siegal, & L. Harklau, (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition: Theory, research, and pedagogy (pp. 153169). New York: Routledge. Snow, M. A., & Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2002). Teaching and learning academic literacy through Project LEAP. In J. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Contentbased instruction in higher education settings (pp. 169181). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Wesche, M. B. (2000). A Canadian perspective: Second language teaching and learning in the university. In J. W. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 187208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

REFERENCES Bousquet, G. (2008). A model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Modern Language Journal, 92, 304306. Brustein, W. (2009, March). Future directions for Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs: Current status

Language Learning and the Social Sciences

TRACY B. STRONG, University of California, San Diego I write not as a member of a foreign language department but as a political scientist much of whose work deals with material in foreign languages, primarily French and German. Such concerns are not necessarily true only of my subeld (political philosophy) but can also be the case for those who study comparative government and international relations. I am thus rst concerned with this issue as it affects the social sciences. I also write as the past Study Center Director of a University of California Education Abroad Program in France (Lyon and Grenoble, to be precise). The situation in relation to the social sciences is, alas, not good and, in my experience, getting worse. I do not need to remind readers that when I was in graduate school, we had to walk through three miles of snow to get to class . . . but in point of fact all graduate students in political science were required to learn two foreign languages, regardless of their eld inside political science. The reasons for this were several. In political philosophy, it seemed relatively clear that one could not adequately deal with, say, Rousseau unless one could read him in French. In addition, there was an expectation that one would have mastered at least some part of the relevant secondary literature in other languages. This was especially important given the fact that the translation of secondary texts into English from other languages remains far less prevalent than it is in, say, France.

622 More importantly, when I was in graduate school, one could not really be allowed to study the politics of, say, China, without both reading and conversational skills in Chinese. The situation began to change shortly after I left graduate school. It changed in particular in direct relation to the rise of statistical and rational choice methods in the social sciences. I take them separately. Rational choice is premised on the claim that the nature of choice is roughly the same anywherethat a greengrocer from Wisconsin can be understood to make choices in roughly the same manner as a peasant in Vietnam. Rational choice is not without interest and is too often rejected on the basis of what I would think simply to be ideological aversion. For picture this: There is a peasant who owns a small plot of land down by the river; he has another on a hill, half a days walk away that he got from his deceased brother; he has a third on the edge of the forest; he lives on a fourth on the outskirts of his ancestral village. Why this apparently highly inefcient distribution of land? A nonrational choice (some called it moral economy) interpretation would be that these pieces of land are morally and personally signicant to him and to his society. This distribution prevents any one from emerging as preeminent and keeps social relations on an even keel. Against this, the rational choice answer is Nonsense. No need for that cultural mystication. The reason is just insurance. The rational choice answer is not stupid. However, it simply does not require that one speak or read, say, Vietnamese to be able to claim to understand (or explain) the behavior of peasants in the circumstances described earlier. Additionally, as these methods developed and moved, rst with a nose, then a head, now most of the body, into the social science tent, language acquisition became less and less necessary. Older approaches are now often derided as area studies, a practice deemed obviously unscientic in that science (supposedly) requires the development of laws that are universal in scope. I should note that there were resistances to these developments: Alasdair MacIntyre (a philosopher and sometime political scientist with ve languages) wrote a prescient essay (1972) in which he answered no to the question Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible? But he blew in the wind. The second development reinforced the rst. The development and increasingly widespread use of sophisticated mathematical models most often drawn from microeconomics (itself presumed a science on the notion of the rationality of agency as revealed in choices), when coupled with and

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) abetted by the exponential growth of computing power, led to the rise of very extensive databases (e.g., all votes, on all issues, over the history of the U.S. Congress). It is thus increasingly the case that a PhD student can take one or another of the preexisting massive databases, develop a sophisticated model relating independent variables (e.g., the level of education) to dependent variables (e.g., voting patterns), run the data through the model varying the independent variable, and come up with an explanation of the dependent variable (e.g., A college degree accounts for X% of the variance in voting on the question of samesex marriage). It is no longer unusual for someone with no knowledge of, say, Japanese to apply a model to a dataset about Japan and publish an article comparing a Japanese political question with an American one. Somewhat problematically, if democracy is one of the variables, then for statistical purposes it has a single status: A country either is democratic or not as far as the database is concerned; that democratic might mean something very different in country X than in country Y is irrelevant, as this is simply a coding matter. Most often, for purposes of coding, democratic would mean something like contested elections and a more or less free press. Contemporary statistical techniques permit increasingly complex and sophisticated applications. Statistics are said to be skills courses (although with the rise of what is called formal theory, they increasingly form a eld of their own inside social science). Statistics are, or are thought to be, language-neutral. However, they also take time to learn. Among other required courses, my department, for instance, requires of all its graduate students a course premised on the belief that there are methods common to all subelds, a course in research design (focusing on dependent and independent variables), a course in statistical methods of a moderately advanced kind (if you have not had statistics before, you would have trouble jumping into it), and a course in game theory (rational choice modeling). The study of most elds in political science requires additional, more advanced versions of some of the above. The consequence of this is that there is no time for languages. Accordingly, social science departments across the country have often reduced or eliminated their language requirement. Students still sometimes take languages but less or nothing is required. The graduate school I attended many years ago now requires statistics as well as competence in one language (where competence is dened as the ability to translate approximately

Perspectives 750 words of a political text in one hour with the aid of a dictionary). Language is now conceived of as a skill, like learning to do multiple regressions. Another major graduate school requires one language and 1 year of statistics; by petition, however, students may take two languages and no statistics or 2 years of statistics and no language; a third major school has, since 2001, no language requirement whatsoever but does have an Introduction to Data Analysis requirement for all. My own present institution has no language requirement. The decline in language acquisition in social science is thus a consequence of changes in what counts as cutting edge in the disciplineand no department wants to be left behind. To this I must add that it is the case, of course, that one can require of an individual student that he or she learn a foreign language: You cannot write a thesis on Carl Schmitt without learning German or You cant write about the favelas without learning Portuguese (each said severely). Students do this, but on an individual basis; language learning is skill acquisition, not part of an education or what was once called a formation. Given, however, the general thinness of language instruction in undergraduate and high school settings (alas, there is still not much political theory that requires Spanish), for most this means starting from scratch, which, given 2 years to comprehensive exams, adds to the pressure and tends to turn students away from topics with such requirements. Additionally, at UCSD we may have a particular situation in that the rst 2 years of all living languages are taught by the Linguistics Department (and are thus taught by native speakers mostly employed as lecturers). In practice, this has proved difcult for academic needs, especially those of graduate students, as the courses are mainly focused on usefulness for living in the country. Thus, one learns dove la stazione dei treni? but not how to read Machiavelli, nor a commentary on Norberto Bobbio. I have great respect for our Linguistics Department, but the fact of the matter is that it is interested in linguistics and not literature. As faculty slots are awarded in great part on the basis of undergraduate enrollments (despite what I say later, undergraduates do take some language courses), it is in the interest of the Linguistics Department to retain control over these introductory courses. The consequence, however, is that enrollments in taught-in-the-language upper level and graduate courses in the Literature Department are very low, and, consequently, the departmental clout necessary to maintain low-enrollment

623 courses and to add additional faculty in each language division is limited. With few (and fewer) faculty, come fewer students. There are now, I believe, no graduate students in German. Thus, the situation for graduate students in social science is bad and likely to get worse. On the undergraduate level, the situation is not much better. UCSD is organized into colleges, each with different requirements. Two of them require four quarters (less than a year and a half, which can be taken Pass/Fail) of a language or the passing of any of a number of standard exams (e.g., SAT II with a 700). Four others have no requirement at all. Put bluntly, with a lack of preparation in high school, fairly extensive general education requirements and demanding major requirements, and a lack of perceived need, language instruction is not at the top of anyones list. Students are often urged to take languages, but time is short and demands are many. The one bright spot in my experience was the UC Education Abroad Program. I turn here to my experience as Study Center Director. The program I directed was an immersion program. Students had had 2 years of French. When they arrived, they found their own apartments (we helped with lists); they lived on their own; they took regular courses at the Universit e de Lyon or the Universit e de Grenoble and/or the Institut dEtudes Politiques in French; we spoke to them only in French and likewise accepted answers only in French. At the end of a year, most of them were uent in French, could write in French, got into trouble, got out of trouble, fell in love, drank too much, had some sense of an explication de texte (no mean feat), acquired UC credit with a letter grade for the courses they took (very important), and, best of all, had acquired a perspective on their own U.S. education that was usefully critical. (I do not think that the programs that take students to France for a term or two, giving them Satisfactory grades as credit for courses in English with a language course on the side, are worth more than extended tourism.) In effect, the experience of the students in the program I directed was something like that of the average French university student, who would be expected to spend at least a semester in another country. The French students I got to know, however, all required two languages other than French. Where do the problems start? At the graduate level, the social sciences have developed in a manner to which the learning of language is increasingly less relevant. The United States is big: Generally, one does not in a days travel encounter another country with another language.

624 Additionally it has a hegemonic view of English. This is unavoidable: French is hegemonic in France, but 4 hours on the TGV puts you under another hegemon in D usseldorf, a very different experience. The reality of other languages is unavoidable. The matter is made worse by the gradual spread of English as a lingua franca, especially in the natural sciences (although given what I said earlier, I suspect that the social sciences are catching up). Germans know German and English; Americans know English: advantage to the Germans. The French students I spoke of expected to need two other languages. I have painted with a broad brush; there are many exceptions. I do, however, think this to be the trend for the institutional and disciplinary reasons that I sketched. What might foreign language departments do? I speak as an outsider and see little hope for an internationalization of the curriculum in relation to language without two developments. First would be something like a requirement that all undergraduate students spend at least a term in a language other than English. There is no need here to explain the problems with that proposal. This would mean requiring enough language instruction so as to make it possible for the student initially to at least tread water in another country. At the graduate level, there is little hope in the social sciences except on an individual basis. Thus, I have an excellent graduate student this year in Frankfurt on a German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) fellowship studying early German romanticismthe more of this the better, but it is not an institutional solution. Second, there was a time when those who attended a university learned Latin. I am not here lamenting the elitism of times gone by. In my view, an important consequence of this curriculum was not so much that one learned to read Caesar and Sallust (nothing wrong with that) but, more importantly, that one acquired what I might call an anthropological perspective on ones own society.

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) An important achievement of learning a foreign language is learning a perspective on ones world that is not ones own. In turn, the acquisition of another perspective or even the recognition of the legitimacy of another perspective is, to my understanding, a very important component of a democratic political understanding. I suspect, then, that language instruction in which the substantive material focused not on heres what they do in France or even look how wonderful Maupassant is but on here is how the French see religion in America would generate the kind of interest that is aroused when one tries to better understand ones home land. Make students curious about what is their home. This is one reason why we will still read de Tocqueville. Hannah Arendt (2000) caught it well in an essay on Truth and Politics:
I form an opinion by considering a given issue from different viewpoints, by making present to my mind the standpoints of those who are absent; that is, I represent them. This process of representation does not blindly adopt the actual views of those who stand somewhere else, and hence look upon the world from a different perspective; this is a question neither of empathy, as though I tried to be or to feel like somebody else, nor of counting noses and joining a majority but of being and thinking in my own identity where actually I am not. The more peoples standpoints I have present in my mind . . . the stronger will be my capacity for representative thinking. (p. 556)

This is what language learning can and should do for a democratic polity.
REFERENCES Arendt, H. (2000). Truth and politics. In P. Baehr (Ed.), The portable Hannah Arendt (pp. 545575). New York: Penguin. MacIntyre, A. (1972). Is a science of Comparative Politics possible? In P. Laslett, W. G. Runciman, & Q. Skinner (Eds.), Philosophy, politics and society (pp. 826). Oxford: Blackwell.

The Role of FL Departments: Enabling and Fostering Ubiquitous Use of Languages

H. STEPHEN STRAIGHT, Binghamton University (State University of New York) Internationalizing the curriculum of U.S. colleges and universities includes as one of its many goals a major increase in the number of college graduates and postgraduate degree recipients, across the full range of academic elds of study, who possess functional skills in a wide variety of languages other than English (LOTEs). The Modern Language Associations embrace of

Perspectives translingual and transcultural competence as the overarching goal of the foreign language (FL) curriculum coheres well with this broader curricular goal (MLA, 2007), but the FL curriculum proper can only get us part of the way. No matter how successfully the new FL curriculum incorporates the study of topics beyond the traditional literary and cultural mainstays of the FL major, that curriculum will rightly retain its primary aim of preparing the next generation of FL teachers and scholars, albeit expanded to include non-literary/cultural content. To serve the larger desired role of LOTEs in college education, FL departments must not only expand their own departmental curricula (call it the curriculum across the languages). They must also enable and foster the meaningful use of multiple languages in every nook and cranny of undergraduate and graduate curricula throughout their respective institutions, large and small (call it cultures and languages across the curriculum). Our national need for more college-educated bilingual citizens demands a new range of activities by FL departments. As founding director of a successful Languages Across the Curriculum (LxC) program (see (19911999) and vice provost for undergraduate education and international affairs (19992009) at Binghamton University, a highly selective mid-sized research university, I have found it difcult to get others to grasp the potential impact and importance of a full-blown effort to turn out graduates who know their eld of study equally well in two languages. There are, unfortunately, few, if any, examples of such efforts. Even in Europe, universities call themselves bilingual merely because they offer their degree programs in both their national language and English, but with no requirement or even expectation that individual students pursue their studies in both languages. The United States has a high number of recent immigrants and language-loyal ethnic minorities, and interest in language study and study abroad among college-bound high school graduates is at an all-time high (see http://www.gseis.ucla. edu / heri / PDFs / press / pr012408 - 07Freshman. pdf, with UCLA Higher Education Research Institute Cooperative Institutional Research Program survey data showing yet a further increase, from 43.2% in 2002 to 52.3% in 2007, in college freshman interest in learning about other world cultures). College students come desirous but ill-prepared to study languages and cultures, but they nd the current college curriculum unresponsive to, and even incompatible with, their

625 needs. By changing our approach to cultures and languages, especially at the college level, the United States could lead the world in the delivery of truly multilingual higher education. However, I see little evidence of institutional commitments to such a goal. Misunderstandings of the basis for my personal commitment to multilingual education, and to the related Cultures and Languages Across the Curriculum (CLAC) movement (see, abound. One, some attribute my commitment to a nostalgic and discipline-serving wish, by a literature B.A. and linguistics PhD, to restore FL enrollments to the level they were back in the 1950s and 1960s, when the rate of language study by college students was twice what it is today. Two, others see my stance as a stealth tactic by an anthropologyprofessor-turned-administrator to reshape the FL curriculum in the direction of nonhumanistic offerings in the social sciences, business, engineering, and other applied language areas with little or no appreciation for (or preservation of) the literature-and-culture emphasis of the existing FL curriculum. Three, even the most sympathetic non-FL listeners sometimes think that I am hoping to subvert existing non-FL curricula in the direction of culture and language learning at the expense of their rightful non-FL disciplinary content. I will now identify the kernels of truth while exposing the errors in each of these misperceptions. First, yes, I hope that language enrollments will rise to their former proportion of total enrollments, but the languages studied and the purposes for which we teach them will need to look very different from what they were when I attended college and graduate school (19611970). Back then, students outside of the FL departments studied languages primarily to obtain access to scholarly work in the humanities, sciences, and social sciences. In many specialties in the humanities and ne arts, languages still play this role, to maintain familiarity with literary and philosophical work that in many cases must be read in the original, and eldwork-oriented disciplines in the social sciences continue to need languages as tools for the gathering of primary data and communication with research participants. However, in a way that revives their origins as components of general education while adding to that a recognition of their increasing importance in a shrinking world, languages can and must now serve as the keys to open up the entire curriculum to global cultural content and engaged international activities. Our

626 need for increased language skills is too important an imperative to be assigned exclusively to the faculty and students in the language departments of our universities. Second, yes, I have been requiring students in my classes, both undergraduate and graduate, to use their language skills, even in languages completely unknown to me, for going on 30 years, and I welcome any and all uses, no matter how elementary. To that degree I plead guilty to the charge of sometimes trivializing the goal of multilingualizing (to coin a term) their education; my students sometimes cite sources or use examples that provide no signicant evidence of cultural insight or linguistic sophistication. However, the best of them have made use of non-English sources to a degree that even my most conservative FL colleagues would respect (e.g., a term paper on the historical origins of Italian dialects employing a dozen books in Italian, or a research proposal probing the effects of bilingual education on long-term academic success and bicultural identity citing several autobiographical accounts in Spanish). Most of my students expressed satisfaction for my having made my institutions FL requirement(s) meaningful in a way that no other course had ever done. In the end, that support is all I needed to continue what I was doing. Similarly, it was my students positive response that made me seek ways to help other faculty make multilingual opportunities available to their students. The most visible result was the establishment in 1991 of Binghamton Universitys unique LxC program. Originated jointly with Ellen H. Badger, director of Binghamtons Ofce of International Student and Scholar Services, and developed with the help of Marilyn Gaddis Rose, distinguished professor of comparative literature, LxC works with faculty to carve out of an existing semester-long course syllabus, a 1015% portion for which students substitute LxC participation for the default assignment. LxC then sets up study groups of 612 students, each led by international graduate students with native skill in the desired LOTE and knowledge of the course subject matter sufcient to devise and implement a series of study-group assignments discussed by each group for an hour a week for 12 weeks. Study-group discussions take place in English when necessary, but every assignment focuses primarily on FL texts (in any medium) of relevance to the course content. In the past 18 years, LxC enrollment has averaged about 400 per year, for a total of about 7,200 participants. LxC may be a low-level CLAC

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) example, but it has been well received by faculty and students alike. Third, yes, even to the charge of trying most of all to change the non-FL rather than the FL curriculum, I happily plead guilty. For example, some faculty claim that theres no room in their course for materials in languages other than English unless they are the scholar-produced versions originales of something their students can read in English. These faculty need to realize that, at a minimum, the popular misunderstandings of scholarly conclusions that they critique in their lectures undoubtedly have interesting and culturally revealing parallels around the world that their students could nd, if only given the chance. Furthermore, all faculty can enrich the examination of virtually any topic by including treatments of it from non-Anglophone sources. At the other, more scholarly, extreme, faculty teaching graduate courses need to seek out students who can employ resources in LOTEs to ensure that world scholarship includes and advances non-Anglophone scholarly traditions. They also need to encourage students to pursue research in non-Anglophone contexts, to avoid the shrinking of our cultural and linguistic intellectual purview at a moment when the worlds cultural and linguistic diversity is effectively expanding at the greatest rate in history. Of course, even faculty for whom readily available sources (e.g., competing accounts of current events in newspapers, or contrasting expositions of basic concepts in encyclopedias) could provide students with revealing cultural takes on course topics nd the prospect unnerving. I refer these colleagues to pedagogical research that conrms that CLAC pedagogy, like multilingual learning in general, brings high returns with only a modicum of instructor-led effortalthough at the price of a (probably overdue) loss of instructor-centered control. CLAC invites and, in the end, requires student-centered pedagogy, as students become the experts on materials the instructor may not fully understand. Faculty in every discipline need to design and adopt learning activities that demand skills in LOTEs, including such activities as mining corporate reports for costprice differentials in an accounting course or critiquing newspaper editorials on abortion in a course on medical ethics. Students at every level need to expect and value not only exposure to international differences in accounting practices and moral discourse but also the maintenance and improvement of their language skills, and not just in courses they may take

Perspectives in the FL department or experiences they may have abroad. In turn, administrators need to understand and respect the reallocation of human and other resources that both FL and non-FL departments will need to make to attain these ends. What, specically, can FL departments contribute to the achievement of these goals? FL faculty and students must, of course, determine how best to achieve cross-curricular aims within their chosen eld of study, but they can and should also play a crucial role in achieving them for the entirety of academe. This will require that they reach out to faculty and students at all levels and in all elds of study. For example, non-FL faculty do not understand how to pair native-language (i.e., English) background or comparative materials with FL materials to achieve maximum pedagogical impact, and non-FL students lack condence in their ability to employ their elementary or intermediate language skills outside (or even inside) a carefully selected FL class. Non-FL faculty and students need the help of their FL counterparts to make the use of multilingual skills an accessible and universally expected component of postsecondary education. Other examples of potential FL department contributions include the following: 1. Persuading FL faculty to nd out from their students in the very rst semester of study what other courses, or what eld(s) of study, they are pursuing and include course content relevant to those individual areas of interest. Support and reward faculty who develop FL course content relevant to these student-centered needs. 2. Helping FL faculty nd for their students, and encourage the students to nd and effectively employ, accessible (both ndable and comprehensible) FL materials in their various areas of study. Deploy graduate students, if any, and advanced FL majors as assistants in this task. 3. Consulting with faculty in the elds of study identied in examples 1 and 2 regarding the use of FL materials. Assign FL faculty to the

627 development of new courses, trailer-style supplements, or course-integrated modules, in response to non-FL faculty input regarding appropriate FL complements to their disciplinary curriculum. 4. Strategizing with each other and with non-FL departments and the education-abroad ofce to determine how these three initiatives mesh with opportunities for in-country study, research, or service to result in high-level cultural and linguistic learning. Residence abroad in a LOTEspeaking country contributes, minute-for-minute, more to the acquisition of translingual and transcultural competence than anything else, but only with the right preparation and followthrough, which FL faculty can uniquely provide. 5. Advancing the established and emergent principles and practices of CLAC as highly promising ingredients for the achievement of the global citizenship goals of 21st-century education. Together, FL and non-FL departments can strive to make the use of all of the languages students know and constant receptiveness to global perspectives unquestioned expectations in every eld of study. Only by increasing worldwide respect for cultural differences and by deepening peoples understanding of the linguistic nuances that express and perpetuate those differences (while also offering the best means for reconciling them) can the world reasonably hope to conclude this century as a vibrant, just, and peaceful global community. To add but one word to H. G. Wellss observation, Human history becomes more and more a race between international education and catastrophe (1920, p. 594).

REFERENCES MLA (MLA Modern Language Association Ad hoc Committee on Foreign Languages). (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession 2007 , 234245. Wells, H. G. (1920). The outline of history, being a plain history of life and mankind . New York: Macmillan.