Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 140
6
Supporting Research,
Education, and Training
E
ach of the individual Title VI and Fulbright-Hays (Title VI/FH) pro-
grams plays a role in addressing the key area of supporting research,
education, and training in foreign languages and international stud-
ies, including opportunities for such research, education, and training over-
seas. These areas are integral to the statutes guiding the programs and a
fundamental part of the activities provided, although the emphases may
vary from program to program.
Most of the Title VI/FH programs are designed to support educa-
tion and training, either directly or indirectly. For example, the Foreign
Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowship Program directly supports
graduate students by subsidizing their tuition costs, whereas the National
Resource Centers (NRC), the Undergraduate International Studies and For-
eign Language (UISFL), the Centers for International Business Education
and Research (CIBER), and the Business and International Education (BIE)
grants support education and training by influencing the curriculum offered
to students. Language Resource Centers (LRC), International Research
and Studies (IRS), UISFL, and Technological Innovation and Cooperation
for Foreign Information Access (TICFIA) grants support education by de-
veloping instructional materials and other resources designed to enhance
student learning. The Group Projects Abroad (GPA) and Seminars Abroad
(SA) Programs support education both directly, in the form of study abroad
for teachers, and indirectly, as the teachers’ new knowledge translates into
improved teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms.
Many of the Title VI programs also support research in a variety of
0
OCR for page 141
SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING
TABLE 6-1 International Research and Studies
Projects Classified as Research and Evaluation
(percentage)
Projects Funds
FY 2004 25 (2 of 8) 26 ($691,825)
FY 2005 41 (7 of 17) 40 ($2,190,000)
FY 2006 43 (9 of 21) 49 ($4,072,000)
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education
[Annual project list, Office of International Education Pro-
grams Service].
ways.1 For example, the FLAS and Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad
(DDRA) Programs directly support graduate student research; in the case
of DDRA, research conducted overseas. The Faculty Research Abroad
(FRA) Program supports faculty research abroad. The American Overseas
Research Centers (AORC) Program helps maintain a capacity for research
overseas, while the NRC and CIBER programs support faculty research
with an international or area studies component. The LRC Program sup-
ports research on language teaching and learning. And the IRS Program
funds research, surveys, and studies related to language, international,
and area studies in addition to development of instructional materials (see
Chapter 8 for discussion of instructional materials).
It appears that, over the past several years, the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) has increasingly emphasized research projects in its IRS
program. In the most recent grant competition, it awarded about half of
the total available funds to projects focused on research and evaluation, an
increase from about one quarter in FY2004 (see Table 6-1). However, no
evidence is available on the quality of the funded research projects, nor on
dissemination or impact of the research results. Although the committee
obtained several final reports of IRS-funded projects, it is unclear whether
the results also appeared in peer-reviewed publications. In addition, it is
unclear whether the department itself or the Title VI/FH community gen-
erally is benefiting from the research, as staff was unable to provide final
reports for several IRS-funded projects and they are not publicly available
in any systematic way.
As the overseas component of ED’s international education portfolio,
the four Fulbright-Hays programs by definition support overseas study.
1 Severalof these programs and their research activities are discussed in more detail in other
chapters. See Chapter 9 for additional discussion of TICFIA, Chapter 10 for more details
on CIBER and BIE, and Chapter 11 for discussion of the Institute for International Public
Policy.
OCR for page 142
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
The Institute for International Public Policy (IIPP) Program also includes a
semester of study abroad for participating fellows (see Chapter 11). Several
of the other programs may include overseas study, although the Title VI
programs are generally considered to be the domestic component of ED’s
international education portfolio. The Title VI/FH programs are required
to report extensive information on the number and type of language and
international and area studies courses taught, as well as the number of
publications and research presentations “developed or written.” Although
it is clear that individual programs have been prolific in this area, it was
not possible to use this information to provide an aggregate picture of the
programs’ performance.
This chapter explores the role of Title VI/FH programs in supporting
research, education, and training and in turn enhancing the body of knowl-
edge in foreign languages and area studies. Because the NRC Program is
the oldest and largest (in terms of total funding) of the programs and also
the program most clearly targeted to combined objectives of research, edu-
cation, and training, discussion of this area focuses on the NRCs. Other
component programs are also discussed when relevant evidence allows. The
chapter then outlines the role of Title VI/FH programs in supporting the
teaching of less commonly taught languages, an area that emerged during
the committee’s review as a specific important contribution to supporting
research, education, and training in foreign languages. Finally, the chapter
describes the limited information available about the Title VI/FH programs
and overseas study.
ENHANCING THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND AREA STUDIES
The Title VI/FH programs enhance the body of knowledge in foreign
languages and area studies by increasing grantee institutions’ capacity for
teaching and research. Title VI/FH grants do this through the prestige they
confer, the opportunity they provide funded institutions to leverage addi-
tional university funds, and the amount of research conducted.
Research Capacity and Prestige
Title VI/FH funds go to many of the largest research institutions that
are recognized as conducting significant amounts of research and producing
high numbers of dissertations and Ph.D.s. The grantees include many top
private and state universities. The committee conducted an analysis of the
grantees included in the Evaluation of Exchange, Language, International
and Area Studies (EELIAS) database based on their Carnegie classification.
Approximately one-third (35.5 percent) of the universities that received
OCR for page 143
SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING
at least one Title VI or Fulbright-Hays grant between 1991 and 2006
were classified as research or doctorate-granting universities, slightly less
than one-third (30.3 percent) were predominately master’s degree-granting
universities, and about 16 percent each were bachelor’s or associate’s de-
gree-awarding institutions. Although universities classified as research in-
stitutions account for a small percentage (4.5 percent) of all schools, the
majority (84.9 percent) have had a grant from at least one Title VI program,
suggesting that the program is reaching into the core research universities
with significant demonstrated research capacity. Similarly, FLAS awards,
designed to support graduate study, have gone almost exclusively (98 per-
cent) to institutions considered to be research institutions, and NRC awards
have gone predominantly (84.2 percent) to these institutions.
NRC status seems to be viewed, even by the already well-known uni-
versities that tend to receive the grants, as a “gold standard” that confers
prestige. During the committee’s site visits and in meetings with new NRC
directors, university faculty consistently reported that NRC status serves as
a proxy for the ratings that are available in other fields. They reported that
NRC status helps them to attract the best students. Some of the students
interviewed independently reported that this was a factor in their decision
about which school to attend. The availability of FLAS funds appeared to
play a similar role.
Directors of area studies centers also reported that the potential for
NRC status helped them to obtain university funds that they felt were nec-
essary to be competitive (see the discussion of leveraging below). In fact,
competition for NRC grants is fairly intense. Over the past 30 years, on
average, about 30 percent of applicants were not funded. At the same time,
continuation of a grant from one competition to the next is not guaranteed.
On average, about 18 percent of NRC awards have gone to centers that did
not have a grant in the previous period, and an average of 13 percent of
NRC grantees lost their funding (see Table 6-2).2 In many cases, universi-
ties that lose funding continue to apply for it in future cycles. The commit-
tee also noted that the NRCs that lost funding included some prestigious
or elite universities. Among the universities visited, there were multiple
examples of area studies programs that had lost and regained NRC status
one or more times. In almost all cases, the universities reported that when
they lost funding, they spent time investigating their program and exploring
ways to make it more competitive in the next round of funding.
2 Thisassumes that the NRC applied in the subsequent competition. “Lost” indicates that
they were funded in one competition but not in the next.
OCR for page 144
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
TABLE 6-2 National Resource Center Competition Results, 1976 to
2006
Number (%) Number (%) of Number (%) of
Year of % of Funded of NRCs Not NRCs for Which NRCs Receiving
Grant Cycle NRC Funded in Funding Was Funds in
Competition Applications Previous Cycle Discontinued Previous Cycle
1976 65 24 (28) 7 (8) 56 (64)
1979 74 20 (20) 12 (12) 68 (68)
1981 72 20 (19) 18 (17) 69 (64)
1983 74 12 (12) 11 (11) 77 (77)
1985 68 18 (17) 16 (15) 73 (68)
1988 66 15 (14) 13 (12) 78 (74)
1991 70 27 (23) 11 (9) 82 (68)
1994 77 19 (15) 10 (8) 100 (78)
1997 68 17 (12) 28 (20) 92 (67)
2000 71* 29 (21) 24 (17) 85 (62)
2003 65 24 (17) 21 (15) 93 (67)
2006 70 21 (15) 17 (13) 103 (69)
Average % 70 17.75 13 69
*In 2000, 114 of 167 applications were funded. In 2002, an additional four NRCs were
funded from this application pool, and are included in this percentage.
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education.
Leverage
At institutions with NRCs, substantial university resources are devoted
to international and foreign language study, in addition to Title VI funds.
Grant competition is structured in such a way that universities must dem-
onstrate significant existing capacity—including in their course offerings,
opportunities for study abroad, and library holdings—to support research
and training in foreign languages and international studies.
A major theme of public input to the committee and the site visits was
the value of Title VI/FH funds in leveraging funds from other sources. The
grants give impetus for universities and other funding sources to match and
exceed funds received from ED. For example, NRC funding to area studies
centers at Ohio State University catalyzed university support for a cross-
university program of Interdisciplinary Research on International Themes.
This program includes an interdisciplinary project on climate change sup-
ported by departments and schools across the university, industrial part-
ners, and overseas universities (Ohio State University, 2007). As mentioned
earlier, NRC funding to the university’s Slavic Center led the School of
Agriculture to conduct research at Tomsk University in Siberia.
Universities therefore bear most of the cost of language and area in-
struction at NRCs. Some stakeholders say that Title VI funding actually
OCR for page 145
SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING
accounts for only about 5 percent of the cost of NRCs and LRCs (Merkx
and Schneider, 1999), thus creating a multiplier effect, whereby a substan-
tial impact is made for a small investment of taxpayer dollars (Brustein,
2006). Another estimate is that universities spend $12-20 for every federal
dollar (Wiley, 2006).
The proportion of NRC and FLAS funds in relation to university funds
for language and area studies appears to vary substantially by university
and even by NRC within a university. The committee requested budget
information from four private universities and five public universities, in-
cluding the percentage of NRC funds that came from ED compared with
the universities themselves. Federal funding (NRC plus FLAS funds) as a
percentage of an NRC budget ranged from 2 percent at one NRC to 82
percent at another; many were in the 30 to 65 percent range. Much of this,
of course, depends on the size of the NRC as well as the amount of money
requested in grant applications and ultimately received. The differing levels
of reliance on federal funding also reflect differences in private endowment
funding for language and area studies across universities.
Reliance on federal funding decreases further when viewed as a percent-
age of the total university resources that are relevant to the world area but
not specifically devoted to the NRC. These total resources include univer-
sity support for language training related to the world area. For most of the
area centers, the share supported by Title VI/FH funding drops to less than
10 percent, although the share still varies widely, from 1 to 70 percent.
The committee also analyzed budget information submitted for FY
2002 through FY 2004 via the EELIAS database. Based on these data,
significant university (“institutional”) funds are provided to match Title VI
NRC funds, particularly resources to support area studies. Title VI funds
represent only 3 percent of the total reported resources for all NRC activi-
ties. Ninety-three percent is provided from institutional funds, with more
than half (56.3 percent) reported as supporting area studies. Table 6-3
illustrates the sources of funds by type of activity. Title VI funds repre-
sent a larger proportion (9.4 percent) of the total funds available for less
TABLE 6-3 Sources of NRC Funds, Fiscal Years 2002-2004 (percentage)
Category Title VI Funds Institutional Funds Other Funds
Area studies instruction 0.8 98.4 0.8
Commonly taught languages 2.4 96.2 1.4
Less commonly taught languages 9.4 87.7 2.9
Other 6.5 79.6 13.9
Outreach 21.6 46.4 32.0
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education [EELIAS].
OCR for page 146
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
commonly taught languages than area studies (0.8 percent). Title VI funds
account for the largest percentage of available funds (21.6 percent) for
outreach.
Based on these data, it is clear that universities invest additional funds
in foreign language and area studies beyond what they receive from Title
VI, but this occurs at a variable rate and may not be quite as significant as
some stakeholders report.
Universities report that NRC funding serves as a catalyst or as seed
money to innovate, providing the funds necessary to introduce courses,
particularly courses in the less commonly taught languages, that would
not otherwise be offered. Once enrollments in these new courses are estab-
lished, the universities tend to pick up the cost of the programs, enabling
the NRC to move on to new priorities. Another common assertion is that
without the seed money and prestige that goes along with a Title VI/FH
grant, many language and area studies programs would not exist. For ex-
ample, some argue that leveraging of Title VI funds was the main factor
that led to the growth of South Asian studies, which barely existed in the
1970s (Stewart, 2006). Newhall (2006) reported that NRC seed money
has led to 19 tenure-track positions in the field and 33 contract positions.
One center reported doubling the number of Arabic instructors from two
to four and that it would not have been possible without Title VI funding.
During the site visits, university faculty consistently reported that if Title VI
funding were eliminated, the teaching of less commonly taught languages
would be one of the first things affected.
In another instance of a leveraging effect, undergraduate programs cre-
ated with Title VI support have continued after funding ended. One study
found that UISFL grants had a strong and lasting impact on the research
and teaching capacity of higher education institutions, positively affect-
ing many elements deemed critical to the development and strengthening
of international education, such as requiring an international course for
graduation and having a formally designated adviser for students doing
international or area studies (Schneider, 1999). UISFL grantees reported
adding new courses and languages as a result of the grants, and nearly all
of these courses were still offered, with solid enrollments, even five years
after the grants ended. For example, a UISFL grant to the University of
Richmond supported development of new undergraduate classes in Portu-
guese and Swahili and helped launch Latin American and African studies
programs (Brustein, 2006).
Dissemination of Knowledge
Evaluation studies identify several ways in which Title VI/FH grantee
institutions generate and disseminate new research knowledge about for-
OCR for page 147
SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING
eign languages, world areas, and international issues. Brecht et al. (2007)
compared the education, research, and publication activities of Title VI-
funded institutions in Slavic and Middle East studies with the activities of
a comparison group drawn from the 100 best American universities, as
ranked by U.S. News & World Report. The authors found that the Title
VI-funded institutions produced more dissertations,3 more articles in major
journals, and more professional awards from peer organizations related to
these two world areas than did the comparison universities. These findings
reflect the fact that NRC awards are given to institutions with established,
prestigious area studies programs, in which faculty conduct significant
amounts of research and award large numbers of Ph.D.s.
Brecht et al. (2007) also used a slightly different method to examine
the role of Title VI/FH funding in research and publication. They exam-
ined the contents of Slavic and Middle East studies academic journals and
found that Title VI-funded institutions accounted for a disproportionately
large number of articles. For example, between 1997 and 2004, the Title
VI institutions contributed, on average, 4.2 articles to the journal Slavic
Review, while non-Title VI institutions contributed only 1.3. The study
also examined the number of dissertations in Slavic and Middle East stud-
ies awarded from Title VI and non-Title VI institutions. As in the case of
scholarly articles, education and scholarship were again concentrated at
Title VI institutions. The number of dissertations produced in Slavic area
studies was nearly identical for Title VI and non-Title VI institutions, but
individual Title VI institutions produced significantly more dissertations
than their counterparts. On average, Title VI institutions produced 30 dis-
sertations compared with 4 dissertations per non-Title VI institution.
The authors note that in most categories, a disproportionate number
of dissertations are completed at Title VI universities, particularly Slavic
languages. The exception is Middle East language dissertations—non-Title
VI institutions produce more than twice as many as Title VI-funded institu-
tions and the difference in the “per institution” measure is not as large as
in other areas.
Finally, the study asserts that Title VI-funded institutions have been
responsive to world events, as measured by numbers of courses and enroll-
ments in currently critical languages. For example, in fall 2000 there were
18 courses in both Arabic and Persian taught at Title VI-funded universities.
By spring 2003 this had increased to 44 courses in Arabic and 26 in Persian.
Enrollments almost doubled in Arabic and went up by over 50 percent in
Persian in that same time period (Brecht et al., 2007).
3 Production of dissertations represents both a form of education and training of doctoral
students and also generation of new knowledge.
OCR for page 148
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
SUPPORT FOR LESS COMMONLY TAUGHT LANGUAGES
Evaluation studies, the committee’s analysis of Modern Language As-
sociation enrollment data, public input, and consistent comments during
site visits indicate that Title VI/FH programs play an especially vital role in
seeding and sustaining research, education, and training in less commonly
taught languages (LCTLs) (see Box 6-1 for illustrations). The National
Council of Organizations of Less Commonly Taught Languages defines an
LCTL as “all languages not typically part of most U.S. college and high
school curricula.” As mentioned earlier in this report, the committee con-
cludes that it is important to have an infrastructure for a wide variety of
languages, particularly LCTLs, rather than just those deemed critical at a
specific point in time.
Brecht et al. (2007) concluded that Title VI-funded institutions are cru-
cial to research related to LCTLs. Between 1996 and 2004, Title VI NRCs
BOX 6-1
Catalyzing Instruction in Less Commonly Taught Languages
Administrators and faculty at all eight site visit universities indicated that Title VI
funding acts as a vital catalyst for developing instruction in less commonly taught
languages. For example, Title VI funding supported five years of expansion in the
teaching of Portuguese at Ohio State University. When the Center for Latin Ameri-
can Studies developed individualized instruction for first-year Portuguese, stu-
dents responded very favorably. Enrollment in first-year language classes jumped
from 20 students in 2003-2004, to 58 in 2004-2005 (spring 2005 was the first
quarter individualized instruction was offered), and to 115 the following academic
year (AY, 2005-2006). By fall 2006, the university offered 14 Portuguese classes,
3 courses on the culture of Brazil and Portugal, and an intensive language study
abroad program in Brazil. Total enrollment in all Portuguese courses had nearly
doubled, from 161 students in AY 2003-2004 to 317 in AY 2005-2006.
At Georgetown University, Title VI funds allowed the university to offer Turkish
to two or three students at beginning through advanced levels; now many more
students are enrolled. At the time of the newest grant cycle, Georgetown has ab-
sorbed all costs associated with the growing Turkish program. In AY 2006-2007,
the university is using Title VI money to underwrite a full-time Persian language
instructor, with the intent that the increased student demand for the language
and additional area and culture classes will convince the university to absorb the
faculty member’s salary costs into its regular budget, as was the case with the
Turkish language and culture program.
NOTE: Information contained in this box came from 2006 committee site visits.
OCR for page 149
SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING
and LRCs produced almost half (49 percent) of all published research on
less commonly taught languages, and 58 percent of all published research
on the least taught languages—those with enrollments of fewer than 1,000
students.
In an earlier study, Brecht and Rivers (2000) reported a similar finding:
64 Title VI/FH-funded programs account for 22.5 percent of the U.S. un-
dergraduate language enrollments in languages other than French, German,
Italian, and Spanish and 51 percent of the undergraduate enrollments in the
least commonly taught languages. This is highly disproportionate because
Title VI/FH-funded institutions represent less than 3 percent of the 2,399
colleges and universities in the United States.
The committee’s analysis of Modern Language Association enrollment
data also suggests that NRCs and their institutions account for a significant
proportion of enrollments in less commonly taught languages, particularly
those with the smallest enrollments and particularly among graduate stu-
dents4 (see Table 6-4). In the “extremely small” enrollment category of
48 languages, 36 are taught at NRC institutions, and advanced graduate
classes in 21 of these languages are offered only at NRC institutions. With-
out these institutions, these languages would probably not be taught in the
United States at all. During the site visits, center staff consistently reinforced
this point, reporting that their university would not support low-enrollment
language courses if not for Title VI support. Languages offered only at NRC
institutions include such significant languages as Kazakh, Bengali, Bulgar-
ian, Malay, Slovak, and Uzbek. Bengali, for example, is spoken by 270
million people and is an official language in both Bangladesh and India.
NRCs help sustain the capacity to teach a wide variety of languages,
far beyond those deemed critical at a given moment. Table 6-5 compares
languages taught at NRCs versus those taught at federal language institu-
tions: the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and the Defense Language Institute
(DLI). NRCs offered 226 less commonly taught languages in 2001-2004,
while DLI and FSI offered 75. It’s important to note, however, that DLI
and FSI are designed to provide on-demand language courses, and that the
numbers reported here are the courses that were actually being offered at
a specific point in time.
It should be noted that Title VI/FH-funded institutions, DLI, and FSI
should not be viewed as in competition with one another; they simply serve
different “markets.” DLI and FSI are crucial in meeting the short-term
needs of the federal government, whereas the role of Title VI is to build
long-term capacity in a wide variety of languages. The committee heard a
4 The languages with larger enrollments above 11,000 (Spanish, French, German, Italian,
Japanese, Chinese, and Russian) were excluded from the review because so many colleges and
universities offer those courses.
OCR for page 150
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
TABLE 6-4 Undergraduate and Graduate Students in Less Commonly
Taught Languages Enrolled at NRC Institutions, 2002 (percentage)
Languages with Enrollments (total # of Total Undergraduate Total Graduate
students for all languages in category) Enrollment Enrollment
Extremely small (0-98) 1,138 146
Very small (99-199) 1,399 90
Small (200-499) 2,562 191
Medium (500-775) 3,574 245
Large (900-1,999) 4,795 205
Very large (5,000-9,000) 28,867 1,545
NOTE: An NRC institution was defined as a university with an NRC in the world area in
which the language is spoken.
SOURCES: Committee analysis of 2002 Modern Language Association enrollment data,
Welles (2004).
great deal of anecdotal evidence and observations to the effect that person-
nel in government often have degrees from Title VI-funded institutions,
and that the institutions are used as a resource by government agencies (In-
teragency Language Roundtable, 2006b; Merkx, 2006; Wiley, 2006). The
infrastructure created by Title VI/FH is also drawn on by other institutions.
For example, the Naitonal Security Education Program (NSEP) draws on
Title VI-funded institutions to help produce experts in critical languages.
FSI and DLI also utilize resources and instructional materials from Title
VI-funded institutions (Brustein, 2006).
Representatives of the federal government’s Interagency Language
Roundtable (ILR) praised the overall performance of Title VI/FH programs
in teaching less commonly taught languages, but also offered the caveat that
“improvements in them are required and should be implemented to ensure
greater accountability.”
OVERSEAS STUDY
The four Fulbright-Hays programs all support overseas study for a
range of purposes ranging from dissertation and faculty research to en-
hancing teacher training. The available funding has historically been a
very small percentage compared with Title VI funding. In FY 2005, the SA
Program supported study tours for K-12 educators in China, Mexico, and
South Africa and Botswana. Between FY 1964 and FY 2004, the DDRA
OCR for page 151
SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING
Undergraduate % Undergraduates Graduate
Enrollment at NRC Enrolled at an NRC Enrollment at NRC % Graduates Enrolled
Institution Institution Institution at an NRC Institution
633 56 132 90
762 54 74 82
1,421 55 171 90
1,596 45 150 61
1,983 41 142 69
7,688 27 666 43
Program provided fellowships for doctoral research projects in seven major
world regions (see Table 6-6).5 Similarly, the FRA (see Table 6-7) and GPA
programs have supported study and research projects in each major world
region (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
As mentioned earlier, all Title VI/FH grantees are required to obtain
prior ED approval to use funds for overseas travel. This process is auto-
mated for Fulbright-Hays programs. For Title VI programs, the approval
process has varied with the project officer and is based on whether the
overseas travel is considered appropriate and necessary. During our site
visits, committee members were told that NRCs often use other non-Title
VI resources to support student overseas study. The degree to which over-
seas study was emphasized or encouraged and the availability of funding
sources for overseas study varied among the universities. The committee
was told that the revised grantee reporting system under development will
include an electronic method for submitting travel requests, which should
help streamline the process.
A common concern expressed during the site visits was the difficulty
graduate students encounter in using annual FLAS awards to support over-
seas study, particularly in light of its recognized benefit to language study
(discussed in Chapter 6).
5 As
defined by ED, the seven world regions are Africa, Western Hemisphere, Central/Eastern
Europe/Eurasia, Near East, East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.
OCR for page 152
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
TABLE 6-5 Less Commonly Taught Languages Offered by Title VI
National Resource Centers and by the Defense Language Institute and the
Foreign Service Institute, 2001-2004
FSIb &
Title VI Title VI Title VI NRC Title VI
DLIc
NRC NRC Semester FLAS
LCTLs LCTLs LCTLs Enrollments Fellowships
Taught in Available Available in LCTLs Awarded
2001-2004a
World Region 2001-2002 2004 2001-2002 2002-2003
Africa 25 56 10 2,972 141
Middle East 30 52 19 8,028 260
Inner Asia 13 24 12 237 28
South Asia 15 31 11 3,284 180
East Asia 11 14 10 24,790 200
Southeast Asia 11 18 13 2,864 67
Pacific Islands 3 6 0 322 3
Eastern Europe/Russia 26 47 28 6,981 306
Western Europe 23 27 17 8,767 84
Latin America 15 16 2 5,501 255
128d 226d 75d 61,124e 1,632f
TOTAL
NOTE: Data for these tables are drawn from the applications of the 119 university centers to
be designated as Title VI NRCs and FLAS centers submitted to ED in November 2002. (We
have not included enrollments from the 11 International Studies NRCs not specialized to a
world region and the 2 Canadian NRCs.)
aLCTLs available are those that Title VI NRCs state in their 2002 Title VI applications
that they have the capacity to teach: 38 of these languages are historical languages, which are
ancient or extinct according to Ethnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com) or are used only for
reading ancient texts.
bFSI data on language offerings available are derived from the FSI pamphlet, “Language
Training, School of Language Studies, NFATC, Foreign Service Institute, US Department of
State” (distributed June 24, 2004) and from a supplementary list provided by the FSI on June
25, 2005.
cDLI data about languages available are derived from the DLI website at http://www.dliflc.
edu/Academics/schools/index.html [accessed June 14, 2004], with additional information
provided by Scott McGinnis, DLI, Washington, June 24, 2004 and February 2, 2005.
dLanguages that overlap world regions are counted only once in the “Total” row.
eThere was some overlap of reported language enrollments at a few universities that host
NRCs for more than one world region (e.g., Arabic for African and Middle East centers);those
enrollments are counted only once in the “Total” row of the table. We have accounted for
a total of 2,622 overlapping LCTL enrollments by subtracting them from the subtotal of all
world region enrollments: 63,746 – 2,622 = 61,124.
fTotal FLAS Fellowships include 11 awarded by Canadian Studies NRCs (all in French) and
97 awarded by international NRCs. These have been added to the 1,523 FLAS Fellowships
awarded in the world regions listed above (11 + 97 + 1,523 = 1,632).
SOURCE: Based on data from the e-LCTL Project. Available: http://elctl.msu.edu/summaries/
viewtable2.php?region=world&table=sheet015 [accessed May 2007].
OCR for page 153
SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING
TABLE 6-6 Doctoral Dissertation Research
Abroad Fellowships Awarded, FY 1964-2004
Country Fellowships Awarded
Africa 588
Western Hemisphere 761
Central/Eastern Europe and Eurasia 734
East Asia 661
Near East 497
South Asia 519
Southeast Asia 435
Western Europe 70
Multicountry 186
TOTAL 4,451
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education.
Available: http://www.ed.gov/programs/iegpsddrap/awards.html
[accessed Jan. 2007].
TABLE 6-7 Faculty Research Abroad Program Summary, FY 2005
Individual Individual
Applications Applications Totals by
World Area Received Funded World Area
Africa 12 7 $ 534,113
Western Hemisphere 19 6 281,084
Central/Eastern Europe/Eurasia 8 4 214,330
East Asia 10 4 195,462
Near East 2 1 18,559
South Asia 2 1 37,580
Southeast Asia 3 3 109,595
TOTAL 56 26 1,390,723
SOURCE: Data provided by U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pro-
grams/iegpsfra/awards.html [accessed Jan. 2007].
CONCLUSIONS
In general, Title VI/FH funding enhances the capacity of grantee insti-
tutions for teaching and research. It raises the prestige level of institutions
receiving the grants and has an important leveraging effect: universities
often end up providing a majority of the funding for the programs. The
idea of Title VI funds as leverage or seed money was a consistent theme in
public meetings and discussions with university officials; they report often
using Title VI funds to seed a course in a new language or a more advanced
OCR for page 154
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
course in an existing language. Title VI/FH funding also serves to validate
the programs and proliferate knowledge through articles published, disser-
tations granted, and resources produced, which supports foreign language,
area, and international studies education. Finally, the programs play a sig-
nificant role in the teaching of the less commonly taught languages; some
important languages might not be taught at all in the United States if not
for Title VI funds.
Conclusion: The Title VI/FH programs have enhanced the body of
knowledge about foreign languages and area studies.
Conclusion: The Title VI program makes a significant contribution to
the teaching of less commonly taught languages in particular.
A common theme that arose from the committee’s discussions with uni-
versity and program representatives is the idea of synergy, meaning that the
programs fit together and build on one another to create an infrastructure
for the production of language and area knowledge. Multiple supporters
of the programs assert that they complement each other in a way that
serves to create a pipeline to higher levels of language proficiency and area
knowledge, particularly for difficult languages (Wiley, 2006; Lane, 2006;
Edwards, 2006; Gabara, 2006; Merkx, 2006).
In theory, the programs do complement each other, as LRC K-12 out-
reach strengthens language teaching in schools, UISFL grants internation-
alize the undergraduate curriculum, NRCs support area studies programs
that attract and engage students, and FLAS and DDRA awards act as the
“intake valve” to prepare the next generation of language and area studies
expertise. In theory, FRA grants to support faculty research and IRS and
LRC funding of research on how to best teach languages supplement and
complement this synergistic system. However, the committee did not find
sufficient evidence to conclude that this potential synergy has been fully
realized.
We also note that Title VI is the sole source of funds for high-level
language research; without federal money, much of this research would not
take place. For example, language materials developed by the IRS program
have been praised by some in the language community (Christian, 2006;
Interagency Language Roundtable, 2006b). ILR representatives told the
committee (Interagency Language Roundtable, 2006b):
This year, when the list of new IRS grants was posted, senior language
experts across the government remarked very positively on the value of
the topics to be researched and of the anticipated usefulness of the materi-
als and tools to be developed. In addition, this year’s grants also include
funding for the Modern Language Association’s survey of post-secondary
OCR for page 155
SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING
foreign language education [enrollments] in all institutions throughout
the United States and for comparable surveys of foreign language educa-
tion [enrollments] in American primary and secondary schools. Without
the data provided by these crucial surveys funded by IRS, there would be
no solid objective national information on the state of foreign language
education in this country.
ILR representatives also lamented the fact that only 14 LRC proposals were
able to be funded during the last grant cycle, as LRCs also play a crucial
role in research on languages. They noted that the LRCs have “conducted
important research into the learning” of less commonly taught languages
(Interagency Language Roundtable, 2006b).
Thus, while there is at least a conceptual synergy to the way the
programs are designed, which supports production of language and area
knowledge, from K-12 to university faculty and research levels, the Title
VI/FH programs were not designed to—and are not adequately funded to—
carry out a comprehensive international education and language strategy
beginning in kindergarten and continuing through faculty research. Such
a strategy would require funding and support from other federal language
and international education programs in addition to Title VI/FH, as we
discuss in Chapter 12.
