International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America's Future (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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 140 

SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 141 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. 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.   Several of 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. 

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 

SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 143 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). 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.   This assumes that the NRC applied in the subsequent competition. “Lost” indicates that they were funded in one competition but not in the next. 

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 

SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 145 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]. 

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- 

SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 147 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, 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).   Production of dissertations represents both a form of education and training of doctoral students and also generation of new knowledge. 

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. 

SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 149 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- dents (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   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. 

150 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 

SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 151 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). 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).   Asdefined by ED, the seven world regions are Africa, Western Hemisphere, Central/Eastern Europe/Eurasia, Near East, East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. 

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 Title VI Title VI FSIb & Title VI NRC Title VI NRC NRC DLIc Semester FLAS LCTLs LCTLs LCTLs Enrollments Fellowships Taught in Available Available in LCTLs Awarded World Region 2001-2002 2001-2004a 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 TOTAL 128d 226d 75d 61,124e 1,632f 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]. 

SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 153 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 

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. C  onclusion:  The Title VI/FH programs have enhanced the body of knowledge about foreign languages and area studies. C  onclusion:  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 

SUPPORTING RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 155 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.