In March 2005, the Faculty Senate created the Foreign Language/Global Issues Committee (FLGIC) to determine the nature and purpose of a foreign language/global issues requirement and to propose the requirement as either a general education requirement or graduation requirement. The nine-member committee is composed of three representatives, each, from CAGAS, CGE, and CIE. The committee met in May 2005, bimonthly during the fall semester of 2005, and periodically throughout the current semester.

During the fall semester the goals and objectives (nature & purpose) of the FLGI requirement were developed and reported to the Faculty Senate in December in the FLGIC’s preliminary report. Based on feedback from the Senate, the goals/objectives were clarified during the current semester and distributed to relevant university personnel (all individuals with teaching requirements, all department chairs, and other relevant administrators, for a total of 779 contacts). Additionally, a survey was constructed and administered to the same personnel to determine support for the goals/objectives as well a general means to meet the goals/objectives.

The survey revealed very strong support for the goals and objectives, strong support for both a foreign language requirement and a global issue requirement, strong support for a required one-year university level foreign language course and/or a demonstration of a basic understanding of a foreign language, and strong support for the inclusion of a global issue requirement in general education. As a result of this survey and a review of relevant literature, the FLGIC offers the following suggestions:

The developed goals and objectives may be considered as guiding principles for a foreign language/global issues requirement and serve as a public statement of the University’s commitment to internationalizing undergraduate education.
The General Education Review Committee may be charged with including a foreign language/global issues requirement in the University’s general education requirements. Additionally, GERC may be strongly encouraged to include the relevant stakeholders (particularly the department of foreign languages) when discussing/determining the logistics of the requirement.

If the faculty senate prefers to separate foreign languages and global issues to develop a graduation requirement for foreign languages and a general education requirement for global issues, we offer the third proposal:

CAGAS may be charged with formulating a graduation requirement for foreign languages and, likewise, may be strongly encouraged to involve the appropriate stakeholders including a representative from, each, the Department of Foreign Languages, admissions, and a representative from each college and the library; GERC may be charged with formulating/including a general education requirement for global issues.

The remainder of this report will provide support for these proposals. The report concludes with three concerns that the FLGIC encourages the faculty senate to consider in the discussion of these proposals.

Support

The concern/movement for internationalizing campuses is a result of a variety of recent phenomenon. Terrorism, free trade, globalization, environmental challenges, and natural disasters have demonstrated that the world is a collection of interconnected countries and people. Madeleine Green, Vice President of the American Council on Education, states, “While 25 years of national commissions and blue-ribbon reports have failed to move internationalization to the center of the national education debate, September 11 drew national attention to these issues.” She continues:

The United States needs informed and tolerant citizens who can work in multicultural environments. We need language and area experts to teach and serve in government. The world needs more, not less, knowledge and understanding. A liberally educated person must understand other cultures, points of views, and ways of thinking.

Numerous educational and world leaders echo this sentiment.

Similarly, AAC&U notes that a liberal education for today’s students must look beyond the campus to contemporary issues. “It aims to produce global thinkers. Quality liberal education prepares students for active participation in the private and public sectors, in a diverse democracy, and in an even more diverse global community.” The demand for global thinkers stems from the ever-increasing interconnectedness and interdependence of countries. NAFTA alone has increased cross-border economic activity and related professional mobility (Fantini, Arias-Glicia and Guay, 2001). Adapting to this requires more than learning a foreign language, but also the ability to work with (or for) people with diverse cultural beliefs and norms. Fantini et al. state, “Many look to institutions of higher education to assume a central role in preparing individuals for living and working in diverse global contexts.”

The perceived importance for internationalization is echoed in public survey results. Hayward and Siaya (2001) found that 80% of respondents believed that the US should be involved in world affairs, with 90% maintaining that understanding of international issues would be important to future careers. Similarly, just over 85% believed that it was important to know a foreign language. Siaya, Porcelli and Green (2002) more recently mirrored these results and noted strong support for both foreign language training and general understanding of global issues.

Importantly, the FLGIC would like to warn against a misinterpretation of this perceived need. Indeed there is an emphasis on preparing students for future employment but there is likewise a running theme of preparing students to be citizens in an interconnected world. This new citizenship becomes apparent in the overriding role governments take in fostering interdependent relationships. From economic and trade agreements to national security issues, the citizen must be ever aware of the impact of other countries and the impact of their respective country. The challenges associated with human rights, national security, environmental protection, sovereignty protections, poverty, and health issues, to name a few, are impacted by multiple countries and geopolitical influences. Most of the literature relies on an implicit premise of systems theory: a change in one part of the system affects another. Consequently, while a foreign language/global issues requirement will help students’ future careers, it is, likewise, an essential component of citizenship in the 21^st century.

Support for a foreign language/global issues requirement appears well documented; however, identifying the competencies associated with the perceived need for a foreign language/global issues requirement is more difficult. To accomplish this, the FLGIC reviewed various other approaches and related literature to locate key concerns. Concepts of interconnectedness, interdependency, and cross-cultural communication were repeatedly mentioned, as key aspects higher education must address. Accordingly, the FLGIC developed three goals and three objectives for each goal:

1. Reason – understand that the world is made up of interconnected countries that have brought geographically distant societies into closer cooperation and competition.

a) Learn how different forces (political, geographical, historical) have shaped development of different cultures.

b) Be able to compare and contrast different countries/cultures/societies.

c) Learn about self, own culture, through contact with ideas from other countries/cultures/societies.

2. Relationships – understanding that our actions impact other regions of the world.

a) Recognize the interdependence of countries/cultures/societies.

b) Make changes in personal behaviors that will positively affect other countries/cultures/societies.

c) Gain the proficiencies and skills to navigate unfamiliar cultures and situations.

3. Respect – emphasizing an appreciation of global diversity and tolerance toward other points of view.

a) Appreciate that different cultures/societies have many similarities (despite difference, people are very similar).

b) Appreciate the advantages of diversity within relationships, organizations, and societies

c) Appreciate the value of having different ways of viewing the world.

Goal one and two reflect the concepts of interconnectedness and interdependency while goal three refers to cross cultural communication issues. The committee further maintains that these goals and objectives may be met through a foreign language requirement, global issues requirement, and/or a combination of both. For example, learning a foreign language is not “merely internalizing a closed system of formal rules and structural paradigms; rather it means acquiring a mode of communication…one must know when to say what to whom…”(Kramsch, 1993). Learning a foreign language, then, requires understanding language as a complete system that is impacted by cultural experiences and values, to name a few. This understanding of foreign language acquisition is clearly reflected in the three stated goals and the corresponding objectives.

With the goals and objectives identified, the FLGIC sought to determine university support as well as a means to implement the goals and objectives. Based on review of relevant literature, the committee identified four means to implement a foreign language requirement (admissions requirement, one-year of a university level language course, basic competency, and proficiency in conversing, reading, and writing). Likewise the committee identified three means to implement a global issues requirement (general education requirement, a WID type requirement, and a study abroad requirement).

Results of Foreign Language/Global Issues Survey

To obtain an opinion from faculty and administration regarding the Foreign Language and Global Issues requirement, the WIU Office of Institution Research was enlisted to survey all faculty, with chairs and deans, and selected staff (essentially everyone in a potential teaching position). The survey was conducted in the form of an on-line questionnaire and distributed to 779 potential respondents on March 20. After a two- week period, 329 persons responded, yielding a response rate of 42.2%.

With regard to the Reason, Respect and Relationships Goals and Objectives, the faculty and administration indicate that these goals and objectives are well liked and supported. As illustrated in Table 1, the Reason, Respect and Relationship goals were viewed by over 7 out of 10 respondents as contributing to both the intellectual development and to the general education of students. More than 3 out of 5 respondents agreed that these goals and objectives would be valuable to students within their major fields of study.

Table 1. Percentages of Faculty Agreement with the Goal of:

Reason Respect Relationships

(N=314) (N=314) (N=308)

Percent Percent Percent

agree agree agree

Objectives

Intellectual Development 76.8 73.8 75.5

Valuable to General Education 72.9 71.3 75.5

Valuable to Majors 64.9 64.9 67.3

A substantial proportion of the faculty and administration indicated support for some form of foreign language and global issues requirement. Table 2 indicates that nearly three out of four respondents support a foreign language requirement and nearly seven out of ten support a global issues requirement. This suggests that some consideration could be given to exploring the possibility of initiating both a foreign language and global issues requirement.

Table 2. Percentage of Support for Some Form of Requirement For:

Foreign Global

Language Issues

(N=314) (N=314)

Percent support Percent support

WIU Should Require: 74.5 69.4

With respect to developing the logistics of a foreign language requirement, preferences seem to run more strongly for either a one year university level foreign language course or the institution of some mechanism which will allow students to demonstrate a basic understanding of the language. As indicated in Table 3, over three-fourths of the respondents indicated preference for a one-year university level foreign language course while nearly three-fourths supported some basic demonstration of competency from the students. Less than one out of three respondents preferred conversational, reading and writing as an indicator of foreign language competence. The survey did not include a question regarding the inclusion of a foreign language requirement in general education; however, some written comments suggested this possibility and preference. Additionally, other institutions appear to incorporate this type of requirement in general education. Further, it is quite conceivable to combine a one-year requirement with a demonstration of proficiency. In this case, two or more years of high school languages could substitute for one year of a university level requirement, provided that students pass a competency test. Notably, in the CAGAS report on a foreign language requirement, they found that, in a sample of incoming freshman, 81.6% of incoming freshman had two or more years of a foreign language (n=305 out of 374 sampled.).

Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Preferences

Regarding Logistics of Language Requirement

One Year University Demonstration of Converse, Read

Level Course Basic Understanding and Write

(N=232) (N=231) (N=224)

Percent Percent Percent

Prefer 77.6 74.0 31.3

No Opinion 7.8 13.4 25.0

Do not prefer 14.7 12.6 43.8

With respect to a Global Issues requirement, the distribution in Table 4 indicates that over four out of five respondents indicated support for the notion of embedding such a requirement within the General Education Curriculum. This does suggest that the Council on General Education be included in any future conversations regarding the implementation of such a requirement.

Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Support

for including Global Issues in General Education

Include in

General Education Percent (N=215)

Prefer 83.3

No Opinion 7.4

Not Prefer 9.3

While general support for a foreign language and/or a global issues requirement, this support does vary systematically, depending primarily upon college affiliation and academic rank.

Patterned Variations Related to College Affiliation

As indicated in Table 5, when respondents were asked to indicate their choice in regard to which international component they would prefer (a foreign language or a global issues component), the responses varied depending upon the college with which the respondent was affiliated. Almost seven of ten respondents (68.2%) affiliated with the College of Fine Arts /Communication and nearly two out of three respondents (65.5%) in the College of Arts and Sciences preferred a foreign language over a global issues component. In contrast, two of three respondents (67.1%) in the College of Education and Human Services and seven of ten respondents in the College of Business and Technology preferred the Global Issues option as an international component for the curriculum. The relationship between preferred international component and college affiliation is moderately strong (Cramer’s V = .349) indicating that about 12% of the variation in the preference of one international component over the other is influenced by college affiliation.

This suggests that there are programmatic concerns imbedded within the majors in each college that should be seriously considered before any decision is made to declare either an international component option over the other as a university graduation requirement. This led to the committee discussion regarding whether a general education requirement would be more appropriate. Assumingly, a general education requirement may permit a choice depending on program need. For example, the general education requirement to satisfy the goals and objectives could permit students to select either a foreign language or a global issues track. Programs may then recommend the track better suited for their field of study. This would allow for a general education requirement while recognizing that programmatic needs may vary.

Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Preferred Choice of

International Component by College Affiliation

College Affiliation

Fine Arts & Arts & Education & Business &

Communication Science Human Services Technology

Preferred International (N = 44) (N = 119) (N = 76) (N = 61)

Component

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Foreign Language 68.2 65.5 32.9 29.5

Global Issues 31.8 34.5 67.1 70.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X² = 36.45 @ 3df p < .001* V = .349 - 12.2% variation explained

College affiliation appears to play a stronger role with respect to the choice of a foreign language option over a global issues component. When asked if WIU should have some form of language requirement, systematic variation was again demonstrated between each college. As indicated in Table 6, over eight out of ten respondents (85.1%) in the College of Arts and Sciences, three out of four respondents (74.7%) in the College of fine Arts and Communication and slightly over seven out of ten respondents in the College of Education and Human Services indicated support for some form of foreign language requirement. In contrast, slightly over half (55.7%) of the respondents in the College of Business and Technology indicated such support.

The relationship between college affiliation and support for a foreign language requirement was only moderately strong (Cramer’s V = .253) indicating that slightly more than 6% of the variation in support for a foreign language is influence by college affiliation. Once again, it is likely that the particular program needs within the majors in the College of Business and Technology may be more compatible with a global issues requirement than a foreign language component. Again, by placing this within the context of general education, as opposed to a graduation requirement, students will be able to select courses that more readily fit their interests while meeting the needs of general education. Departments and colleges would be able to offer guidance as to which general education course or courses would better prepare the student for both their majors and future goals.

Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Preferences for

Foreign Language by College Affiliation

College Affiliation

Arts & Fine Arts & Education & Business &

Science Communication Human Services Technology

Should WIU have (N = 121) (N = 44) (N = 71) (N = 61)

language reqmnt?

Percent Percent Percent Percent

YES 85.1 74.7 71.8 55.7

NO 14.9 22.7 28.2 44.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X²=19.01 @ 3df p< .001 V = .253 6.4% variation explained

College affiliation was also examined in relation to support for a global issues requirement, and although some slight differences were exhibited, the magnitude of differences between each college was relatively minor with the exception of the College of Fine Arts and Communication. As indicated in Table 7, approximately seven out of ten respondents affiliated with Education and Human Services, Business and Technology and Arts and Sciences indicated support for a global issues requirement, compared to just slightly over half (53.5%) of the Fine Arts and Communication respondents showing support for this option. The relationship between support for a global issues requirement and college affiliation was weak (Cramer’s V = .14) with about 2% of the variation in support for a global issues requirement being influenced by college affiliation.

Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Preferences for

Global Issues Requirement by College

College Affiliation

Education & Business & Arts & Fine Arts &

Human Services Technology Science Communication

Should WIU have (N = 75) (N = 59) (N = 120) (N = 43)

global issues reqmnt?

Percent Percent Percent Percent

YES 73.3 72.9 69.2 53.5

NO 26.7 27.1 30.8 46.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X² = 5.60 @ 3df n.s.* V = .14 2% variation explained

Patterned Variations Related to Academic Rank

While college affiliation was a noteworthy contributor to variation in respondents’ preferences toward foreign language and/or a global issues requirement, some systematic variation based on academic rank was also discovered. As a general rule junior faculty, those holding the rank of Instructor or Assistant Professor, tended to be more favorable to language requirements and global issues requirements than senior faculty, those holding the rank of Associate or Full Professor. As indicated in Table 8, better than four out of five (84%) junior faculty agreed that WIU should have a language requirement, compared to slightly less than seven of ten (68%) of senior faculty. The relationship between support for a language requirement and faculty rank is, however, fairly weak (Cramer’s V = .179). Approximately 3% of the variation in support for a language requirement is influenced by academic rank.

Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Preferences for

Foreign Language by Academic Rank

Academic Rank

Junior Faculty Senior Faculty

(N = 125) (N = 182)

Should WIU have

Language Reqmnt? percent percent

Yes 84.0 68.1

No 16.0 31.9

100.0 100.0

x² = 9.026 @ 1df p < .01* V = .179 - 3.2% variation explained

This directional pattern is maintained in regard to the global issues requirement. As demonstrated in Table 9, junior faculty again shows greater support for a global issues requirement than senior faculty. Slightly less than four out of five (77%) junior faculty indicate support for a global issues requirement compared to about three out of five (63.2%) senior faculty. The relationship between support for a global issues requirement and academic rank is rather weak (Cramer’s V = .146). About 2% of the variation in support for a global issues requirement can be explained by variation in academic rank.

Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Preferences for

Global Issues by Academic Rank

Academic Rank

Junior Faculty Senior Faculty

( N = 126) (N = 182)

Should WIU have a

Global Issues Reqmnt? percent percent

Yes 77.0 63.2

No 23.0 36.8

100.0 100.0

x² = 5.98 @ 1df P < .05* V = .146 - 2.1% variation explained

When given a choice between a language requirement or a global issues requirement, junior faculty tend to favor the language option over a global issues option. As indicated in Table 10, almost three out of five (57.8%) junior faculty favor the language option compared to less than half (45.6%) of the senior faculty. This relationship is, however, quite weak (Cramer’s V = .12). Less than 1.5% of the variation in the preference shown can be accounted for on the basis of academic rank.

Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Preferred Choice of

International Component by Academic Rank

Academic Rank

Junior Faculty Senior Faculty

(N = 128) (N = 182)

Primary International

Component Percent Percent

Foreign Language 57.8 45.6

Global Issues 42.2 54.4

100.0 100.0

X² = 4.01 @ 1df p <. .05* V = .12 - 1.4% variation explained

Patterned Variations Related to Years Teaching at WIU

Given the pattern of variation demonstrated by rank, it would logically follow that a similar pattern would be observed when considering the number of years of teaching experience at WIU. Indeed, the relationships between support for the language/global issues options demonstrates a similar directional pattern as observed with rank but these relationships are generally weaker than those associated with rank.

The “strongest” of these weak relationships appears between support for a global issues requirement and years teaching at WIU. The direction of this relationship is linear, i.e., support for a global issues requirement tends to decline as the years taught at WIU increases. As indicated in Table 11, about three out of five (61.3%) faculty who have taught at WIU for sixteen or more years show support for a global issues requirement compared to over three out of four (77.8%) faculty who have taught at Western for one to five years. This is a weak relationship (Cramer’s V = .152), with years teaching at WIU accounting for about 2% of the variation in support for a global issues requirement.

It is worth noting that in spite of the inverse relationship between support for a global issues requirement and years of teaching at WIU, well over half of the teaching faculty exhibit support for such a requirement in all categories of years taught.

Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Preferences for

Global Issues by Years Taught at WIU

Years Taught at WIU

1-5 6-10 11-15 16 or more

(N = 90) (N = 45) (N = 42) (N = 80)

Should WIU have

Global Issues Reqmnt? percent percent percent percent

Yes 77.8 66.7 64.3 61.3

No 22.2 33.3 35.7 38.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

x² = 5.95 @ 3df ns* V = .152 - 2.3% variation explained

The relationship between support for a language requirement and years of teaching experience at WIU is also weak. The direction of this relationship remains inverse and linear; as years of teaching experience at WIU increases, support for a language requirement decreases. As indicated in Table 12, four out of five (79.3%) of faculty with one to five years teaching experience support the notion of a language requirement. In contrast, two out of three (66.7%) of the faculty with sixteen or more years experience shows support for such a requirement. This too, is a weak relationship (Cramers’s V = .128) with less than 2% of the variation in support for a language requirement being accounted for by years of teaching experience at WIU.

Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Preferences for

Foreign Language by Years Taught at WIU

Years Taught at WIU

1-5 6-10 11-15 16 or more

(N = 87)) (N = 46) (N = 44) (N = 81)

Should WIU have

Language Reqmnt? percent percent percent percent

Yes 79.3 78.3 70.3 66.7

No 20.7 21.7 29.5 33.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

x² = 4.199 @ 3df ns* V = .128 - 1.6% variation explained

When given a choice between a foreign language option or a global issues option, there is minimal difference across categories of years taught at WIU. There is nearly a 50-50 percentage split across all four categories of years teaching at Western, with a virtual tie between a foreign language or a global issues requirement.

Respondents were also asked to indicate their specific roles at WIU in terms of primarily teaching, primarily administration, combinations of each, as well as various academic support roles. Analyses of university roles and various preferences toward a language or global issues requirement indicated that there was virtually no relationship between these variables.

When given the choice between a language requirement or a global issues requirement, slightly more faculty indicated preference for a language requirement than did administrators. However, the strength of this relationship was negligible, with less than 1% of the variation in preference being explained by faculty role.

The FLGIC, basing their judgment on relevant literature and the survey results, feels that a foreign language/global issue requirement is both educationally sound and supported by current faculty and administration. The committee, however, did not feel that it was within their discretion to determine the exact nature of the requirement beyond the determination of the goals, objectives and general preferences for the requirement. The FLGIC believes that if the faculty senate wishes to have this requirement included in general education, GERC/CGE may be better suited to address the finer points within a general education framework. Likewise, if the faculty senate prefers a split between foreign language and global issues requirement, then CAGAS would be in a better position to address the finer points within a graduation requirement framework.

If the faculty senate accepts the suggested goals and objectives, the FLGIC wishes that they consider three important implications.

1. Regardless of a general education requirement or a graduation requirement, the number of required courses could increase, depending on the actual details of the assignment. This increase may infringe on students “window of opportunity” to select their own courses based on their own interests. This concern was noted in several of the written comments and may significantly impact overall university support. Consequently, the FLGIC encourages the faculty senate to provide direction to either GERC or CAGAS regarding the support or lack of support for increasing the number of required courses.

2. Regardless of the decision to have either a general education or graduation requirement for a foreign language requirement, consideration must be given to the feasibility of such a requirement given the reality of University resource limitation. The Department of Foreign languages must be directly consulted about the impact this will have. Likewise, a global issues general education requirement may significantly impact enrollment in the Department of Geography. Additionally, it should be noted that a general education option may take away courses from existing departments. In other words, if the number of general education hours remains constant but students are directed to take foreign languages and/or global issue course, this might decrease student enrollment in other traditional general education courses.

3. FLGIC strongly believes that this must remain a faculty driven program. Consequently, the various stakeholders must be encouraged to participate in future discussions. For example, a foreign language requirement will strongly impact the Department of Foreign Languages. Consequently, they should be asked to provide guidance for both their expertise and the impact the requirement will have. Additionally, since this will be a university-wide requirement, discussion must also include members of all colleges. Not only is this necessary to ensure eventual support but also to address the various programmatic needs for the colleges and departments.

* Because this is a convenience sample, there is no assumption of representativeness. Consequently, the probability of a Type I error is not applicable to these results. Statistical significance is shown only to indicate what it might be were these results calculated from a truly random sample.

Cited Sources

Fantini, A. E., Arias-Galicia, F. & Guay, D. (2001). Globalization and 21^st century competencies: challenges for North American higher education. Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration.

Green, M. () The challenge of internationalizing undergraduate education: Global Learning for all. Presented at Global challenges and U.S Higher Education Conference, Duke University.

Hayward, F. & Siaya L. (2001). Public experience, attitudes, and knowledge: preliminary status report. American Council on Education, Washington DC.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Foreign languages for a global age. ADFL Bulletin, 25, 1, 5-12.

Siaya, L, Porcelli, M. & Green, M. (2002). One year later: attitudes about international education since September 11. American Council on Education, Washington DC.