Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Since the emergence of models and frameworks for college and university internationalization in the early 1990s, post-secondary world language education has remained a core dimension of internationalization in theory (American Council on Education, no date; Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007; Hudzik, 2011; Rudzki, 1995; Spencer-Oatey and Dauber, 2016). Yet a report by the American Council on Education (ACE, 2017) found that, in actuality, most institutions have afforded little attention to developing students’ second language proficiency despite the considerable benefits of language learning experiences to prepare learners for the challenges of a global workforce in the 21st century. This article argues that developing an informed intercultural mindset paired with proficiency in at least one language other than English is essential for graduates to take advantage of the many professional, societal, and educational opportunities of today’s global community. To this end, we urge internationalizing post-secondary institutions with an interest in providing students with second language skills and the relevant educational experiences for which leading language organizations consistently advocate (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2015a, 2015b; Modern Language Association, 2007).

Keywords

Internationalization educational outcomes intercultural competence language proficiency

Introduction

Internationalization models and frameworks have long considered world language education an integral part of an internationalized curriculum and global education (American Council on Education (ACE), no date; Association of American Colleges and Universities, (AAC&U) 2007; Hudzik, 2011; Rudzki, 1995; Spencer-Oatey and Dauber, 2016). In one of the earliest internationalization models, Davies (1992) emphasized the importance of world language education in academic programs, in addition to cross-disciplinary curricula and student mobility (study abroad). Indeed, in a study by the ACE, Green (2005) found that post-secondary institutions that are highly active in internationalization assigned greater value to world language education than less active colleges and universities. They also offered a greater variety of languages and were more likely to require some world language proficiency for admission and graduation. Given the ongoing proliferation of internationalization as a core strategy in 21st century higher education, it may come as little surprise that the ACE (2017) found that an increasing—albeit still modest—number of institutions now require undergraduate students to study foreign languages before they are eligible for graduation. The organization also called on public and private institutions to increase these numbers further by finding ways to compel all students to study languages.

Many of today’s internationalization frameworks are reflective of the educational outcomes outlined by the AAC&U in their Liberal Education and America’s Promise initiative (AAC&U, 2007) in which language education—at least conceptually—plays a crucial role in student learning (Hudzik and McCarthy, 2012; Olson, Green and Hill, 2005). The internationalization framework set forth by the Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement (CIGE) at the ACE (no date) explicitly integrates world language learning in its curriculum, co-curriculum, and learning outcomes, as well as student mobility dimensions. The ACE further proposed a strategically designed co-curriculum built around programmatic components that “address global issues, reinforce international elements of the curriculum, facilitate discussion and interaction among students of different backgrounds and support the integration and success of international students on campus” (ACE, no date, Curriculum, Co-curriculum, and Learning Outcomes). To internationalize both the core and co-curriculum, the authors of the report considered world language study a vital delivery mechanism for intercultural skills and knowledge about international issues. In this regard, the ACE framework aligns not only with the Comprehensive Internationalization framework by NAFSA: Association of International Educators (Hudzik, 2011; Hudzik and Stohl, 2012), but also with the broader contemporary scholarship on world language instruction as a cornerstone of international education, especially when paired with a study abroad experience (Aktas, Pitts, Richards, et al., 2017; Yeaton, Garcia, Soria, et al., 2017).

Despite the central role of foreign language learning in campus internationalization theory, even at those colleges and universities where language education was considered an important dimension of an international curriculum, language learning ranked among the “strategies least likely to be used by research universities” (Green, 2005: 18). Not without justification have critics of internationalization through language and intercultural learning pointed to various factors detrimental to the notion of language education as an internationalization strategy. Among such criticisms are, at times, poorly conceived post-secondary language curricula and external credit articulation, as well as instructional legacy structures and outdated language policies that make it difficult for departments to meet student expectations and teach active and real-world language proficiency, rather than theoretical and grammar-laden constructs (Byrnes, 1998, 2018; Pancrazio, 2016).

Such attitudes against the value of world language instruction are often reinforced by an insistence among monolingual English-speaking “linguistic free-riders” (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson, 2010: 92) that a meaningful international student experience is easily achieved without the burden of time-intensive language learning (Brustein, 2007) despite the dangers of perpetuating neo-imperialist and nativist English-only approaches (Altbach, 2007; Killick, 2015). Such beliefs and attitudes, as well as the fact that language enrollment at US institutions of higher learning has been in decline for close to a decade (Modern Language Association, no date), help to explain, at least partially, a systemic marginalization of world language instruction (Rifkin, 2012) in contemporary higher education.

Against such often deeply held deficit assumptions, we fully agree that “an equalized, inclusive, and more globally appropriate environment should also require English native-speakers to develop and exhibit capabilities to communicate effectively among those for whom English is not a first language” (Killick, 2015: 135, original emphasis). We argue, however, that mere code-switching to less nativist uses of English and “shifting the onus of responsibility for effective communication” toward native non-English speakers (136) is grossly insufficient. Because language is the mediator of all human experience, reflecting and affecting one’s view of the world (Fantini, 2012), developing some proficiency in another language affords learners an opportunity to: (a) gain an insider’s perspective toward target cultures’ traditions, customs, beliefs, and ways of behaving; (b) expand their own worldviews; (c) build intercultural sensitivity toward alternate perspectives and cultural differences; and (d) strengthen as well as expand their identity as a global citizen (Byram, 1997; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, et al., 2003; Norton, 2006; Risager, 2006).

Language teaching over the past decade has moved from a traditional focus on preparing students for higher academic pursuits to that of honing valuable skills for everyday use (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017). To this end, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) conceptualized its World-readiness standards for learning languages (ACTFL, 2015) via a taxonomy of actionable learning outcomes. For example, a learner’s ability to use, interact, understand, interpret, reflect, relate, investigate, present, and explain is embedded within five goals: effective and appropriate communication, embracing the perspectives of different cultures, forming cross-disciplinary connections, drawing linguistic and cultural comparisons, and participating in multilingual and multicultural communities. The expressed purpose of this approach is to expose learners at all levels to a “curriculum with richness and depth [and] provide a broad range of communicative experiences and content knowledge” (11) to support the development of communication strategies and “the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they will need as citizens and workers in a rapidly changing and globalized world” (Green and Schoenberg, 2006: iii).

Such changes to curricula and academic programs in the wake of college and university internationalization are visible throughout the western world (Bidyuk, 2016; Brandenburg and de Wit, 2011; Killick, 2017; Lumby and Foskett, 2016; Rumbley, Altbach and Reisberg, 2012). What frequently compels institutions to internationalize, however, are rationales solidly anchored in a neoliberal profit-centered agenda, such as the need to generate increased external funding through international research collaborations and enhancing one’s prestige by attaining ever higher global rankings in hopes of attracting more international students and benefitting from the influx of tuition revenue (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Busch, 2017; Green, 2012; Knight, 2012; Levin, 2017). Over a decade ago, Stromquist (2007) purported that internationalization refers to “greater international presence by the dominant economic and political powers, usually guided by principles of marketing and competition” (82) and is, therefore, closely associated with entrepreneurialism and academic capitalism in higher education. In such an environment, language learning is seen by many as an “arduous and elitist undertaking that yields little return for the language learner and world languages department regarding investment of time, energy, and money” (Jansa and Nichols, 2019: 2) despite the growing recognition among colleges and universities that traditional STEM disciplines (Science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and the humanities must form an integrated educational ecosystem to meet today’s global challenges (Skorton and Bear, 2018).

Somewhat ironically, study-abroad programs have become a popular tool for colleges and universities to showcase their international activities while also generating readily available quantitative metrics to report to the institution’s leadership. Participation of American post-secondary students in study abroad has steadily increased over the past decade to 325,000 during the 2015/2016 academic year (around 1.7% of all students enrolled). In contrast, significantly more than one million foreign students were enrolled in US institutions in 2016/17 (Institute of International Education, no date). This begs the question of the vast majority of US post-secondary students are unable—or perhaps do not see the need—to participate in some form of study abroad. A 2013 study by Souto-Otero, Huisman, Beerkens, et al. within the context of the European Erasmus program identified a lack of language skills as one significant impediment to participation, although the Bologna Process (see Adelman, 2009; Brewer and Leask, 2012) has created a rather uniformly articulated academic landscape that greatly facilitates attending a university in one of the 48 participating countries in the European Higher Education Area. This observation is significant because many post-secondary institutions—especially in North America—use the number of study-abroad participants to assess, and often tout, their degree of internationalization. Therefore, not adequately leveraging world language programs may well constitute a sizeable structural constraint for intuitions to increase study abroad participation in the long term.

For those students who decide to study abroad, research has shown this experience can have a significant impact on their intercultural competence and knowledge about international affairs and regional idiosyncrasies (Paige and Goode, 2009). Meaningful study-abroad programs can further enhance open-mindedness and emotional resilience and contribute to a participant’s desire to pursue further international opportunities after graduation (Kinginger, 2013). Such programs can also serve the holistic development of students as global citizens in cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal terms by changing attitudes toward people from other ethnicities and cultures (Braskamp, Braskamp and Merrill, 2009; De Wit and Jones, 2018; Shaftel, Shaftel and Ahluwalia, 2007). Despite the many advantages of on-site international exposure, Shaftel et al. (2007) found the degree to which students acquire said skills depends on the duration of the experience—an important finding because many students are hesitant or unable to commit to long-term stays abroad and often limit themselves to short stays of one to four weeks (Dessoff, 2006; Institute of International Education, no date). Although certainly not without value, short-term study-abroad experiences more often than not provide a rather superficial view of the local culture, which limits students’ opportunities to develop a deep understanding of cultural differences. In fact, a lack of pre-program intercultural sensitivity development has been found to be an obstacle to students’ growth, both in language learning and intercultural competence development, during their time abroad (Magnan and Back, 2007). Some research has demonstrated a relationship between the acquisition of intercultural competence and language learning (Brecht, Davidson and Ginsberg, 1993; Martinsen, 2008). The ability to communicate in a second language is a fundamental component of intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997; Garrett-Rucks, 2014; Fantini, 2012). As noted by Fantini and Garrett-Rucks (2016), communicating in a new language with a native speaker helps to foster learners’ intercultural competence, even if the learner has a minimal level of proficiency. The authors further explain this idea as follows:

Grappling with a new language confronts how one perceives, conceptualizes, and expresses oneself and fosters the development of alternative communication strategies on someone else’s terms. This challenging and humbling process facilitates transcending and transforming how one understands the world. Lack of proficiency in a second language—even at a minimal level—constrains one to continue to think about the world and act within it only in one’s native system, and deprives the individual of a valuable aspect of the intercultural experience. (Fantini and Garrett-Rucks, 2016: 14)

Garrett-Rucks (2013) documented the shift away from ethnocentric thinking in her case study on a beginning US French language learner’s changing perspective toward alternate French cultural practices in an online discussion. In this study, the researcher showed how the infusion of meaningful cultural instruction that guides learners to reflect on the diverse worldviews in their own culture compared to the diverse worldviews in the target culture helped maximize one language learner’s acceptance of alternate worldviews in the target cultures of a beginning language class. However, the study of the immediate impact of language learning on the development of intercultural skills beyond the inclusion of cultural knowledge in language textbooks—albeit often in the form of short vignettes—warrants further study (Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017).

Language policies and multilingualism in the 21^st century

Monolingualism has been called the “illiteracy of the twenty-first century” (Roberts, Leite and Wade, 2017: 116). Today’s post-secondary institutions have certainly understood that internationalizing their course offerings, extra-curricular opportunities, and curricula has the power to make their students better prepared for life and work in the current globalized society and workplace (Rumbley et al., 2012; Soria and Troisi, 2014; Yeaton et al., 2017). Without a doubt, newcomers to today’s job market will inevitably “find themselves interacting with others who are different, perhaps different in their values, perhaps in the simple ways in which they prefer to enact their lives, perhaps in the choices and freedoms they have” (Killick, 2017: 1). It is therefore in the best interests of academic and vocational post-secondary institutions alike to provide the tools, skills, and knowledge that enable students to interact in a meaningful intercultural dialogue. The Council of Europe (2016) has found such an approach to be crucial for building and maintaining the “values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding which enable an individual to participate effectively and appropriately in a culture of democracy” (11). Due to the socio-political dimension of an international mindset, Kirk and colleagues (2018) posited that global citizenship constitutes a vital graduate attribute that involves social and civic responsibilities and can be achieved through strategic and concerted internationalization of the curriculum.

Given the pervasive impact of globalization on higher education, scholars have long argued in favor of developing global and intercultural skills to guide postsecondary learning outcomes (Bennett, 1993; Taylor, 1994). Campus internationalization activities, therefore, constitute a response to the need to educate interculturally—and linguistically—astute global citizens (Yeaton et al., 2017). Many graduates will find that a large number of today’s business leaders demand linguistically and culturally astute employees who possess not only a specialized skill set for the job, but also critical thinking skills, a broad and diverse world view, and working knowledge of at least one language other than English (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2013, 2016; Joint National Committee for Languages, 2015). This is evident in the growing number of job postings explicitly addressed to bilingual candidates (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017). However, in addition to showing a “demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems” (Hart Research Associates, 2013: 22), employers also seek intercultural skills and global knowledge amongst their applicants. An international curriculum that includes both targeted language and intercultural components, therefore, has the power to provide graduates with growth opportunities and a mental toolkit highly sought-after in today’s job market (Jones, 2013; Rizvi, 2017). Consequently, fostering global literacy in students in the 21st century means preparing them to "recognize global interdependence, be capable of working in various environments, and accept responsibility for world citizenship" (Spaulding, Mauch and Lin, 2001: 190).

As one of today’s most ardent proponents of curriculum internationalization, Betty Leask (2015) has defined a number of student learning outcomes as a result of a clearly articulated internationalized curriculum focused on teaching the types of global skills and awareness outlined above. Among these are in-depth intercultural knowledge, an appreciation of cultural diversity and conflicting perspectives, the ability to adapt to a variety of cultural social and professional settings, the capacity to relate to people from various backgrounds, and a multi-dimensional mindset that fosters problem solving in alignment with local, national, and international contexts. Although the author cautioned against casual use of the frequently used term global citizenship, she nonetheless stressed that these dimensions of knowledge and skills support an individual’s ability to function as a responsible actor in a globally interconnected world.

Analogous to global citizenship, Soria and Troisi (2014) defined global competencies as “knowledge about several dimensions of global and international cultures; appreciation of cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity; understanding of complexities of issues in a global context; and comfort in working with people from other cultures” (262). The authors’ findings further supported the notion that student participation in broadly articulated internationalization activities, such as study abroad and globally focused academic coursework or symposia, correlates positively with self-reported global competence. The understanding that most of today’s problems cannot be solved unilaterally and require a global mindset and related functional competencies also agrees with the definition of global skills set forth by the National Education Association (NEA), which the organization called a 21st century imperative. To this end, the NEA (2010: 1) lists not only international awareness (the “knowledge and understanding of world history, socioeconomic and political systems, and other global events”) and an appreciation of cultural diversity (the “ability to know, understand, and appreciate people from other cultures along with the capacity to acknowledge other points of view about pressing world issues” and readiness to accept differences to the benefit of “productive and respectful cross-cultural relations”), but also proficiency in world languages as a central skill for life in the 21st century.

It is not only the business community that has become increasingly vocal about the vital importance of language and intercultural learning in contemporary education. On 26 May 2010, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations about the importance of a global approach to education, then US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan stated:

We have an important responsibility to provide opportunities for those who want to master other languages and prepare them to support America's economic and strategic interests as diplomats, foreign policy analysts, and leaders in the military. This is a high-stakes issue. For too long, Americans have relied on other countries to speak our language. But we won't be able to do that in the increasingly complex and interconnected world. To prosper economically and to improve relations with other countries, Americans need to read, speak and understand other languages. It's absolutely essential for the citizens of the United States to become fluent in other languages—and schools, colleges and universities must include producing bilingual students as a central part of their mission. (Duncan, 2010)

However, counter such proclamations, which are often embedded in the interests of national security (Council on Foreign Relations, 2012), US educational policy has long neglected the role of world language learning. For instance, in 2007, the US Congress enacted the America COMPETES Act, which stipulated the development and implementation of academic programs for both language learning and teacher education is critical in the interest of maintaining national competitiveness. When the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 passed in January of 2011, it included no mention of languages and presented a singular focus on the STEM disciplines. Even the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, the latest reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, did little to afford non-English languages greater prominence.

Despite the predominance of STEM in public debate and policy, policymakers have begun to act on calls for greater language and intercultural fluency among the American public, although at times more in response to business interest rather than based on a genuine understanding of the topic, as is arguably the case with the National Seal of Biliteracy (Jansa and Brezicha, 2017). A recent report (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017) in which the authors examined the status of languages in general, as well as language learning and teaching in the US, was a notable direct result of a bipartisan Congressional commission. Other initiatives recognize and support the societal, economic, political, and national security interests of maintaining a linguistically and culturally astute populace across the K-20 educational spectrum. Among these programs are the National Security Agency’s and National Foreign Language Center’s STARTALK initiative, as well as the Language Flagship program as part of the National Security Education Program within the Department of Defense. The US Department of Education’s Title VI grants support language education by providing funding for National Foreign Language Resource Centers, Centers for International Business Education and Research, and National Resource Centers, as well as the Foreign Language and Area Studies and Fulbright-Hays programs. On 13 November 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed House Resolution H.R. 4379 ("Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Program Act of 2017"), which recognized the ability of study abroad programs to “provide students with unparalleled access to international knowledge, an unmatched opportunity to learn foreign languages, and a unique environment for developing cultural understanding, all of which are knowledge and skills needed in today’s global economy” (Sec. 2[2]). In light of the appreciation of language and intercultural learning at both the state and federal level, all institutions of higher learning may wish not only to consider world languages as a part of a traditional humanities curriculum, but leverage language-related programs and resources actively and make language education a core component of their internationalization efforts.

Two sides of the same coin: Language proficiency and intercultural competence

The previous discussion presented intercultural communicative competence (ICC) as a central tenet of the type of internationalized curricula promulgated by Leask (2015) and others. As early as the 1920s, Sapir and Whorf (1921) introduced the notion of linguistic relativity, hypothesizing that a link exists between our culture and linguistic background and that our worldview is shaped by the language structures we use. Most scholars today consider the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis a seminal framework to explain the relationship between language use and cultural expression. Sociolinguistic studies from the late 1980s and 1990s highlighted the close relationship between language and culture by deconstructing how language development and socialization contribute to the development of cultural identities and cultural models of the world (Risager, 2006). The American anthropologist Michael Agar (2004) is among those who have explored the concept of linguaculture—a term used to imply the indivisible nature of language and culture. Following in Agar’s footsteps, Risager (2015) studied how the meaning of words in relation to cultural concepts translates between sociocultural contexts and how the use of language shapes a group’s identity. She further conceptualized language as both a resource, due to its vocabulary and linguistic system, as well as a practice based on the way our language expresses our worldview, with both dimensions continually affecting the other. As Fantini (2012) pointedly remarked, “our entire view of the world is shaped in our minds, aided and influenced by the linguistic system to which we were exposed from birth” (264).

In line with Deardorff’s (2006) Process Model for Intercultural Competence, we recognize and concur that ICC is a complex function of multiple components, among which are language proficiency and global awareness. Yet, we maintain that it is the very interaction and confluence of multiple such factors—not the least of which is active communicative ability in at least one non-English language—that invariably contributes to the emergence and development of attitudes and skills university graduates both seek and require. Extant scholarship not only cements the importance of language learning as it relates to cultural concepts, but also underscores the significance of second language education at internationalizing colleges and universities (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017; AAC&U, 2007; Davies, 1992; Hudzik, 2011, 2015). Therefore, ICC and proficiency in non-English languages must form a central pillar of internationalization of Western campuses because they not only create understanding of situations and people from diverse cultures, but also engender attitudes that move beyond ethnocentric thinking and exemplify the skills and behaviors that promote productive and effective communication among and across cultures (Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997; Garrett-Rucks, 2014, 2016). In support of such goals, today’s standards for language and intercultural learning are documented in the ACTFL and the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages (NCSSFL) Can-Do Statements (ACTFL, 2017; Moeller and Yu, 2015) that are based on the understanding that ICC and language proficiency are two sides of the same coin—separate but inseparable, mutually dependent yet often viewed in isolation, and both crucial to global awareness and a mindset we as post-secondary educators and administrators have the duty to instill in our graduate if we wish to prepare them for life, work, and citizenship in the 21^st century.

A call for proficiency-oriented, student-centered internationalization

Scholars of various learning theories have long hypothesized that motivated adult learners are intrinsically driven by the desire to attain the proficiency, skills, and knowledge needed to deal with real-life problems and situations (Knowles, 1988). Concurrently, the relevance of curricular content and the degree to which it can be acquired in an autonomous and inquiry-driven fashion has been shown to significantly enhance learning outcomes among adults (Sogunro, 2015). Ambrose et al. (2010) proposed a framework in which learning motivation is seen as a function of what educational content learners value and the extent to which content delivery aligns with their expectancy. Motivation, in turn, affects goal-directed behavior that enables learners to apply new knowledge and skills to real-world problems. In line with calls by leaders in industry, government, nonprofits, and other stakeholders for a workforce adept at both problem-solving and adaptive culturally appropriate communication, many of our college and university students “seek greater opportunities that facilitate a deeper emphasis on communication, collaboration, and cooperation” (Miller, 2017: 3215). To this end, Mills and Moulton (2017) found only recently that language learners highly value active interpersonal and presentational skills in a foreign language, especially when these are seen to enhance their professional and career prospects.

The central question that emerges from this discussion is how international educators and college or university administrators can ensure that their institution’s internationalization efforts meet the needs and expectations of a burgeoning global citizenry and workforce. If students expect their post-secondary education to yield instrumental outcomes that enable them to function effectively and appropriately in an interconnected international environment, is it not the responsibility of any institution to include the teaching of language and intercultural competence as a central pillar of their internationalization activities?

The answer to this question may well be dictated by institutional priorities and the reason, or reasons, why internationalization occurs in the first place. At some colleges and universities, the internationalization process may be driven primarily by the desire to attain prestige through national and global university rankings, economic gain in response to neoliberal pressures to increase revenue through tuition and external sponsorship, or the need to generate quantitative metrics related to research output, international faculty collaborations, or number of participants in study abroad programs irrespective of duration, content, or outcome. Those institutions, where the needs of students are arguably not key drivers of institutional strategy, may not see much value in the teaching and learning of non-English languages and related intercultural skills. Although we recognize that some (or most) of the aforementioned rationales for engaging in internationalization activities are crucial to running an economically viable institution, we maintain that those colleges and universities that prioritize student growth and meaningful learning outcomes as drivers of curricular decisions, should consider placing more emphasis on the teaching of linguistic and intercultural skills, attitudes, and proficiencies discussed in this article.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to outline the reasons why world language education and the development of intercultural skills among our students are imperative to achieving truly comprehensive and holistic internationalization at 21st century post-secondary campuses. We have argued that both linguistic and intercultural competence constitute vital skills most of today’s graduates expect from their post-secondary education. No matter a student’s aspirations after graduation, the literature reviewed in this article unequivocally supports the notion that such skills are needed to function in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world.

Although some of our colleagues may remain critical of the utility and necessity of including language proficiency as a college and university internationalization strategy and assessment metric, English-only monolinguals will likely find themselves at a significant competitive disadvantage in the job market on graduation. We recognize that many language departments and their instructional leaders may need to build further capacity to enact curricular change to meet the demand for real-life practical proficiency; they may also need to increase their efforts to be heard and recognized as active players at their institution. However, we stress that investing in language programs and integrating them into a concerted internationalization approach will ultimately improve not only the educational experience of our students, but also enhance an institution’s status as a multi-faceted provider of a valuable training that benefit not only the university but, above all, those we educate.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Paula Garrett-Rucks, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Foreign Language Education and French at Georgia State University. She is an active researcher on the formation of learners’ cultural perceptions and stereotypes, the role of affect in second language learning, and digital L2 literacy.

Tim Jansa, EdD, is a scholar and administrator with more than 20 years of experience in adult language and intercultural education, training, and higher education administration. His research centers on leadership at the intersection of postsecondary internationalization with world language teaching and learning. He holds a doctorate in educational leadership from Georgia State University.

References

Adelman

(2009) The Bologna Process for U.S. eyes: Re-learning Higher Education in the Age of Convergence. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Agar

(2004) We have met the other and we’re all nonlinear: Ethnography as a nonlinear dynamic system. Complexity 10(2): 16–24.

Aktas

Pitts

Richards

, et al. (2017) Institutionalizing global citizenship: A critical analysis of higher education programs and curricula. Journal of Studies in International Education 21(1): 65–80.

Altbach

(2007) The imperial tongue: English as the dominating academic language. Economic and Political Weekly 42(36): 3608–3611.

Altbach

Knight

(2007) The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 290–305.

Ambrose

Bridges

DiPietro

, et al. (2010) How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

America COMPETES Act, 20 U.S.C., Pub. L. No. 110–69 (9 August 2007).

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, 20 U.S.C., Pub. L. No. 111–356 (4 January 2011).

American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2013) The heart of the matter: The humanities and Social Sciences for a Vibrant, Competitive, and Secure Nation. Cambridge, MA: AAA&S.

10.

American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2016) The state of languages in the U.S.: A statistical portrait (Commission on Language Learning). Available at: https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/academy/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researchpapersmonographs/State-of-Languages-in-US.pdf

11.

American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2017) America's Languages: Investing in Language Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: AAA&S.

12.

American Council on Education ( 2017) Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses 2017. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/y8h673lh

13.

American Council on Education (no date) CIGE Model for Comprehensive Internationalization. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/kvs4pht

14.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2015) World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (4th ed). Alexandria: ACTFL.

15.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2017) NCSSFL/ACTFL can-do statements: Performance indicators for language learners. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/ybnmzf5p

16.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007) College learning for the new global century (Report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America's Promise). Available at: AAC&U website: https://tinyurl.com/jcj2skf

17.

Bennett

(1993) Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In: Paige

(ed) Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, pp. 21–71.

18.

Bidyuk

(2016) Higher education globalization in the context of American guidelines. Comparative Professional Pedagogy 6(4): 7–14.

19.

Brandenburg

de Wit

(2011) The end of internationalization. International Higher Education 62: 14–15.

20.

Braskamp

Merrill

(2009) Assessing progress in global learning and development of students with education abroad experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 13: 101–118.

21.

Brecht

Davidson

Ginsberg

(1993) Predictors of Foreign Language Gain during Study Abroad. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.

22.

Brewer

Leask

(2012) Internationalization of the curriculum. In: Deardorff

de Wit

Heyl

et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 245–265.

23.

Brustein

(2007) The global campus: Challenges and opportunities for higher education in North America. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 382–391.

24.

Busch

(2017) The Knowledge for Sale: The Neoliberal Takeover of Higher Education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

25.

Byram

(1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters.

26.

Byrnes

(1998) Constructing curricula in collegiate foreign language departments. In: Byrnes

(ed) Learning Foreign and Second Languages: Perspectives in Research and Scholarship. New York: Modern Language Association, pp. 264–295.

27.

Byrnes

(2018) Toward a framework for US collegiate foreign language instruction: Curricular considerations. In: Coffey

Wingate

(ed) New directions for research in Foreign Language Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 200–222.

28.

Council of Europe (2016) Competences for democratic culture: Living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/me7fsmj

29.

Council on Foreign Relations (2012) U.S. education reform and national security (Independent Task Force Report No. 68). Available at: https://tinyurl.com/ybnqahdf

30.

Davies

(1992) Developing a strategy for internationalization in universities: Towards a conceptual framework. In: Klasek

(ed) Bridges to the Future: Strategies for Internationalizing Higher Education. Chicago: AIEA, pp. 177–190.

31.

De Wit

Jones

(2018) Inclusive internationalization: Improving access and equity. International Higher Education 94: 16–18.

32.

Deardorff

(2006) Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education 10(3): 241–266.

33.

Deardorff

Arasaratnam-Smith

(2017) Intercultural competence in international higher education: Emerging themes, issues, implications, and future directions. In: Deardorf

Arasaratnam-Smith

(eds) Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application. New York: Routledge, pp. 294–302.

34.

Dessoff

(2006) Who’s not going abroad? International Educator 15(2): 20–27.

35.

Duncan

(2010) Education and the language gap (Secretary Arne Duncan's remarks at the Foreign Language Summit). Available at: https://tinyurl.com/z7hxhn5

36.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Pub. L. No. 114–95, 1177 Stat. (10 December 2015).

37.

Fantini

(2012) Language: An essential component of intercultural communicative competence. In: Jackson

(ed) Routledge handbook of language and Intercultural Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 263–278.

38.

Fantini

Garrett-Rucks

(2016) Expanding our educational goals: Exploring intercultural competence. Dimension Special Issue: Focus on Intercultural Competence 6–21.

39.

Garrett-Rucks

(2013) Maximizing cross-cultural understanding, minimizing stereotypes: Three case studies. The French Review 86(5): 14–33.

40.

Garrett-Rucks

(2014) Measuring instructed language learners’ IC development: Discrepancies between assessment models by Byram and Bennett. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 41(July): 181–191.

41.

Garrett-Rucks

(2016) Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

42.

Green

(2005) Measuring Internationalization at Research Universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

43.

Green

(2012) Universities must be clear and honest about internationalisation. University World News. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/crwvdkj

44.

Green

Schoenberg

(2006) Where Faculty Live: Internationalizing the Disciplines. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

45.

Hart Research Associates (2013) It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Liberal Education 99(2): 22–29.

46.

Hudzik

(2011) Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action. Washington, DC: NAFSA.

47.

Hudzik

McCarthy

(2012) Leading Comprehensive Internationalization: Strategy and Tactics for Action. Washington, DC: NAFSA.

48.

Hudzik

Stohl

(2012) Comprehensive and strategic internationalization of U.S. higher education. In: Deardorff

De Wit

Heyl

, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 61–80.

49.

Hudzik

(2015) Comprehensive Internationalization: Institutional Pathways to Success. New York: Routledge.

50.

Institute of International Education (n.d.) Open Doors. Available at: https://www.iie.org/opendoors

51.

Jansa

Brezicha

(2017) The Georgia Seal of Biliteracy: Exploring the nexus of politics and language education. Dimension: 32–48.

52.

Jansa

Nichols

(2019) At the crossroads: Learning to speak the (foreign) language of higher education leadership. ADFL Bulletin 45(2): 14–23.

53.

Joint National Committee for Languages (2015) The contributions of language to the economic interests of the United States (Briefing paper for the Commission on Language Learning of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences). Available at: https://tinyurl.com/mt3lbbu

54.

Jones

(2013) Internationalization and employability: The role of intercultural experiences in the development of transferable skills. Public Money and Management 33(2): 95–104.

55.

Killick

(2015) Developing the Global Student: Higher Education in an Era of Globalization. New York: Routledge.

56.

Killick

(2017) Internationalization and Diversity in higher education: Implications for teaching, Learning and Assessment. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

57.

Kinginger

(2013) Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 46(3): 339–358.

58.

Kirk

Newstead

Gann

, et al. (2018) Empowerment and ownership in effective internationalisation of the higher education curriculum. Higher Education 76(6): 989–1005.

59.

Knight

(2012) Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In: Deardorff

De Wit

Heyl

, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 27–42.

60.

Knowles

(1988) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (Revised ed.). New York: Cambridge Book Company.

61.

Leask

(2015) Internationalizing the Curriculum. New York: Routledge.

62.

Levin

(2017) Community Colleges and New Universities under Neoliberal Pressures: Organizational Change and Stability. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

63.

Lumby

Foskett

(2016) Internationalization and culture in higher education. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 44(1): 95–111.

64.

Magnan

Back

(2007) Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 40(1): 43–61.

65.

Martinsen

(2008) Short-term study abroad: Predicting changes in oral skills. Foreign Language Annals 43(3): 504–530.

66.

Miller

(2017) Exploring 21st century collaboration through a curricular lens at the University of Wisconsin La Crosse. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education 8(4): 3215–3224.

67.

Mills

Moulton

(2017) Students’ and instructors’ perceived value of language and content curricular goals. Foreign Language Annals 50(4): 717–733.

68.

Modern Language Association (2007) Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world (MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages). Profession 2007: 234–245.

69.

Modern Language Association (no date) Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/qx2uwzd

70.

Moeller

(2015) NCSSFL-ACTFL can-do statements: An effective tool for improving language learning within and outside the classroom. Dimension 2015: 50–69.

71.

National Education Association (2010) Global competence is a 21st century imperative (Policy Brief PB28A). Available at: NEA website: https://tinyurl.com/yb27uv8q

72.

Noels

Pelletier

Clément

, et al. (2003) Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 53(1): 33–64.

73.

Norton

(2006) Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. In: Cadman K and O’Regan K (eds) TESOL in Context (Special Issue). pp. 22–23.

74.

Olson

Green

Hill

(2005) Building a Strategic Framework for Comprehensive Internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

75.

Paige

Goode

(2009) Intercultural competence in international education administration - Cultural mentoring: International education professionals and the development of intercultural competence In: DK Deardorff (ed) The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 333–349.

76.

Pancrazio

(2016) Enrollment sustainability in foreign language programs. ADFL Bulletin 44(1): 52–57.

77.

Rifkin

(2012) The world language curriculum at the center of postsecondary education. Liberal Education 98(3): 54–57.

78.

Risager

(2006) Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

79.

Risager

(2015) Linguaculture: The language-culture nexus in transnational perspective. In: Sharifian

(ed) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 87–99.

80.

Rizvi

(2017). School internationalization and its implications for higher education. In: De Wit

Gacel-Ávila

Jones

, et al. (eds) The Globalization of Internationalization: Emerging Voices and Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 18–26.

81.

Roberts

Leite

Wade

(2017) Monolingualism is the illiteracy of the twenty-first century. Hispania 100(5): 116–118.

82.

Rudzki

REJ

(1995) The application of a strategic management model to the internationalization of higher education institutions. Higher Education 29(4): 421–441.

83.

Rumbley

Altbach

Reisberg

(2012) Internationalization within the higher education context. In: Deardorff

De Wit

Heyl

, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 3–26.

84.

Sapir

(1921) Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

85.

Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Program Act of 2017, H.R. 4379, 601 Stat (2017)

86.

Shaftel

Ahluwalia

(2007) International educational experience and intercultural competence. Journal of Business and Economics 6(1): 25–34.

87.

Skorton

Bear

(eds) (2018) The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

88.

Skutnabb-Kangas

Phillipson

(2010) The global politics of language: Markets, maintenance, marginalization or murder. In: Coupland

(ed) The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Singapore: Blackwell, pp. 77–100.

89.

Sogunro

(2015) Motivating factors for adult learners in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education 4(1): 22–37.

90.

Soria

Troisi

(2014) Internationalization at home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students' development of global, international, and intercultural competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education 18(3): 261–280.

91.

Souto-Otero

Huisman

Beerkens

, et al. (2013) Barriers to international student mobility evidence from the Erasmus program. Educational Researcher 42(2): 70–77.

92.

Spaulding

Mauch

Lin

(2001) The Internationalization of higher education: Policy and program issues. In: O’Meara

Mehlinger

Ma Newman

(eds) Changing Perspectives in International Education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 190–212.

93.

Spencer-Oatey

Dauber

(2016) Strategic Planning for Internationalization: Fostering Global Graduates through "Global Education" Experiences. Available at: University of Warwick: http://tinyurl.com/y8r8smoq

94.

Stromquist

(2007) Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university environments. Higher Education 53(1): 81–105.

95.

Taylor

(1994) Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly 44(3): 154–174.

96.

Yeaton

Garcia

Soria

, et al. (2017) Cultivating global citizens for the global good. In: Alphin

Chan

Lavine

(eds) The Future of Accessibility in International Higher Education (1st ed). Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 1–20.

For whom are we internationalizing? A call to prioritize second language learning in internationalization efforts

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Language policies and multilingualism in the 21st century

Two sides of the same coin: Language proficiency and intercultural competence

A call for proficiency-oriented, student-centered internationalization

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

Author biographies

References

Language policies and multilingualism in the 21^st century