The Place of Foreign Language
Training in Area Studies:
the Case of Russian and Eurasian
Languages
Dr. Dan E. Davidson
American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS
Area Studies in the Future of Higher Education
February 28, 2009, Indiana University
New meanings, new contexts…
The L-2 learner “strives to speak, write, and
understand those who use a different semiotic
system, ..to predict text from context, and context
from text.” “Besides everyday conversation, these
social processes include the production and critical
interpretation of cultural values, attitudes, and
beliefs.” Kramsch, 2002
By their everyday acts of meaning, people act out the
social structure, affirming their own statuses and
roles, and establishing and transmitting the shared
systems of value and of knowledge. M.A.K. Halliday,
1978 (Kramsch, 2002)
What does it mean to know a
language?
Social Language, Speech Genre
Slavic tradition has defined “language” as a larger concept that
included culture (Shpet, Bakhtin, Vygotsky).
A Slavic elaboration on shaping a multi-cultural identity through
membership in a speech community, current and historic:
Dialogism applies to individual words and utterances, but also to
the language system as a whole, which is embedded with the
products of a continuing generalized collective dialogue with
“other” users of the language. “To know a language, you must
also “know” the general collective dialogue.” (“Inner Form of the
Word,” Shpet, 1927.)
“Dialogical Overtones”
“A word is always half someone else’s. It has to be
populated, adjusted, before it is yours. Words carry
the scent of other voices.” Shpet, 1927
“Much of what we loosely refer to as a word’s
“connotations” may in fact be the “stylistic aura”
resulting from the word’s usual generic context.
Typical contexts seem to “adhere to words.”
(Bakhtin, SG, 87).
“After all, when we speak, we do not select the words
we use from a dictionary. Rather we take them from
other utterances that are kindred to ours in genre.”
(Bakhtin,SG 87, ‘79).
From The Subjective Worlds of
Russian and American Youth:
Help/Помощь
Russians associate help with meeting
their emotional needs and see help as
based strongly on positive ties and
attitudes, including love and
understanding as a source of joy and
hope.
Country, Government
Work, School, Home
Need, Necessity
Poverty, Misfortune
Americans focus more on the type of
action-oriented assistance provided in
emergencies. They link help to feelings
of grief and fear.
Emergency, Accident
Family, Friends
Ambulance, Doctor
Fear, Grief, Despair
Both groups address problems of society
such as hunger and poverty, but only the
Americans think of help as providing
solutions.
911, Call, SOS
Rescue, Solution
Teacher, Police
Love, Friendship, Joy
Aid, Support
US
Russia 0
5
N = 1617 US, 1583 Rus
10
15
20
25
30
Both groups consider family and friends
as important in providing and receiving
help, but only the Americans consider
their own individual need for help and
think in terms of asking for help.
From The Subjective Worlds of
Russian and American Youth:
Success/Успех
The most important indicators of
success for Americans are money and
material possessions, as well as
power. Success to Americans is a
matter of business, achievements, and
personal performance.
Money, Wealth
Happiness, Joy
Power, Glory
Achievement, Victory
Russians think of success as joy,
happiness, love, well-being, and
satisfaction. Work and labor are also
sources of success. Russians view
success somewhat fatalistically and as
a matter of luck.
Luck, Goals
Work, Business
Education
Family, Friends
Failure, Greed, Pain
These differences in perspectives
reflect social experiences between the
two systems, one which glorifies
business and entrepreneurial skills and
one which glorifies work.
House, Car, Clothes
Life, Future
Misc
US
Russia 0
N = 1723 US, 1555 Rus
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Comparison of
Pre- and Post-Program
Oral Proficiency Scores
Semester Students (N=1229)
50
% of students with a given score
45
42
Pre-Program
39
40
Post-Program
35
30
25
25
22
21
18
20
15
9
10
5
1
9
7
3
0
0
Zero
Zero+
3
0
2
0
One-
One
One+
Proficiency Score
Tw o
Tw o+
Three
Comparison of
Pre- and Post-Program
Oral Proficiency Scores
Academic Year Students (N = 249)
50
45
Pre-Program
40
Post-Program
34
35
30
Percent
30
25
23
19
20
15
10
26
24
12
9
8
5
7
2
3
Tw o +
Three
0
2
0
Zero +
One -
One
One +
Tw o
Oral Proficiency Scores
Three +
Percent
Comparison of Pre- and Post-Program Oral Proficiency Scores*:
Russian Flagship Program 2004-2007
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Pre-Program
Post-Program
65.7
51.4
25.7
8.6
1+
5.7
2
17.1
8.6
2+
3
3+
14.3
4
2.9
4+
Oral Proficiency Levels
Note. * ACTFL OPI scores were converted into ILR scores; post-program OPI scores from FSI were
used for students receiving a U.S. government fellowship.
Percent
Pre- and Post-Program TORFL Scores:
Listening
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
48.6
42.9
8.6
2-
2
2+
42.9
11.4
14.3
3-
3
17.1
8.6
3+
Proficiency Levels
Pre-Program
Post-Program
4-
5.7
4
4+
Strengthening the Core Architecture of the
Russian Field: ACTR Models
Professional Development of Teachers:
Summer Institutes at Moscow State University and
the Herzen Pedagogical Univ (SPB)
Stateside Summer Institutes (Prototype AP
Russian Teacher Certification, NEH)
On-Line Resource Sharing for Teachers
(RussNet.org)
Visiting Curriculum Consultant Programs
“Front Page Dialog” ACTR Letter
Strengthening the Architecture of the Russian
Language Teaching Field: ACTR Models
Student and Teacher Recognition and Incentive
Programs:
1. High School Olympiada (regional, national,
international)
2. Scholar Laureate Programs: Secondary and PostSecondary
3. National Essay Contests; Secondary and Post
Secondary
4. Scholarship Programs to support study abroad:
Fulbright-Hays, Title VIII(State), The Russian
Flagship
Strategic Marketing of the Study
of Russian
Identify programs and support teachers and
students within them
Link students and programs to opportunities
for growth and recognition
Create and support through dedicated space
on social networks FaceBook, YouTube
Provide incentives to start, continue, and
pursue the language to the
advanced/professional levels, through
stipends, scholarships, and public recognition
ACTR Models: Strengthening the Field
through Research
Supporting and conducting research on
Russian and SLA
Russian Language Journal (57 years)
ACTR Newsletter, “Front-Page Dialog
Russian-American Collaborative Research
Conferences and Publication Series (1974 –
2008)
Participation in the International Association
of Teachers of Russian (MAPRIAL) since
1974.
Strengthening the Field through Professional
Networking and Collaborations
Active Participation and cooperation with sister
organizations and projects:
JNCL, Alliance, Consortium on I-HE, WIEG
College Board: Prototype AP Russian Project
National Board of Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS)
MLA/ADFL, ACTFL, AATSEEL, AAASS, NAFSA
National Standards Collaborative
The Language Flagship Partnership
(innovation in US FL more generally)
Strengthening the Language Field: ACTR
Curriculum Development, IT, and
Publications
Collaborative Materials Development from Basic
through Flagship Level III Russian: Stage One (Live
from Russia!) video-based course 2008 to “Flagship
Russian, 2007”
High School Basal Series: Face to Face!
Content-Based Series: Political Russian, Business
Russian Media, Scientific Russian, “Peers” (Russian
for Heritage Learners); Russian Nature Conservation
Bilingual Newsletter
ACTR non-profit publications and on-line proficiency
based exams: 0+ to Level 3 (reading, listening,
integrated tasks).
Strengthening the Field: ACTR Models for
Design and Implementation of Overseas Study
Organization of Integrated Study Abroad
Programs at partner universities and schools
in Russia and the Russophone world: ACTR
Study Abroad and Flagship Programs since
1976.
Merit- and Needs-based scholarship and
fellowship programs to support participation
in overseas language training or combined
language training and research: $1.2 million
annually at all levels from K-12 – post-doc.
Current and Predicted Growth:
Russian in US Higher Education
Today Russian offered at the university
level in all 50 states and DC
MLA 2006 reports 24,845 enrollments,
up 3.9% over 2002
27.3% are advanced-level courses (the
highest noted %)
Accelerated growth reported by many
US programs since 2006
Current and Predicted Growth:
Russian in the Schools
Total current number not known: estimates
range from 150 to 320 programs
Total enrollments not known: estimates range
from 3000 - 5000.
40 schools participated in the Prototype AP
Russian, taken by 350 students
1490 students participated in the h/s
Olympiada
1200 in the h/s essay contest
6 new Russian FLAP programs funded in
2007-8
Current and Predicted Growth:
Russian in US education
Currently, 26% of US students who study
overseas during college began their study of
the language in high school
Research shows measureable benefits of the
“early start” for language acquired through
h/s learning
In 2008-9, ACTR will launch the first
comprehensive outreach and linkage program
to h/s learners of Russian with the goal of
increasing the number of freshmen
enrollments by 25% by 2012.
Internal and External Factors
Influencing the Future of Russian
Russian field architecture maintained despite serious
drop in enrollments in the 1990’s. Field can respond
to modest increases in demand. Would have
difficulty responding to a major “surge.”
Need to re-structure graduate edu- Russian/SLA
Russian-speaking diaspora is larger than the current
population of Russia: 142m versus 180 m (est.)
Growth in the Russophone Heritage Community in
the US from 240K to 4.5 million
Geo-political and global economic situation has
always affected Russian enrollments
Russian as the lingua-franca of much of Eurasia and
immediate borderlands; one of 6 UN languages
Internal and External Factors
Influencing the Future of Russian
Investment in the Russian field by US and Russian
governments (Titles VI and VIII), Russkiy Mir (2007)
Inclusion of Russian in the Language Flagship;
Strengthening of US-Russian/Eurasian business and
economic ties (//EEurope)
Continuing attraction of Russian culture for US youth:
literature, music, ballet, sports; science, IT, space,
environment, health care, energy, economics;
Ability of the field and others to communicate the
importance of all the above to decision makers at all
levels.