A P R I P R O U N D 1 O V E R V I E W
June 15, 2015
THIS SECTION PROVIDES THE READER WITH THE RESULTS OF THE INITIAL REVIEW OF ALL APRIP TEAM
REPORTS. ONE OF THE APRIP TEAM REPORTS FOLLOWS THIS SECTION.
The purpose of this report is to provide a high-level overview of Round 1 of the UMS Program Integration portion of the
Academic Portfolio Review and Integration Process (APRIP). Nine discipline-based teams met from January-May, 2015 to
discuss strategies to increase quality, access, and fiscal sustainability through inter-institutional collaboration. Teams
represented business, criminal justice, education, engineering, history, languages, marine science, nursing, and
recreation/tourism. Each provided a detailed report containing recommendations for further development.
On June 11, the Chief Academic Officers reviewed all nine team reports and determined which action items would be
pursued at this time. They presented and discussed their recommendations with the APRIP Oversight Committee on
June 12. They especially noted the following:
1.
The team reports represent extraordinary levels of time, thought, and effort on the part of over 100
individuals. The teams were working under very difficult conditions, both in terms of time available and
because so many of the factors required to implement One University were and remain undecided. CAOs
and the Oversight Committee are deeply grateful to these academic pioneers for their good work.
2.
The CAOs are recommending follow-up on many but not all of the team recommendations, based on a
variety of factors. They will return to the reports in the future as the system is able to lay more groundwork
for additional action steps.
3.
The CAOs will assign follow-up responsibility for recommended actions to individuals or groups that have
the appropriate responsibility and authority to bring them to life – in most cases to administrators or official
groups. Team input will continue to have value as needed, but they have fulfilled the responsibilities
requested of them.
ACTION ITEMS FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION
1. Business
a. Support the development of a single MBA for UMaine and USM. Increase recruitment efforts and expand
pipelines into that MBA from business programs at the other five campuses. Develop opportunities for students
in undergraduate majors other than business, as well, to move into this MBA.
b. Further develop a vision and plan for the business programs at the five smaller campuses. This plan should
further integrate, with intentionality, these programs to support them with more efficient operations, while also
encouraging campus differentiation where appropriate.
. Criminal Justice and Criminology
a. Establish a common community / professional advisory board.
c. Pursue ACJS certification / accreditation of the common associate’s degree.
3. Education
a. Re-institute System-wide Education Deans’ and Directors’ meetings to coordinate the work already being done
across the System, and to explore, plan, and implement other collaborative efforts going forward.
b. Continue work on the common Master of Education in Instructional Technology currently in development
between UMaine, USM, and UMF.
c. Continue work on the 3+2 program in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education currently in development between
USM and UMF, and the suspension of UM’s Counselor Education program.
d. Collaboratively deliver secondary education methods courses for all secondary candidates across the System.
e. Build pathways from all seven campuses into graduate work in Education.
f. Collaborate on course / program delivery across the seven campuses using the cohort model to the greatest
extent possible, to achieve the greatest possible access and efficiency.
4. Engineering
a. Develop a uniform curriculum for students in their first two years of mechanical engineering and electrical
engineering. Courses will be primarily delivered on site, but will be fully transferable to facilitate student transfer
between UM and USM.
b. Move a selection of upper-level courses toward more online pedagogy to facilitate sharing those courses
between the two campuses.
c. Establish curricular committees in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering to meet each semester to
ensure that first-two year curricula remain aligned and to ensure that the coordination is operating effectively
and efficiently.
d. Develop curricula at the five smaller campuses to allow those students, after one or two years, to transfer into
the engineering programs at UM and/or USM.
e. Develop uniform course numbering in the core areas—mathematics, physics, and chemistry—to facilitate
transfer and ensure consistency.
5. History
a. Develop a stronger pathway from the various undergraduate programs into the graduate program at UMaine,
and invite all UMS history faculty to apply for admission into UMaine’s graduate faculty.
b. Explore the possibility of merging the four current undergraduate programs into a single program that would be
available on all seven campuses, in order to sustain and build the availability of history curriculum. Encourage
differentiation in areas of expertise at various campuses, to further build the diversity of history education.
6. Languages
a. Continue the existing French and Spanish degree programs, with access at all seven campuses, initially with a
focus on language acquisition.
b. Expand language acquisition opportunities in other languages such as Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic. For
example, Chinese could be offered through USM’s Confucius Institute.
c. Continue the M.A. in Applied Teaching in French and Spanish.
d. Coordinate and integrate all UMS study abroad offices to expand and support study abroad on all seven
campuses.
7. Marine Sciences
a. Develop joint, blended, team-taught, etc. courses in a variety of ways, such as distance courses with field-based
components. Take advantage of short course opportunities, such as one day per week, summers, weekends, etc.
that allow rich use of off-site facilities.
b. Articulate the curricula, particularly with learning outcomes at upper levels, to facilitate students moving from
undergraduate into graduate programs.
c. Explore further opportunities to collaborate on use of facilities, both on campus and off site.
d. Develop a 4+1 Professional Science master’s degree, with dual 400/500 level courses as appropriate.
e. Develop a common Web presence, particularly for purposes of marketing and student recruitment.
8. Nursing
a. Develop a plan for the full alignment of nursing curriculum within the UMS, including a detailed articulation of the
challenges and a plan for addressing them.
b. Given the critical importance of expanding nursing programs to meet the current and future needs of Maine,
consult with appropriate external group(s) to help us better understand the challenges and identify strategies
for expanding our capacity, particularly in clinical placements. Also explore strategies currently being used at
nursing programs in other rural states.
c. Develop a report on the current nursing education partnership between UMA and UMFK. Include an analysis of
the challenges and successes experienced in this collaboration thus far, as well as suggestions for improvements.
This report should be delivered to the UMS CAOs for their review by the end of the fall 2015 semester.
9. Recreation and Tourism
a. Strengthen communication across the campuses with the development of a central Web site, designed to serve
students and faculty, but also to serve as a marketing and student recruitment tool.
b. Seek opportunities for semester-long “residencies,” to allow students at any campus to take full advantage of the
differentiated areas of expertise and opportunity at other campuses.
c. Further expand the range of short courses available, taking advantage of the range of specializations already
available on the various campuses. Consider a full range of possibilities—summers, weekends, January and May
terms, semester breaks, etc.
d. Develop pathways to take further advantage of articulated 4+1 opportunities for student progression into
graduate work.
e. Consider the development of hybrid team-taught courses, employing “point persons” in the field to work with
the primary on site (or online) instructor.
Essential Next Steps
The APRIP Teams were engaged in high-level planning. All of the disciplines require additional work to bring the
recommendations to reality, some more than others. The existing teams or successor designees must do some
additional planning, and most will need funding. Leaders and professional staff must do considerable work to enable the
plans to become reality. This work will be costly and requires a capital budget. External funding would significantly
advance the time frame for implementation.
In a May 2015 meeting, Team Leaders recommended that UMS support their recommendations as follows:
1.
Build capacity for extensive distance-delivery and blended instruction, including
a. Significant increases in interactive video instructional sites that are absolutely reliable and
faculty-friendly.
b. Significant increases in faculty professional and instructional development capacity (time, access to
expertise and resources), ease of access, and expectations.
c. Common academic calendar system-wide
d. System-wide academic information system for course planning, advising, program marketing
e. System-wide marketing
2.
Establish capacities and systems for students to enroll simultaneously in multiple institutions – capacities
that are seamless and impact-neutral for students, faculty, and institutions.
a. Students: Advising, registration, tuition rates, fees, billing, payment, reliable planning for transfer,
financial aid, grade transfer, online comprehensive catalog and pathways, etc.
b. Faculty: Workload and P&T recognition
c. Institutions: Revenues and enrollment credit, non-competitive funding model
Additional Achievements, Round 1:
Emerging culture: help each other better serve students, whether on the giving or receiving end;
inter-institutional respect for faculty expertise; expanded professional colleagueship
Transferability enhancements, certificate and associate programs
Increased awareness of benefits from greater comparability/standardization of general education
Extraordinary voluntary service to UMS despite heavy workloads, contrary administrative systems, fear, and
sometimes-difficult interpersonal issues
University of Maine System
APRIP Language Team Report
May 31, 2015
"KNOWING another language enriches your personal life, expands the range of professional
opportunities open to you, and increases your power to act as a citizen of the world." (MLA
1)
Executive Summary
The Language Team held two face-to-face meetings of six and four hours, respectively, and
four virtual meetings on Google Hangouts. Our report includes a preamble which states the
value of and need for language proficiency within the State of Maine. The next section provides
background on the importance of face-to-face classes in learning language and culture, a brief
overview of current degree and course offerings and existing collaboration at the graduate level
in French and Spanish.
Our recommendations include retention of all existing undergraduate and graduate programs in
languages, including degree programs in French and Spanish, international affairs with
concentrations in language, language for education, minors, and course offerings in other
languages. We recommend further the creation of system-wide B.A.s in French and Spanish to
be available at campuses that have no degree programs in foreign languages. Our plan calls
for shared delivery of courses to support both the new and existing degree programs using
distance technologies.
The primary challenge to language programs across the University of Maine System is one of
enrollment. The Language Team recommends, therefore, that language and culture study be
made a priority across the UMS campuses and supported by a marketing campaign to
encourage students to pursue a double major, minor, or certificate of proficiency, and to take
advantage of learning abroad opportunities. Furthermore, we call for the UMS to seek private
funding for scholarships and other financial incentives to encourage the study of language and
culture, both at UMS campuses and in immersion abroad.
At the campus level, we recommend the exploration of a language requirement at institutions
that do not currently have one in place and suggest the development of certificate-of-proficiency
opportunities, which require fewer courses than a minor yet provide documentation of language
ability (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages’ proficiency testing).
Our report includes a set of challenges to shared delivery, in particular, including quality of
video-conferencing equipment, availability of technical support, and scheduling problems. We
also call for professional development workshops with instructional designers for the
development of online courses. A second set of challenges includes a number of topics already
1“Language Study in the Age of Globalization – The College Level Experience,” brochure published by
2
brought to light through APRIP, such as faculty load and compensation, and transfer of credit.
What is new to our list is the suggestion that the definition of teaching in load be reviewed to
include “teaching outside the box” in P&T criteria, as would be needed for offering on-site
language courses to business and heritage communities. Another complication is the increased
demand on international student advisors and immigration specialists that will result if our
recommendations are accepted and fully implemented.
We recognize the complexity of program integration across multiple campuses and call for
APRIP Phase II, during which the specific details of the collaboration will be worked out:
requirements for the proposed, multi-campus B.A. programs, revision and possible alignment of
curricula, and the feasibility of shared course delivery for languages other than the major
languages, French and Spanish.
In order to sustain collaborative efforts, we recommend the formation of a collaborative of
language faculty, regular, system-wide meetings of all language faculty members, and the
creation of a faculty liaison position to maintain communication and keep the collaboration on
track.
Team Membership
Travis Bent – UMF (Student)
Brian Berger – UM (Undergraduate Student)
Stacy (Piper) Black – UM (Graduate Student)
Nicole Boudreau – UMFK
Scott Brickman – UMFK
Linda Britt – UMF
Ann Delaney – UCC
Brooke Dupuy – Community
Marisela Funes – UMF
Deborah Hodgkins – UMPI
Susan Pinette – UM
Chelsea Ray – UMA
Anna Rein – USM
Jane Smith – UM
Adam Tuchinski – USM
Yue Zhao - USM
Preamble
The Association of American Colleges and Universities and its Liberal Education and America’s
Promise initiative, in particular, recognize the importance of “knowledge of human cultures […]
through study in the […] humanities […] and languages …” in the 21
stcentury through its
3
ELOs also include “civic knowledge and engagement, both local and global, as well as
intercultural knowledge and competence.”
2In the business sector, Forbes also highlights the need for Americans who speak more than one
language by pointing out that only 18% of Americans speak a second language as compared to
53% of Europeans. The authors of the article indicate further that the number of American
colleges and universities requiring foreign language study has dropped from 67.5% in 1994-95
to 50.7% in 2009-10
3.
With the implementation of proficiency-based education in Maine’s preK-12 schools, which
requires all Maine graduates to demonstrate proficiency in a world language by 2017, the state
is facing a critical shortage of qualified language teachers.
Moreover, the need for economic development across the state calls for a workforce with both
linguistic skills and cross-cultural understanding. Maine’s top ten partners for export of goods
are Canada, Malaysia, China, the Republic of Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, the United
Kingdom, Mexico, and Germany. Eight of these countries are also among our top ten partners
for the importation of goods, Canada, China, Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan,
Mexico, and Malaysia, with the addition of Russia and Vietnam. A number of Maine companies
are owned by parent companies in Canada, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Japan,
Norway, Spain, Italy, or the United Kingdom
4. In the area of tourism, the largest groups of
overseas visitors to Maine come from France, Germany, and Scandinavia
5.
Expanding the number of Maine citizens proficient in a foreign language expands opportunities
for economic growth. A point of comparison is Maine’s ranking as 49
thfor economic climate
6as
compared to Utah, which is ranked first among states, thanks in part to its workforce, one third
of which can carry on a conversation in another language
7.
Languages, together with internationalization of Maine’s students, must be made a real priority
at the level of the University of Maine System and across its seven universities. Expanding the
number of Mainers who can speak more than one language produces a citizenry with more
employment opportunities and that can engage in an informed manner in local and global
issues.
Successful collaboration in the area of world languages has been a part of UMS for nearly a
decade, particularly with respect to French, and that collaboration is already expanding to
2
Retrieved 5/21/15 from https://www.aacu.org/leap/essential-learning-outcomes.
3 “America’s Foreign Language Deficit,” David Skorten & Glenn Altschuler,
Forbes online published 8/27/12, retrieved 5/21/15. See also “Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World,” published by the Modern Language Association, http://www.mla.org/flreport.
4
Import, export and foreign direct investment information provided by Maine International Trade Center; documents provided in Appendices A and B.
5
Overseas Visitors to New England; document provided by Maine Office of Tourism, Appendix C
6
Portland Press Herald, 11/12/14
7
4
include Spanish. Likewise, language courses in French and Spanish have been available
through distance education. The current program integration process is about increasing
collaboration among campuses and providing greater access to programs through distance
delivery; yet, throughout our discussions in the past few months, it has been clear to team
members that the primary challenge facing language programs is one of enrollment: How do
we encourage more students to study language and culture, thereby meeting State needs for
language teachers and a well-prepared workforce for the 21
stcentury?
The recommendations below outline a plan to increase collaboration across the campuses for
the sharing of two system-wide degree programs and language courses. In addition, it requests
support in the form of scholarships from UMS or private funding sources for the study of
languages at UMS campuses and for learning abroad in support of language and cultural
immersion.
Background
Languages are a complex area for review and integration. Among the languages offered within
UMS are French, Spanish, German, Latin, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Russian,
Wabanaki
8, Korean, and Irish Gaelic. Degree programs in French and Spanish, international
affairs and global studies, and language education are centered on French and Spanish, each
of which can be divided further to focus on Continental and North or Latin American areas of
study. Some languages are offered for the minor, while others are offered only for the
development of conversational skills. Because of the complexity of language programming
across the System, the Language Team has decided to make initial, overarching
recommendations in the current Phase I of APRIP and to leave detailed recommendations to
Phase II, to be undertaken in AY 2015-16.
In the past, knowing a language often meant knowing how to fill in a paragraph with the correct
forms of verbs or adjectives. Today, knowing a language means being able to use the
language
9in a linguistically and culturally appropriate manner; that is, developing socio-linguistic
competence for both speaking and writing. This means understanding language structure and
extra-linguistic communication. In order to develop this type of socio-linguistic competence,
exposure to and use of the language through interaction in real time, preferably face-to-face, is
the best means for learning.
At the same time, distance education technologies allow for delivery of language courses to
students across the System who would not otherwise have access to language study. In the
absence of adequate tenure-stream faculty coverage on each campus, distance delivery
through video-conferencing and online courses will play a key role in providing access to
language study for students across the University of Maine System, but they cannot replace
face-to-face classes.
8
American Sign Language is offered at several campuses but not in language departments. Therefore, it is not included in the Language Team report. Wabanaki at UM is also outside the language department; however, the Native American Studies Program has indicated a willingness to explore sharing of courses.
9 “
21st Century Skills Map for World Languages”, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
5
Current Collaboration
Since 2007, the M.A.T. in French at UM has included a summer institute offered through
collaboration with faculty at various UMS campuses. USM has been the primary collaborator,
offering an online graduate course as part of the summer institute for the last eight years. At
various times, faculty from UMPI, UMFK, Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby have also provided
summer courses through this UM program. Collaboration has allowed us to deepen the
curricular offerings to our graduate (and upper level undergraduate) students through the
inclusion of courses on Francophone Africa, theme-based courses on culture, identity, film, and
literary studies based on France, all of which complement UM’s expertise, which emphasizes
North American French literature, culture, and linguistics in addition to the study of France.
Moreover, collaboration in the summer institute added online course delivery to the on-site and
video-conference delivery already in use, thereby increasing access to courses for more
students.
UM’s M.A.T. in Spanish, which had been suspended in the mid 1990s, was remodeled on the
French M.A.T. and approved for reinstatement only a few years ago. Collaborative delivery of
the Spanish M.A.T. will begin this summer, when a faculty member from UMF will be offering an
on-site graduate course in Spanish, enriching UM’s curriculum of Peninsular and Latin American
literature and culture with a transatlantic, theme-based course that examines a particular
cultural phenomenon.
Recommendations for Expansion of Collaboration
1)
The APRIP Language Team recommends retention of all existing language curricula across
the System. The hemorrhagic loss of various degree programs in French, German, Latin,
Russian, and Spanish from UMF, UMPI, UM, and USM over the last decade and a half must
be stopped if Maine’s public universities are to meet the needs of the state: the shortage of
language teachers, a globally prepared workforce, and well educated citizenry able to
interact in international and domestic arenas. Instead, the study of languages should be
made a priority for teacher education, international affairs and global studies, business,
engineering, music, art, history, philosophy, and, of course, for the study of languages and
cultures for their own sake.
2)
We recommend the establishment of multi-campus B.A. programs in French and Spanish,
which will be available to students at UMA, UMF, UMM, UMPI, and USM. Courses for these
two new programs will include collaboration among faculty from across the system. In the
case of French, faculty from UM, UMA, UMF, UMFK, and UMPI will participate. In the case
of Spanish, collaboration will include faculty from UM and UMF,
Existing B.A. programs in French, Spanish, Global & International Affairs (French, Spanish),
International Affairs – Language, Culture & the Humanities (French & Spanish), and French
for Education will remain in place at their respective campuses.
6
3)
Collaboration for delivery of courses for the M.A.T. degree programs in French and Spanish
at UM will be maintained and strengthened.
4)
With a view to expanding the number of courses offered online, the Language Team
requests professional development workshops with instructional designers geared
specifically for foreign language instruction.
5)
Collaboration for the sharing courses in Chinese, German, Japanese, Italian, Arabic, and
Wabanaki will be explored.
6)
With projected retirements of Baby-Boom Generation teachers, combined with the
implementation of Proficiency-Based Education in Maine’s public schools, the need for
language teachers remains steady. The Language Team recommends collaboration with
the Education Team for the purposes of increasing the number of students majoring in
foreign language education in order to help the State meet this demand.
7)
Make an undergraduate Certificate of Language Proficiency in French or Spanish similar to
the one offered at UM (9 lg. credits + ACTFL proficiency test) available to students at other
campuses.
8)
In order to allow for meaningful interaction between students and teacher, and student to
student, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
recommends a cap on enrollment of 15 students for courses that focus on the development
of all four linguistic skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The Language Team
recommends, therefore, that enrollment in language courses within UMS be similarly
capped. Where that is not possible, enrollment should not exceed the maximum of 20
students endorsed by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages.
9)
In making internationalization and language study a priority for the System, students across
the disciplines should be encouraged in the advising process and through various means of
publicity to study another language.
Recommendations for Learning Abroad
1)
The Language Team recommends expanded and improved communication about
opportunities for learning abroad (faculty-led travel study, and study, internship, and
research opportunities abroad) across the System, starting with a centralized web page and
support for further collaboration.
2)
Study abroad is a highly motivating experience for students studying language and culture.
In addition, interaction with students from target language countries provides cross-cultural
experience and enriches the experience of the greater student body. Administration and
support for learning abroad in general and exchange programs, in particular, is currently a
7
challenge at smaller campuses without professional and administrative staff in international
programs. Support from international programs offices at the larger campuses is requested.
3)
Financial aid for study abroad should be available to students in the form of scholarships
and other means of financial support.
4)
All students in all disciplines should be encouraged to participate in a learning abroad
experience.
5)
Incentives for faculty and development money for short-term, faculty-led immersion courses
should be made available to faculty on all campuses through a competitive process. In
addition to facilitating student participation across the System, collaboration for shared
delivery and co-teaching of travel study courses should be explored.
Challenges to Shared Delivery:
Upper level courses in language have been delivered using video-conferencing for a number of
years. This method of delivery provides a context that more closely resembles face-to-face
learning contexts, though it does require some adaptation for small group work and assessing
learner progress. With both the old ATM and the current Polycom/Tandberg systems, technical
problems have caused the loss of valuable class time. Delivery of language classes via
video-conferencing requires high quality audio microphones and speakers with as little time delay as
possible. These are necessary so as not to exacerbate the challenges inherent to listening
comprehension in a second language.
In addition, classrooms should have multiple cameras and a projector/screen arrangement that
allows the instructor and students at the originating site to see all students at remote sites at all
times, not just by voice-activated camera display. Visual images should be large enough to see
facial features and expressions. Classrooms equipped for video-conference delivery should be
dedicated classrooms so as to avoid unnecessary unplugging and disconnecting of equipment
by others who do not use the equipment. Reconnecting and having to wait for a technician to
resolve problems causes lost class time.
In online, asynchronous language instruction, certain student learning outcomes prove difficult
to achieve, especially those related to interpersonal communication. Using e-learning tools such
as Google Hangouts on Air and VoiceThread in online language courses, together with
resources available from book publishers, can increase both instructor and student presence,
resulting in higher student engagement, satisfaction and learning outcome achievement. UMS
faculty currently teaching online have been successful in developing high quality online
language courses.
In order to increase the number of online courses in language, literature, culture, and linguistics,
faculty will need assistance in transitioning courses designed for on-site or video-conference
delivery to online. Thanks to the APRIP process, team members are (now) aware of the
presence of instructional designers within UMS; however, development of online and hybrid
8
courses would be facilitated immensely if the instructional designers were more readily
accessible; that is to say, if there were a series of workshops designed specifically to assist
language faculty in the development of student-centered activities that are most conducive to
developing the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and knowledge of the
target culture in an appropriate cultural context
10.
Recommendations for Sustainability
1)
A second phase of APRIP in 2015-16 is necessary in order to move to the next, more
detailed level of planning, and the APRIP II Language Team should have a heavy
concentration of language faculty, both full and part-time, in order to maximize the time
and effort put into discussion of curricular alignment and development of the
system-wide degree programs in French and Spanish if they are approved for development.
2)
Phase II should include a meeting with a consultant from the Association of Departments
of Foreign Languages whose expertise will provide new insight and ideas for expanding
collaboration and suggestions for revising and/or aligning curricula within UMS
campuses.
3)
The Language Team recommends the establishment of a collaborative of faculty in all
languages, both full and part-time, starting with the initial target date of 2016-17 that was
set for the implementation of APRIP recommendations. The collaborative will meet
periodically, at least once each year, to discuss curricular issues and sharing of courses.
The Language Team also recommends periodic meetings that are language specific.
4)
The collaborative will include a faculty liaison. The liaison position will provide continuity
of communication and help to sustain collaborative efforts in behalf of language and
cultural studies. In the light of current workload demands in the areas of teaching,
research, and service, this position must be compensated and the duties and
responsibilities of the position recognized by and included in the tenure and promotion
process. The position should rotate periodically among the faculty and from campus to
campus.
5)
Further support for administrative needs of the collaborative, such as maintenance of a
web site and publicity materials, organization of meetings, and grant writing, will have to
be provided by an administrative support specialist funded, presumably, at the system
level.
Promotion and Financial Sustainability
In the Language Team’s discussions it has become apparent that the primary issue facing us as
language faculty is declining enrollment. While this is part of a nationwide trend in recent
10See the Modern Language Association’s statement on distance education for a detailed perspective:
9
decades, the enrollment problem can be attributed in part to the notion that learning a foreign
language is difficult. As a result, language requirements, where they exist, are kept at a low
level so as to be achievable (and at the same time, a level so low that students never get into
the more intellectually interesting areas of language and culture study that come at the
intermediate and advanced levels). In other instances, some disciplines that once had
language requirements have eliminated or reduced them with a view to being more competitive
with programs at competitor institutions, or, more recently, to reduce overall requirements in an
effort to retain students and assure degree completion within four years.
More broadly speaking, the study of language and culture is under valued. This state of affairs
must be changed if we are to see an increase in the number of students enrolling in language
and culture classes. The Language Team offers the following recommendations for promotion
and marketing of language programs within UMS.
1)
UMS should seek private funding to support students who major, double major, or minor
in a language. Such funding could be in the form of scholarships, tuition waivers or
reductions, or some other financial incentive for students. One potential benefit is that
this will no doubt draw more students to the field of foreign language education, thereby
helping UMS campuses to meet the need for more language teachers in Maine’s public
schools. In turn, this will help schools to meet proficiency standards for graduation.
2)
The concept of teaching load and venues for course delivery should be reviewed and
reconsidered by peer committees, administrators, and the unions to allow for courses
taught outside the usual venue, whether on site or via distance education, to be counted
as part of load. This would include courses geared for heritage language communities
and businesses for example. A mechanism for revenue generation, if not tuition per se,
will need to be determined.
3)
UMS and development offices should assist language departments and faculty in
partnering with Maine’s employers with a view to exploring alternative types of language
and culture courses, as well as classroom venues that lie outside the traditional
classroom or distance delivery mechanisms. Employers involved in tourism, retail, and
health care, for example, as well as foreign direct investment companies (see Appendix
C), may be interested in a workforce that is conversant in more than one language. The
connection with the private sector would also be used to explore the development of field
experience and internship opportunities for UMS students of language and culture.
4)
Campuses with regular language faculty should be encouraged to explore collaboration
with high schools for delivery of college-in-the-high-school language courses (not AP)
that align with UMS curricula, thereby facilitating the transition to college after high
school and making further study of language and culture more likely.
5)
Some UMS campuses have a language requirement while others do not. Institutions
that do not currently have a language requirement should be encouraged to explore the
possibility of the addition such a requirement at the university or college level. Not only
10
will this bring more students to our classes, it will align requirements system wide,
thereby easing transfer between campuses.
6)
Honor societies can be a source of scholarships. Departments/faculty should seek to
establish language honor societies as appropriate to their respective campuses.
7)
UMS should sponsor a joint marketing campaign of all opportunities to study languages
and cultures across the system and to promote combining a double major, a minor, or a
language certificate program with other disciplines.
8)
A survey of Maine employers and school districts for a needs assessment with respect
to languages other than English will be extremely informative in future planning.
APRIP Phase II in AY 2015-16:
The list below includes some of the action items for APRIP Phase II.
1)
System-wide retreat for full- and part-time language faculty with a consultant from the
Association of Departments of Foreign Languages early in fall semester 2015.
2)
Development of an inventory of courses for shared, distance delivery and an
accompanying course rotation, allowing for equitable distribution of responsibility for
distance delivery: Fall 2015.
3)
Plan the system-wide B.A. programs in French and Spanish.
4)
Creation of the language collaborative and selection of a faculty liaison: Fall 2015 or
Spring 2016.
5)
Collaboration with the Education Team to increase the number of students preparing to
be foreign language teachers and for exploration of shared delivery of foreign language
methods courses.
6)
Exploration and development of various promotion and recruitment/outreach efforts such
as, but not limited to, the following:
Outreach through 4-H or similar organizations to promote language learning and
cultural understanding;
School recruitment visits;
Opportunities for secondary school students to use world languages in immersion
settings such as World Languages Days;
11
Residential academy (summer camp) for languages aimed at middle and high
school students.
Work with community members to develop after-school and other language
programs to support heritage languages. Somali, Spanish, Arabic, French,
Chinese, Passamaquoddy, Khmer, and Vietnamese are the eight most widely
spoken languages among Maine’s English Language Learners in PreK-12
classrooms. Italian is also an important heritage language in the Portland area.
Complicating Factors
Discussions among the Language Team members revealed a number of complicating factors
that need to be addressed in order for some recommendations to be implemented.
Development of alternative (outside the box) teaching responsibilities, such as for private
companies and heritage communities, will require a review and modification of tenure
and promotion guidelines in order for them to be counted as part of the contractual
teaching load.
If our recommendations for increasing participation in learning abroad are successful,
and if support for these and other exchange opportunities are provided by the larger
campuses to the smaller campuses, there will be a need for additional international
program staffing to support the demand.
Funding must be sought from a variety of sources to support the proposed scholarship
and tuition waiver incentives for students. This will require administrative support.
Faculty are already spread very thin and additional outreach, course development, and
grant writing activities that result from program integration take time away from teaching,
research and service. Additional demands on faculty time must be compensated.
Transferability of financial aid in general and with respect to study abroad and travel
study, in particular, is an issue. Lack of resources prevents students from taking
advantage of these valuable immersion opportunities.
With respect to language programs, in particular, credit transfer (three credits at some
institutions vs. four credits at others) must be sorted out.
Video-conferencing infrastructure must be improved. For teaching language and culture,
audio and video equipment must be of the highest quality and allow for pairing students
and small group work for remote students as well as on-site students. Classrooms
should be dedicated to video-conferenced classes and scheduling (as in whom to
contact, what paperwork to complete) must be simplified. Scheduling must allow for
multiple, i.e. three or four, class meetings a week. Technical support for
video-conferencing must be available on every campus.
12
Our relationship to community colleges must be explored and sorted out, particularly
with respect to transferability of courses and the possibility of shared delivery.
Institutional Perspectives
The
University of Maine
advances learning and discovery through excellence and innovation in
undergraduate and graduate academic programs. In the case of French, the Department of
Modern Languages and Classics (MLC) is part of the National Resource Center for the Study of
Canada and the federally funded (Foreign Language and Area Studies) Canadian Studies
program. In offering courses in French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Arabic, we provide
language study for several communities of heritage language speakers, both long standing ones
and others who have arrived more recently. The teaching of language, literature, culture, and
linguistics in MLC “honors the heritage and diversity of our state.” Expanded collaboration with
our sister campuses will allow MLC to deepen its curricula in French and Spanish, in particular,
and support the Critical Languages program by providing a greater diversity of perspectives on
these important languages in today’s global society and those who speak them. By learning
another language and developing an understanding of the products, perspectives and practices
that are part of the target culture, students can develop their “creative abilities, communication
and critical thinking skills.” By expanding distance learning opportunities for language students
across the state through collaborative delivery of degree programs and elective courses, MLC
contributes to UM’s mission of excellence and innovation in undergraduate and graduate
academic programs, while providing access to a variety of cultural contexts in which students
can develop their creative abilities, communication and critical thinking skills.
“The
University of Maine at Augusta
transforms the lives of students of every age and
background across the State of Maine and beyond through access to high-quality distance and
on-site education, excellent student support and civic engagement, and innovative professional
and liberal arts.” UMA offers a French minor and includes substantive civic engagement in the
French courses, as well as connections to Franco-American heritage speakers. The APRIP
recommendations would help support language at UMA by allowing students an easier pathway
to major in French.
The
University of Maine Farmington
is committed to internationalizing its curriculum, as is
apparent in its Mission Statement and Strategic Plan: UMF will “broaden students’ educational
experience and assure that they are well prepared for employment and citizenship in contexts
that are richly diverse and increasingly global,” and that students will “develop an integrated
understanding of global issues.” In addition, UMF has reaffirmed its mission as a public liberal
arts institution that “supports multiple modes of teaching and learning, but prioritizes
face-to-face instruction with highly qualified faculty.” Finally, UMF will “strengthen and more broadly
promote its historic and continuing strength in teacher education,” making it an ideal candidate
to help address the critical shortage of Foreign Language teachers in the State of Maine.
The University of Maine at Fort Kent’s Mission Statement reads as follows: “UMFK will nurture
and engage a diversity of learners and aspiring professionals in Maine’s rural communities and
13
beyond through affordable, technologically-enhanced, and professionally-focused educational
programs.” Our APRIP Language Recommendations are in line with UMFK’s institutional
mission as encouraging and supporting the study of languages through on-campus and online
course helps better prepare aspiring professionals to be successful in an increasingly globalized
society.
Language programs at the
University of Maine at Presque Isle
offer students the opportunity
to discover their own language and culture while developing proficiency in another, thereby
allowing them “to better themselves [and] their community.” Online language courses, in
particular, are able to serve a different population than the traditional student population. They
allow students who live too far from campus, have a daytime job, or have young children at
home, to pursue the study of the world beyond their horizons. Some become French teachers,
thereby contributing the improvement of the community and the economic development of rural
northern Maine. The availability of online language courses ties in well with UMPI’s mission of
proficiency-based education, as these courses are learner-centered, with the teacher serving as
“cognitive guide.” In using formative and summative measures of student proficiency in
language and cultural knowledge, we encourage students to take responsibility for their own
learning. Our language program “nurtures the intellectual and personal development of
students who want to own their learning and embraces technological innovation while
preserving the power of personal mentoring.”
14
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Maine Trade Partners: Exports and Imports, prepared by the Maine International
Trade Center
Appendix B: Foreign Direct Investment Company List (2014), prepared by the Maine
International Trade Center
Appendix C: Overseas Visitors to New England, Discover New England Research Report for
2012, provided by Maine Office of Tourism
OVERSEAS VISITORS
To New England
2012
Produced by:
Travel Market Insights
3213 State Route 9L
Lake George NY 12845
Phone: 518-668-2559
Web: www.Travelmi.com
Prepared For:
Discover New England
100 International Drive, Suite 352
Portsmouth, NH 03801
USA
T: 603 766 0606
F: 603 766 0607
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
Table of Contents
Introduction
page i
Methodology
page ii
Section I. 2012 Summary of Overseas Visitors to New England_______
page 1
New England 2012 Overseas Arrivals__
page 1
Total Direct Spending
page 5
New England 2012 Total Direct Spending by Country
page 6
Boston Visitor Arrivals by World Region
page 5
Arrivals and Total Direct Spending for New England Destinations
page 8
2012 Selected Highlights for Overseas Travelers to Boston
page 10
2011 Selected Highlights for Overseas Travelers to Boston
page 11
Section II. 2012 Overseas Visitors to Boston In-depth Characteristics
page 12
Main State Destination
page 13
Top Destinations Visited
page 16
Number of States Visited
page 19
Number of Destinations Visited
page 20
First Trip by Air to the U.S.
page 23
Trips to the U.S. in Past 12 Months
page 24
Purpose of U.S. Trip
page 26
Main Purpose of U.S. Trip
page 27
Leisure-Recreation Activities
page 30
Travel Information Sources
page 35
Advance Trip Decision
page 37
Advance Time for Purchase of Airline Tickets
page 39
Advance Airline Decision
page 40
How Airline Reservations Were Made
page 43
Means of Booking Air Trip and Pre-booked Lodging
page 44
Type of Airline Ticket
page 47
Aircraft Seating
page 48
Prepaid Inclusive Tour Package
page 49
Top Three Reasons for Airline Choice
page 52
Most Important Reason for Airline Choice
page 53
Travel Party Size
page 56
Travel Party Composition
page 57
Gender of Overseas Visitors
page 60
Average Annual Household Income
page 62
Occupation
page 64
Total Nights in the U.S.
page 66
Port of Entry
page 70
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
Transportation in the U.S.
page 75
Trip Expenses Payment Method
page 78
Share of Expenditures by Method of Payment
page 79
Trip Expenditures
page 82
Itemized Trip Expenditures
page 83
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
i
Introduction
The following report sets out to understand the depth and impact of international visitors to New England.
The primary goal for this report is to provide Discover New England (DNE) and the New England states with the research confidence to clearly identify the most productive travel markets and focus their international visitor promotional efforts over the next five years – as a regional promotion entity. In order to meet this goal the report is broken down into the following sections:
Section I. 2012 Summary of Overseas Visitors to DNE [page 1]
Section II. 2012 Overseas Visitors to DNE In-depth Characteristics [page 12]
Key Definitions
A. DNE is the official tourism organization representing the New England census region, and is a non-profit cooperative marketing entity funded by the participating states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
For the purposes of this report New England (NE) is deifined as the six states that make up the New England Census region. Therefore all references to Discover New England and DNE are the same as referring to New England.
DNE = New England = NE
B. Overseas: Overseas is defined as all visitors from all countries except Canada and Mexico. C. Visitor Arrivals and Travelers to New England are defined as: one person indicating they
visited overnight in one or more of the six New England states during their U.S. visit. D. Scandinavia is a marketing region that includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
ii
Methodology
This report on overseas visitors to New England was developed by Travel Market Insights. It is based on data compiled from the USDOC Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI) "Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT)." The survey is conducted in cooperation with over 80 major airlines on a sample of their international flights departing from U.S. airports and at airport boarding areas. The survey information is collected from passengers through questionnaires covering traveler demographics, trip activities, places visited, and travel expenditures. This survey program was initiated in response to a growing need for information on the volume, characteristics, and travel patterns of international air travelers to and from the United States. The data from the survey are used by the public and private sectors to guide strategic planning and marketing to international air travelers.
Approximately 2,280 survey respondents reported a New England visit in 2012. This is an adequate sample size for overseas visitors, providing an opportunity to evaluate the characteristics of the overseas visitor market. However, sampling levels are statistically low for some of the visitor markets to New England. Below are sample tables that should be reviewed before making decisions using this report.
There are two data collection methods. The legacy method involves the direct participation of the airlines, which arrange for their flight crews to distribute and collect surveys on-board. The reduction of air carrier participation has created some gaps in the data sets, thus it should be used with caution. To improve the program the USDOC also now collects the questionnaires in the airport departure gate area (“airport intercept”). The airport-intercept method accounted for approximately 75% of all collections in 2011, while the in-flight method accounted for approximately 25%.
Due to the logistical challenges in administering the survey, certain airlines and airports are not able to produce completed surveys in proportion to their traffic numbers. The aim of this program is to develop a public/private partnership to survey additional international flights on a monthly basis to improve airport specific and destination collections.
Currently, OTTI is orchestrating this effort in Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, Dallas/Ft Worth, Honolulu, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Juan, and Washington Dulles. Each program is slightly different, but the supplemental collections are being conducted to improve the quality of the data collections at each airport. In all cases the airport authority works in cooperation with its convention and visitors bureau (destination marketing organization).
With the exception of the number of respondents, all the data in the tables are statistical estimates, based on responses to the survey and supplemented with data from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. Passengers on most charter flights and passengers traveling by air between the U.S. and Canada are excluded. For additional information on the methodology and questionnaire please contact Travel Market Insights.
Survey Questionnaire and Methodology Changes for 2012
In 2012 the DOC, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries implemented a new questionnaire. For some portions of the questionnaire there was a break in series. Questions regarding arrivals had no changes. Key question changes that should be noted include:
Spending per person per trip spending per person per night
Trip Planning Information (information sources) Airline Reservations Airline Advance Payments Package Tour
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
iii
Main Purpose of Trip and Purpose of Trip (multiple response) Total Nights Away From Home Transportation Used Leisure Activities:
- Added: Experience Fine Dining, Historical Locations, National Parks/Monuments, Sightseeing, Small towns/countryside, Water Sports, Other Specify.
- Pulled: Dining in Restaurants, Visit Historical Places, Visit National Parks, Sightseeing in Cities, Visiting Small Towns, Touring Countryside, Water Sports/Sunbathing, Ranch Vacations, N/A.
Spending Outside of Respondents Country Itemized Trip Expenses in U.S. Expense Payments Methods/Usage Expense Share
Seat in Aircraft Airline Ticket Type Occupation Annual Household Income
Sample Table for New England by Country and State
All sample is based on 2011 and 2012 visitor data. In 2011 the metrics were based on the 2010 and 2011 visitor data. The multi-year sample is recommended given some of the country level sample fall below the recommended level.
Historically the USDOC sample cut off was 100 respondents for characteristic data and 380 for visitor estimates. The overseas sample for New England far exceeds the minimums. Sample for the UK, UK leisure, and Japan are above the recommended sample minimums. Sample for all other countries are strong enough for comparative analysis. However, it is recommended that results be reported with the understanding that visitation estimates are based on a sample below the
recommended threshold. Italy is, in particular, below the 100 minimum.
Sample far exceeds the minimums for Massachusetts and Connecticut. Two years of sample were used to keep the metrics consistent and comparable. Sample for Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont are strong enough for comparative analysis. However, it is recommended that results be reported with the understanding that visitation estimates are based on a sample below the recommended threshold.
Note: Sample improvements will be implemented in 2014. Starting in 2014 Logan International Airport, the Boston Convention and Visitors Bureau and the USDOC, National Travel and Tourism Office (formerly OTTI) are partnering to improve sample at Logan International Airport. This effort should provide New England and the individual destinations with stronger sample and additional confidence in the metrics.
New England States
Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas
2011 and 2012
To CT
To ME
To MA
To NH
To RI
To VT
(Number of Respondents)
(947)
(246)
(3,578)
(209)
(231)
(183)
Overseas
New England Sample New UK Germany Austra-
Scandi-2011 and 2012 England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
iv
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
1
Section I. 2012 Summary of Overseas Visitors to New England
Total U.S. Overseas Market: In 2012 a record 29.8 million overseas visitors
traveled to the United States. Overseas arrivals grew by 6.7% over 2011
arrivals. Arrivals growth was predominantly from emerging markets. In contrast,
most Western European countries registered a decline.
New England was visited by 1.6 million visitors (excluding Canada and Mexico)
that indicated they stayed in the region during their visit to the U.S. in 2012.
New England arrivals in 2012 decreased 8 percent. The decline in visitors was
primarily from Western Europe, South America, and Oceania.
1, 30 0 1, 13 6 1,26 0 1, 25 7 1,47 3 1, 50 5 1,72 3 1, 61 5 1, 71 4 1, 78 5 1, 63 7 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Arrivals Mkt. Share
Arrivals (000) Market Share
New England Overseas Arrivals and Market Share
Market
Share
Arrivals
in (000)
Market
Share
Arrivals
in (000)
Percent
Change
Total Overseas
6.4
1,785
5.5
1,637
-8.3%
Note: Percent change is based on rounded arrivals.
2012 Overseas Arrivals to New England
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
2
In 2012 New England’s share of total overseas visitors to the U.S. contracted
0.9 percentage points to 5.5%, down from 6.4% in 2011. Comparably, the 2012
market share is below the average for the past 11 years (6.5%). Market share
has declined for three straight years.
Why did market share contract in the past three years? Market penetration for
the region is strongest in Western Europe and weaker in Asia and South
America. In other words, New England’s market mix has not adjusted at the
same pace as overall U.S. arrival trends. The region needs to consider
expanding their market mix into emerging markets and at the same time
compete for a stronger share of the traditional visitor markets in Western
Europe.
On the positive side, arrivals increased from Asia, the Caribbean, and Eastern
Europe. In 2012 30,000 more visitors resided in Asia, primarily from China and
Japan. In contrast, in 2012 there were 52,000 fewer visitors to the region from
Western Europe, primarily a downturn from the UK, France, and the
Scandinavian countries. There was some positive growth to the region from
Germany and France. The largest drop in visitor volume was from South
America (62,000 fewer visitors than in 2011). Arrivals from Oceania contracted
by 27,000 visits to New England – primarily from Australia.
USA
2011 2011 2012 2012 2012/2011 2012/2011
Visitor** DNE Visitor** DNE Visitor Visitor
Estimate Market Estimate Market Estimate Estimate
(IN 000s) Share (IN 000s) Share Percent Percent
(ranked by 2012) Change Change
ALL OVERSEAS 1,785 6.4% 1,637 5.5% -8.3% 6.4% WESTERN EUROPE 863 7.2% 811 6.9% -6.0% -2.2% ASIA 377 5.2% 407 4.9% 8.0% 22.6% SOUTH AMERICA 203 5.4% 141 3.2% -30.5% 18.0% CARIBBEAN 67 6.1% 83 7.3% 23.9% 15.2% OCEANIA 88 7.1% 61 4.6% -30.7% 2.7% MIDDLE EAST 62 7.7% 58 6.3% -6.5% 18.5% EASTERN EUROPE 47 7.0% 52 7.2% 10.6% 10.5% AFRICA 22 6.8% 18 4.7% -18.2% 18.8% CENTRAL AMERICA* 58 7.7% 15 1.9% -74.1% 9.6%
** See background and methodology for sample varibility
New England 2011 and 2012 Overseas Visitor Arrivals
New England
Overseas
Visitors 2012 Report
3
In 2012 275,000 British residents visited New England. The UK is the region’s
largest visitor market. Arrivals declined 1.8%, the same rate of decline as the
U.S. overall. The region’s market penetration remained strong; 7.3% of all
British traveling to the U.S. visited New England at some point during their visit.
China remained the region’s second largest visitor market in 2012, ahead of
Germany. In 2012 175,000 Chinese visited New England, up 14% compared to
2011. Just over one in ten Chinese (11.9%) to the U.S. visited New England in
2012. However, it should be noted that New England arrivals from China grew
at a slower rate than the U.S. overall (up 25%). Due to this, the region
registered a decline in market share from China (down from 14% in 2011).
Germany, the third largest overseas visitor market for New England, grew 4% to
register 152,000 visits. Market penetration for Germany was up slightly (8.1% in
2012, up from 8.0% in 2011).
In 2012 87,000 French residents traveled to New England. Visitation contracted
8.4% reflecting the weak economic conditions in France. By comparison, total
U.S. arrivals from France dropped 3% compared to 2011.
USA
2011 2011 2012 2012 2012/2011 2012/2011
Visitor** DNE Visitor** DNE Visitor Visitor
Estimate Market Estimate Market Estimate Estimate
(IN 000s) Share (IN 000s) Share Percent Percent
(ranked by 2012) Change Change
1 United Kingdom 280 7.3% 275 7.3% -1.8% -1.9% 2 China 153 14.0% 175 11.9% 14.4% 25.0% 3 Germany 146 8.0% 152 8.1% 4.1% 2.9% 4 France 95 6.3% 87 6.0% -8.4% -3.2% 5 Japan 58 1.8% 78 2.1% 34.5% 13.8% 6 Italy 63 7.1% 65 7.8% 3.2% -6.2% 7 India 72 10.8% 62 8.5% -13.9% 9.2% 8 Brazil 81 5.4% 61 3.4% -24.7% 18.8% 9 Australia 78 7.5% 58 5.2% -25.6% 8.1% 10 Korea, South 60 5.2% 55 4.4% -8.3% 9.3% Scandinavia*** 81 7.1% 56 5.6% -30.9% 5.5%
** See background and methodology for sample varibility
***Scandinavia is a marketing region that includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden
