CC BY
99
ПЕДАГОГИКА
УДК 371.133
A. V. Kourova, O. P. Mikhanova
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS: A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Abstract.
Background. International exchange and training programs play a significant role in the development of international cooperation between educators from different nations. How it started? Why? The article deals with the brief overview of historical development of international exchange programs in the USA in the 20th century. More and more teachers and school administrators participate in exchange programs and implement new curricular and instructional practices in their institutions.
Results. A review of literature and documents helped to analyze the background of educational, curricular, and cultural aspects of international exchange programs in education.
Conclusions. The brief overview of historical development of international exchange programs revealed the role that those programs played and the place that they took in achieving goals of American foreign and domestic policies in different periods of the 20th century.
Key words: international exchange programs, historical development.
A. V. Kourova, O. P. Mikhanova
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS: A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Аннотация.
Актуальность и цели. Современная геополитическая ситуация во многом зависит от кросс-культурных образовательных проектов, где огромную роль играют образовательные программы обмена преподавателями, студентами, учениками школ. Как же это все начиналось? Цель работы - показать условия возникновения программ обмена в Соединенных Штатах Америки и как они стали неотъемлемой частью международного сотрудничества, в частности, с Россией.
Результаты. Анализ большого количества первоисточников - документов, книг, статей - позволил проследить этапы становления процесса международных образовательных программ обмена между США и Россией.
Выводы. Проведенный анализ литературы и изучение вопроса показали, как менялись цели и место международных программ обмена в политическом и культурном контексте в течение XX в. в Соединенных Штатах Америки.
Ключевые слова: образовательные программы обмена, историческая справка.
"Simple exchanges can break down walls between us, for when people come together and speak to one another and share a common experience, then their common humanity is revealed. We are reminded that we're joined together by our
pursuit of a life that's productive and purposeful, and when that happens mistrust begins to fade and our smaller differences no longer overshadow the things that we share. And that's where progress begins" - remarked President Barack Obama at Student Roundtable at Tophane Cultural Center in Istanbul, Turkey [1]. His words emphasizes the idea that international exchange enhances the effectiveness of the United States in dealing with other nations by building the global competencies of U.S. citizens and others skills increasingly important in the world of the 21st century.
Moreover academic and cultural exchanges is a bridge that leads to a greater human understanding and world peace. Exchange programs create opportunities: opportunities for participants to learn, to prosper, and to work with others to solve shared problems and ensure a secure future. Exchanges create future leaders who instinctively appreciate the value of international collaboration, understanding, and empathy.
How It Started: Missionaries and First Programs
The idea of promoting American interests, values, and ways of life to foreign elite and later to broader circles of general public through exchanges and educational exchanges in particular, has always enjoyed a variety of interpretations. Until 1948 when the Information and Education Act (the Smith Mundt Act) passed the Senate, the terms "educational exchange" and "cultural relations" had been used interchangeably. The first examples of such cultural education were missionaries in the 19th century who believed that by spreading evangelical Protestantism they were bringing progress to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Those first missions can be considered prototypes of present day educational exchanges because not only did they built schools, offered vocational training, or preached but they also sent representatives of indigenous youth to the United States in the hope that the latter would become providers of American Christian values and democratic ideas upon return to their homelands [2, 3]. According to the U.S. Bureau of Education, 2,673 students from 74 countries were enrolled in American universities in 1904 [3, p. 18].
Christian organizations kept concentrating their efforts in the area of international education on bringing young people to study in the United States. This tendency became especially apparent in the years of World War I and in the first antebellum years. Despite the toughening immigration policy, lack of understanding from the part of university authorities, and prejudices of local population, foreign students were eager to come to the United States that at that time were a save heaven compared to devastated Europe. The outcome of the world war, human sufferings, and growing mistrust and hostility among nations on the one hand, and political changes in Europe, appearance of a number of new nations that strived to build a renovated educational system on the other, also gave rise to several new trends in international educational programs. First, more and more educational agencies - with the support of philanthropic foundations - developed educational exchanges aimed at promoting cultural understanding, intellectual cooperation and peaceful coexistence. In 1919 the Institute of International Education was founded. Initially funded by the Carnegie Foundation and later by the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, the IIE provided professional services to international educational activities [4]. As it was stated in the First Annual Report of the Director, the goal of
the IIE was "to develop international good will by means of educational agencies" and "to act as a clearinghouse of information and advice" on educational exchange [3, p. 56].
Second, the United States that mostly "imported" educational ideas and practices from Europe in the 19th century, in the early 1920s became the citadel of the new educational thought. Works of Dewey, Thorndike, Kilpatrick, Rugg, and others progressive educators were very popular outside the United States. New nations that appeared in the result of World War I and revolution in Russia were looking for new ideas and approaches in education. For example, in the Soviet Union, where "experimentation has been particularly characteristic of methods in the field of education" [5, p. 242], "Dalton plan", "method of complexes", or "project method" were widely implemented to substitute an obsolete system of rote memorization [6].
And finally, demographic and financial situation in European universities, congested with students returning from the war, was favorable for inviting instructors from overseas. "Devastated by the war, European universities could not spare teachers or professors for exchange, but they were anxious to have Americans as visiting professors" [3, p. 57].
As a result, the number of college level educational exchange programs grew rapidly in those years. The IIE Seventh Annual Report of the Director of 1926 stated that there were 148 student exchange fellowships to and from the United States. According to the same publication of 1938, the number of fellowships more than doubled up to 375 [3]. The overall number of educational exchanges only administered by IIE in 1922-1938 was 3036 with exchanges with Germany (1208) and France (815) at the top of the list [3, p. 77].
The 1930s: Federal Government Stepped In
The 1930s marked an important step in the development of international educational exchanges. The federal government little by little started to participate in international cultural exchanges (this term was used for most international programs, including educational exchanges). This belated step - all major powers: France, Germany, the U.K, the Soviet Union, had already been actively involved in exchanges - was caused by several reasons. Thompson and Laves (1963) contended that three major factors influenced the advance of international exchanges in the world: (a) advance of science, democracy, and education which accompanied the Industrial Revolution; (b) the growing importance of the support of "common people" to enhance the extension of political democracy; and (c) a pressing popular demand of more open international policy. The additional factor that made the United States government act more aggressively was the reassessment of the role of the United States. A cultural colony had already become a cultural metropolis and had to act accordingly.
The first practical application of the mutual efforts of private funds and the federal government was Latin America. Although this region had been considered strategically important for the American policy and security, it was also much neglected by the American diplomacy in the interwar period. President Franklin Roosevelt initiated a new policy toward Latin America, the "Good Neighbor Policy". The cultural programs and educational exchanges developed under the auspices of this policy became the prelude to "the government's worldwide commitment to
educational and cultural exchanges after World War II" [3, p. 145]. To coordinate the efforts of government officials and agencies, the Interdepartmental Committee on Cooperation with the American Republics was formed. Among the three major areas that the Committee was responsible for, there was the exchange of specialized educational methods and the exchange of persons for education and training [2]. American embassies in Latin American countries became the first to assume the new role: to facilitate cultural and educational programs for which purpose cultural attaches were appointed in 1940. Thus, educational and cultural dimension became a forth dimension of the United States foreign policy, tightly connected with other three traditional dimensions - political, economic, and military [3].
The involvement of the government revived discussions about the role and place of exchange programs. There were two divergent views on the place of the governmental programs of cultural and educational relations in the foreign policy of the United States. One camp argued that all programs should be valid in their own right independent of political or economic interests of the government. This tendency was based on the approach used previously by private and religious funds. As it was stated in the resolution of the General Advisory Committee in 1944, "No program of international cultural relations should be an instrument by means of which one people attempts to impose its ideas or conceptions upon another, or to achieve cultural ascendancy, or to accomplish non-cultural objectives" [2, p. 44]. The other side argued that since cultural relations are a part of the nation's foreign policy there was no conceivable way to develop and promote cultural programs that would not be related to general foreign policy. However, the both sides agreed that cultural programs must be mutually acceptable and reciprocally carried out.
Educational Exchange Policy After World War II
The outbreak of World War II put an end to the discussion; the government had to concentrate on informing people in allied, neutral, and enemy countries about the state of affairs on battlefields. However, even in the time of war the American government expanded its exchange programs in East Asia, Middle East and Africa. Moreover, the government provided financial support to American-funded schools in these areas [3].
The three major events that influenced the policy of the United States in the area of educational exchanges after World War II were the Fulbright Act, the passage of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act (Smith-Mundt Act), and the Cold War. During World War II the United States loaned ammunition and goods to their allies for millions and millions of dollars. In September 1945 Senator Fulbright introduced the bill that would authorize to utilize the money from sales of surplus war property for the promotion of educational exchanges. President Henry S. Truman signed it into law on August 1, 1946. The bill did not encounter any opposition either in committee or on the floor; neither did it excite much attention among fellow senators. According to Douglas Carter, quoted by Thomson and Laves [2, p. 202], Senator Fulbright stated that "the bill was brought up in the Senate at five o'clock in the afternoon when only a handful of Senators were on the floor." Despite the initial lack of attention, the idea fell on the fertile soil. The program elegantly solved the problem of numerous allies' inability
to pay the United States back in American dollars on the one hand, and on the other, appropriated funds for a noble effort to educate more Americans about the world and the world about Americans. The program, later known as Fulbright-Hayes Act, and called by President Kennedy "the classic modern example of beating swords into plowshares", proved effective [2, 7-9]. According to the website of the Fulbright Program [10], it is now the largest U.S. exchange program, offering numerous opportunities for students, teachers, and professors. It operates in 140 countries and about 250,000 people call themselves Fulbright Alumni.
In one of his speeches William Fulbright said: "We must try, through international education, to realize something new in the world - by persuasion rather than force, cooperatively, rather than competitively, not with the intention of gaining dominance for a nation or an ideology, but for the purpose of helping every society develop its own concept of public decency and individual fulfillment" [8].
The initially declared intent of the program "to develop intensive cultural and educational relations with the rest of the world" [7] was far from universally accepted. For many, educational exchanges had to become a new powerful tool to promote American interests and to influence national elites in the way that would benefit American policy. Even Senator Fulbright himself argued that "exchange expenditures should be made under regulations to conform to American foreign policy" [3, p. 155]. In a very interesting and honest chapter that opens one of the collections of "Fulbright alumni", Richard Arndt, a "Fulbrighter" himself, does not reject the term "cultural imperialism" that stuck to the Fulbright program in some countries [8, p. 21]. The ambivalence of the situation resulted in heating debates about the role of educational exchanges and appropriateness of the funds spent on such programs. When Assistant Secretary of State William Benton requested money to expand informational activities beyond Latin America, the request was slashed by the House of Representatives. In this situation Congressman (later Senator) Karl E. Mundt and Senator H. Alexander Smith cosponsored the bill that would broaden the area of educational exchanges and also would allocate funds for informational programs. Unlike the Fulbright Act, the Smith-Mundt Act that "formalized government's interest in educational and cultural exchange" [11, p. 26], encountered a very strong opposition in Congress [2, 3, 7, 12]. Opponents of the new act stressed the need for economy (the national debt was at a peak figure) and distrust of the personnel engaged in educational, cultural, and informational activities [2]. It was charged that the exchange of students and teachers would let down immigration bars and open American schools to "Communists and agitators" [3, 7]. Only after extensive trips to 27 countries and a five-day debate the bill successfully passed.
Passage of the Smith-Mundt Act revived the pre-war U.S. efforts and established a foundation to promote cultural and educational exchanges abroad. It was in the text of the Act that the term "educational exchange" was first mentioned and used separately from cultural exchange. George V. Allen, Assistant Secretary of State in 1948, called the Smith-Mundt Act "revolutionary," adding that "the real significance of the change which was made in the conduct of our foreign policy is not yet appreciated or even understood by many people" [12, p. 11].
Philip Coombs (1964) called it "ironical" that though the objective stated in the Smith-Mundt Act was "to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries," it owed its passage to the new
Cold War situation. The situation required more actions aimed at conveying American point of view on various events. When faced with the dilemma where to direct more money, to educational exchange programs or to information service, the government did not hesitate to leave the former behind [7]. In the wake of President Truman's "Campaign of Truth" to combat Soviet propaganda, the earlier information policy of giving people a full and fair view of the United States, became more aggressive and hard-hitting. With the Cold War dominance on international scene, educational exchanges were reduced and massively overshadowed by information programs [2]. Although demands for the exchange program were expanding steadily in the 1950s and early 1960s due to the proliferation of new nations in Africa and Asia, the financial resources did not expand and emphasis shifted to grants and exchanges which could have a quick impact [7]. Educational exchanges suffered not only from curtailed funding but also from bureaucratic changes in the State Department. As a result, dollar appropriations for the exchange program declined from $ 16 million in 1951 to less than $ 10 million by 1953 and did not recover until 1959. The total of American and foreign grantees fell from more than 7,200 in 1951 to fewer than 4,900 in 1954. Although the number of countries participating in exchange programs rose from 62 (1951) to 97 (1959), they faced a progressively thinner spreading of the limited resources [7, p. 36].
The reality of the Cold War posed the question of the objectives of exchange educational programs with a new force. During the debates on the Smith-Mundt Act, Senator Smith insisted that to be truly effective the educational exchange program "must be objective, non-political, and above all, have no possible propaganda activities" [7, p. 31]. The situation of the early 1950s was foreseen by many legislators in 1948. In passing the Smith-Mundt Act, Congress distinguished clearly between information activities, sometimes termed "psychological approach" or "propaganda," and educational activities. However, the government attempted to use every educational exchange, particularly funded by taxpayers' money, as a means of its international policy. The National Security Council included educational exchange among the "United States programs for national defense" to be integrated with the military and economic programs [2, p. 81, 82]. One of the State Department officials noted in his speech that "the U.S. government wished to create friendships 'not through mass exchanges of people but by the right kind of exchange'" [3, p. 159]. The 1946 Sargeant Report, commissioned and distributed by the State Department, suggested that student exchanges should be used to implement objectives of the U.S. foreign policy [3, 4].
The possible role of educational exchange programs as providers of the state foreign policy often confused and disappointed private institutions and educators. They continued to see the objectives of educational exchanges differently and were more interested in long-term educational goals. Many complained of the lack of agreement and cohesion in declared objectives of educational exchange programs [2, p. 82; 3, p. 157; 12]. During the debate over the Smith-Mundt Act, representatives of the American Council on Education condemned the mixing of information programs (overt propaganda) and educational exchange. They were concerned that "if educational and cultural activities were not separated from political propaganda, citizens of other nations might see them as new forms of American cultural imperialism" [3, p. 158].
Was the attempt to separate educational exchange from political propaganda effective? Probably, not. All researchers note that despite the criticism from many educators the political objectives superseded educational purposes in many cases [2, 3, 7]. Although officially, as mandated by the Smith-Mundt Act, educational exchanges and informational programs were run by two separate divisions established in the Office of Educational Exchange of the State Department, these two divisions "worked as two arms of a cultural war of political propaganda" [3, p. 159]. As a result, the distinctions between information or propaganda programs and educational exchanges laid down in the Smith-Mundt Act, were often ignored. Also, forgotten was the requirement of reciprocity and more and more emphasis was made on a unilateral approach [2].
The lack of consistency in the policy of educational exchange and disagreement on its objective confused many officials [2, p. 82; 3, p. 157; 7, p. 32-34], let alone private organizations whose role and position were fundamentally changed by the government expanding influence [3, p. 159]. However, private funds and philanthropic organizations continued to work in the field of educational exchange, directing their efforts to educational and enlightening rather than political domain [3, p. 181].
The Cold War
One of the most significant factors that influenced the policy in the area of educational exchanges in the Cold War era obviously was the Soviet Union. The changing situation in the United States and Stalin's death made it possible to start negotiations at the summit of 1955. More than two years had passed before the long-titled "Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Exchanges in the Cultural, Technical and Educational Fields," commonly known as the Lacy-Zarubin agreement, was signed in January 1958. Why an agreement? Many activities included in the agreement were, for the most part, the responsibilities of the private sector [13, p. 3]. Why would the federal government agree to regulate activities where its role was peripheral? It was an unprecedented agreement. The answer is that it was the Soviet Union that insisted on officially signed agreement. Officially signed documents were a part of political culture of the country where there should be someone (a signer, in this case) who assumes the full responsibility for the consequences. The signed official agreement was beneficial for the American side too: it ensured that the exchanges would be conducted on a reciprocal basis and that the Soviet Union would stay open for American participants [13, p. 4; 14, p. 17].
The Lacy-Zarubin agreement was one of the vivid examples of the use of educational and cultural exchanges for the purpose of getting political benefits. Parenthetically, it should be noted that both sides, American and Soviet, expected these benefits. The objectives that the United States wanted to achieve by signing this agreement, were set forth in a National Security Council statement #5607 of June 29, 1956 with a self-explanatory title "East-West Exchanges".
The 1960s and 1970s: "Never Has the Carpet Been So Red"
With the arrival of young and resourceful John F. Kennedy to the White House the policy of international educational exchanges received a new impulse. Still the president elect, Kennedy organized a Task Force on Education with Pur-
due University president Fredrick Hovde at the head and a Task Force on International Educational Exchanges [15, p. 10-11]. The President's enthusiasm and commitment to improve and reinforce international educational exchanges resulted in an increasing support of the latter from both executive and legislative brunches [7, p. 230-231, 503]. As James Davis who was appointed the chairman of the task force, recalled that time, "Never has the carpet been so red" [3, p. 231].
In addition, Kennedy was ready to listen and to hear advice from practitioners in the field of international education. For example, Kenneth Holland, the president of the Institute of International Education (IIE) pointed out in his report to President Kennedy in 1960 that education was a crucial means to develop human resources and was viewed as a keystone of economic growth and political development in all nations [3, p. 232]. The Fourth IIE Conference whose theme was "Educational Exchange for the Mutual Development of Nations" recommended that emphasis should be placed on building and strengthening educational institutions in the recipient nations and on the training of teachers. These factors required two-way exchanges [3, p. 232].
The major landmark during the Kennedy administration was the enactment of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Act, introduced by Senator Fulbright and cosponsored by Representative Hays. The significance of the Fulbright-Hays Act lay in the emphasis on "mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries" unlike "a better understanding of the United States in other countries" as it was stated in the Smith-Mundt Act [3, p. 233]. The new legislature was intended to facilitate the use of any reasonable means available "to promote international cooperation for educational and cultural advancement; and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic, and peaceful relations between the United States and other countries of the world" [7, p. 51]. Although the Act gave wide latitude to provide for using private organizations to administer government-sponsored programs, the "propaganda vs. education" controversy still remained. This debatable issue reflected itself in Senator Fulbright's speech:
This argument... that the exchanges should have the primary purpose of advancing pure scholarship... and that any foreign policy benefits... should be regarded as secondary, or even incidental, I consider... basically irrelevant [7, p. 51-52].
Later in the same speech the explanation followed:
I utterly reject any suggestion that our educational and cultural exchange programs are weapons or instruments with which to do combat... There is no room, and there must not be any room for an interpretation of these programs as propaganda [7, p. 52].
The energetic international educational exchange policy of the Kennedy administration was continued with new efforts and innovations by President Lyndon Johnson. A former public school teacher himself, President Johnson envisaged education as an important means to a better human society [3, p. 238; 15, p. 114; 16, p. 47-48]. Reforms in education, including new approaches and innovations in educational exchange programs, were a part of Johnson's Great Society campaign. The International Education Act came as one of the major commitments to transform the world into a "Great Society" through education. The Act was based on a special message sent to the Congress on February 2, 1966 that unambiguously
declared a stronger emphasis on the exchange in education. "International education cannot be the work of one country," the message said, "It is the responsibility and promise of all nations. It calls for free exchange and full collaboration. We expect to receive as much as we give, to learn as well as to teach" [16, p. 188]. The President's message included four main points, among them: (a) to strengthen nation's capacity for international educational cooperation; (b) to stimulate exchanges with students and teachers of other countries; (c) to assist the progress of education in developing nations; and (d) to build new bridges of international understanding [3, p. 237; 16]. It, probably, was the first time in the American history when the secondary school teacher exchange and school-to-school exchange were mentioned and specifically highlighted in the official document of such high rank.
Congress passed the International Education Act on October 21, 1966, and President Johnson signed it into law eight days later when he was still on an official visit to Thailand and one day before the second session of the Congress adjourned. The delay, however, proved fatal for the Act [15, p. 114]. The new Congress rejected appropriations to fund the new law, although, ironically it was renewed for two more years.
The historical development of the concept of international educational exchange demonstrates that the initial idea of exchanges as a means of promoting education, Christian values, and democracy gradually turned into a more pragmatic and politically determined intent to utilize international programs for the benefits of American policy. That said, it has to be realized that although for some people the phrase American policy implies political, or cultural, or educational imperialism, it also incorporates notions, such as: mutual understanding, tolerance, and cooperation, to name a few.
The brief overview of historical development of international exchange programs revealed the role that those programs played and the place that they took in achieving goals of American foreign and domestic policies in different periods of the 20th century.
References
1. Remarks of President Barack Obama at Student Roundtable at Tophane Cultural Center, Istanbul. - Turkey, 2009. - April. - URL: http://turkey.usembassy.gov/statements_ 040709.html; http://turkey.usembassy.gov/contact.html
2. Thomson, C. A. Cultural relations and U.S. foreign policy / C. A. Thomson, W. H. C. Laves. - Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1963.
3. Bu, L. Making the world like us: Education, cultural expansion, and the American century / L. Bu. - Westport, CT : Praeger, 2003.
4. Halpern, S. M. The Institute of International Education: A history : Doctoral dissertation / Halpern S. M. - New York : Columbia University Press, 1969.
5. Harper, S. N. Civic training in Soviet Russia / S. N. Harper. - Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1929.
6. Nearing, S. Education in Soviet Russia / S. Nearing. - New York : International Publishers, 1926.
7. Coombs, P. H. The fourth dimension of foreign policy: Educational and cultural affairs / P. H. Coombs. - New York : Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964.
8. Dudden, A. P. The Fulbright experience, 1946-1986: Encounters and transformations / A. P. Dudden, R. R. Dynes. - New Brunswick : Transaction Books, 1987.
9. Arndt, R. Questioning the Fulbright experience / R. Arndt // The Fulbright experience / ed. by A. P. Dudden, R. R. Dynes. - New Brunswick : Transaction Books, 1987. - P. 13-32.
10. Institute of international education. - URL: http://www.fulbrightonline.org/us/about_ programhistory.html
11. Frankel, C. The neglected aspect of foreign affairs: American educational and cultural policy abroad / C. Frankel. - Washington : Brookings Institution, 1966.
12. Hixson, W. L. Parting the curtain: Propaganda, culture, and the Cold War, 19451961 / W. L. Hixson. - New York : St. Martin's Press, 1997.
13. Richmond, Y. U.S. - Soviet cultural exchanges, 1958-1986: Who wins? / Y. Richmond. - Boulder : Westview Press, 1987.
14. Richmond, Y. Cultural exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain / Y. Richmond. - University Park : Pennsylvania State University, 2003.
15. Graham, H. D. The uncertain triumph / H. D. Graham. - Chapel Hill : The University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
16. Vestal, T. M. International education: Its history and promise for today / T. M. Vestal. - Westport, CT : Praeger, 1994.
References
1. Remarks of President Barack Obama at Student Roundtable at Tophane Cultural Center, Istanbul. Turkey, 2009, April. Available at: http://turkey.usembassy.gov/statements_ 040709.html; http://turkey.usembassy.gov/contact.html
2. Thomson C. A., Laves W. H. C. Cultural relations and U.S. foreign policy. Blooming-ton: Indiana University Press, 1963.
3. Bu L. Making the world like us: Education, cultural expansion, and the American century. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.
4. Halpern S. M. The Institute of International Education: A history: Doctoral dissertation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.
5. Harper S. N. Civic training in Soviet Russia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1929.
6. Nearing S. Education in Soviet Russia. New York: International Publishers, 1926.
7. Coombs P. H. The fourth dimension of foreign policy: Educational and cultural affairs. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964.
8. Dudden A. P., Dynes R. R. The Fulbright experience, 1946-1986: Encounters and transformations. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1987.
9. Arndt R. The Fulbright experience. Ed. by A. P. Dudden, R. R. Dynes. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1987, pp. 13-32.
10. Institute of international education. Available at: http://www.iulbrightonhne.org/us/ about_programhistory.html
11. Frankel C. The neglected aspect of foreign affairs: American educational and cultural policy abroad. Washington: Brookings Institution, 1966.
12. Hixson W. L. Parting the curtain: Propaganda, culture, and the Cold War, 1945-1961. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997.
13. Richmond Y. U.S. - Soviet cultural exchanges, 1958-1986: Who wins? Boulder: Westview Press, 1987.
14. Richmond Y. Cultural exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2003.
15. Graham H. D. The uncertain triumph. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
16. Vestal T. M. International education: Its history and promise for today. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994.
Курова Алла Валентиновна
кандидат педагогических наук, профессор, кафедра современных языков и литературы, Университет Центральной Флориды
(США, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando) E-mail: allakourova@yahoo.com
Миханова Ольга Павловна кандидат педагогических наук, доцент, кафедра английского языка, директор Центра повышения квалификации и дополнительного образования, Пензенский государственный университет
(Россия, г. Пенза, ул. Красная, 40) E-mail: mikhanova@mail.ru
Kourova Alla Valentinovna Candidate of pedagogical sciences, professor, sub-department of modern languages and literature, University of Central Florida
(4000 Central Florida blvrd, Orlando, USA)
Mikhanova Ol'ga Pavlovna
Candidate of pedagogical sciences, associate professor, sub-department of English language, director of the Center of advanced studies and additional education, Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia)
УДК 371.133 Kourova, A. V.
International educational exchange programs: a brief historical overview / A. V. Kourova, O. P. Mikhanova // Известия высших учебных заведений. Поволжский регион. Гуманитарные науки. - 2015. - № 4 (36). - С. 165-175.
