Mind the Gap : Global Learning at Home and Abroad [1 ed.] 9781642670585, 9781642670561

Citation preview

MIND THE GAP

Book 1.indb 1

27-02-2020 15:42:02

SERIES ON ENGAGED LEARNING AND TEACHING Series Editors: Jessie L. Moore and Peter Felten Mind the Gap Global Learning at Home and Abroad Edited by Nina Namaste and Amanda Sturgill, with Neal W. Sobania and Michael Vande Berg Key Practices for Fostering Engaged Learning A Guide for Faculty and Staff By Jessie L. Moore Promoting Equity and Inclusion Through Pedagogical Partnership By Elizabeth Marquis, Alison Cook-Sather, Alise de Bie, and Leslie Luqueño

Book 1.indb 2

27-02-2020 15:42:02

MIND THE GAP Global Learning at Home and Abroad

Edited by Nina Namaste and Amanda Sturgill with Neal W. Sobania and Michael Vande Berg Series Foreword by Jessie L. Moore and Peter Felten Series on Engaged Learning and Teaching

Copublished in association with STERLING, VIRGINIA

Book 1.indb 3

27-02-2020 15:42:02

COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC. Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC. 22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, Virginia 20166-2019 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names Namaste, Nina B., editor. Sturgill, Amanda, 1968- editor. Sobania, N. W., editor. Vande Berg, Michael, 1948- editor. Title Mind the gap global learning at home and abroad edited by Nina Namaste, Amanda Sturgill, Neal Sobania and Michael Vande Berg; foreword by Jessie L. Moore and Peter Felten. Other titles Mind the gap (Stylus Publishing) Description First edition. Sterling, Virginia Stylus Publishing, 2020. Series on engaged learning and teaching Copublished in association with Elon University, Center for Engaged Learning. Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers LCCN 2020007710 ISBN 9781642670561 (hardcover) ISBN 9781642670578 (paperback) ISBN 9781642670592 (ebook) ISBN 9781642670585 (pdf ) Subjects LCSH International education. Education and globalization. Foreign study. Education, Higher--Aims and objectives. Classification LCC LC1090 .M48 2020 DDC 370.116--dc23 LC record available at httpslccn.loc.gov2020007710 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-64267-056-1 (cloth) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-64267-057-8 (paperback) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-64267-058-5 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-64267-059-2 (consumer e-edition) Printed in the United States of America All first editions printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 Standard. Bulk Purchases Quantity discounts are available for use in workshops and for staff development. Call 1-800-232-0223 First Edition, 2020

Namaste_FM.indd 4

30-03-2020 14:59:07

CONTENTS



SERIES FOREWORD

vii

Jessie L. Moore and Peter Felten PREFACE Global Competency: Where We’ve Been and Where We Need to Go

xi

Neal W. Sobania and Michael Vande Berg INTRODUCTION

1

Nina Namaste and Amanda Sturgill PART ONE: INTENT AND EVIDENCE IN DESIGNING EFFECTIVE GLOBAL LEARNING PRACTICES Amanda Sturgill 1 MAPPING UNDERSTANDINGS OF GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT

11 13

Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler, Joan Ruelle, and Tim Peeples 2 APPROACHING INTERNATIONALIZATION AS AN ECOSYSTEM

27

Linda Drake Gobbo and Joseph G. Hoff PART TWO: USING MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ON STUDY AWAY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF GAPS Amanda Sturgill 3 WHEN DOES GLOBAL LEARNING BEGIN? Recognizing the Value of Student Experiences Prior to Study Away

39

43

Scott Manning, Zachary Frieders, and Lynette Bikos 4 EXPLORING PATTERNS OF STUDENT GLOBAL LEARNING CHOICES A Multi-Institutional Analysis

55

Iris Berdrow, Rebecca Cruise, Ekaterina Levintova, Sabine Smith, Laura Boudon, Dan Paracka, and Paul M. Worley 5 CROSSING BORDERS AT HOME The Promise of Global Learning Close to Campus

70

Amanda Sturgill 6 ASSESSING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE IN STUDENT WRITING A Multi-Institutional Study

79

Melanie Rathburn, Jodi Malmgren, Ashley Brenner, Michael Carignan, Jane Hardy, and Andrea Paras v

Book 1.indb 5

27-02-2020 15:42:03

vi  

contents

7 UP FOR THE CHALLENGE? The Role of Disorientation and Dissonance in Intercultural Learning

96

Andrea Paras and Lynne Mitchell 8 GLOBAL COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT Blended Learning Within a Constructivist Paradigm

109

Bert Vercamer, Linda Stuart, and Hazar Yildirim 9 HAVE INTEREST, WILL NOT TRAVEL Unexpected Reasons Why Students Opt Out of International Study

122

Ekaterina Levintova, Sabine Smith, Rebecca Cruise, Iris Berdrow, Laura Boudon, Dan Paracka, and Paul M. Worley 10 #FACULTYMATTER Faculty Support and Interventions Integrated Into Global Learning

135

Prudence Layne, Sarah Glasco, Joan Gillespie, Dana Gross, and Lisa Jasinski PART THREE: ASSESSING EXPANDED NOTIONS OF GLOBAL LEARNING Amanda Sturgill 11 EXPANDING THE PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES OF GLOBAL LEARNING Connecting Disciplines Through Integrative Global Learning and Assessment

149

151

Darla K. Deardorff and Dawn Michele Whitehead 12 ASSESSING GLOBAL COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT IN DIVERSE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

163

Horane Holgate, Heidi E. Parker, and Charles A. Calahan 13 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF ETHICAL, EFFECTIVE GLOBAL LEARNING

176

Nina Namaste and Amanda Sturgill EPILOGUE Global Learning as High-Quality Engaged Learning

189

Jessie L. Moore APPENDIX Statement on Integrating Global Learning With the University Experience: Higher-Impact Study Abroad and Off-Campus Study

195



207

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

INDEX

Book 1.indb 6

219

27-02-2020 15:42:03

SERIES FOREWORD

M

ind the Gap: Global Learning at Home and Abroad is the inaugural book in the Series on Engaged Learning and Teaching, published by Stylus in partnership with the Center for Engaged Learning at Elon University. The series is designed for a multidisciplinary audience of higher education faculty, staff, graduate students, educational developers, administrators, and policymakers interested in research-informed engaged learning practices. Although individual books in the series might most appeal to those interested in a specific topic, each volume will concisely synthesize research for nonexperts and will address the broader implications of this particular work for higher education, including effective practices for teaching, curriculum design, and educational policies. All books in the series will be supplemented by open-access resources hosted on the Center for Engaged Learning’s website. Mind the Gap serves as an excellent example of our goals for this new book series. The collection features multi-institutional research, representing a variety of institution types and disciplines. Chapters translate this new research into practical strategies for global learning programs. Contributors include more than 30 faculty and staff at colleges and universities in the United States and international contexts, as well as scholars affiliated with leading higher education organizations (e.g., Association of American Colleges & Universities and AFS Intercultural Programs). Visit www.centerforengagedlearning.org/books/mind-the-gap for supplemental resources for this book, including supporting data for specific chapters, discussion questions for reading groups, video interviews with leading scholars, and more. We are grateful to Nina Namaste, Amanda Sturgill, Neal W. Sobania, Michael Vande Berg, and their chapter contributors for offering a robust start to the series. We are confident that their research and practical strategies will positively inform readers’ global learning teaching, programs, policies, and scholarship.

vii

Book 1.indb 7

27-02-2020 15:42:03

viii  

series foreword

Visit www.centerforengagedlearning.org/books/ to learn more about the Series on Engaged Learning and Teaching, including how to propose a book. Jessie L. Moore Director Center for Engaged Learning Elon University

Book 1.indb 8

Peter Felten Executive Director Center for Engaged Learning Elon University

27-02-2020 15:42:03

PREFACE Global Competency: Where We’ve Been and Where We Need to Go Neal Sobania and Michael Vande Berg

E

ducators have been asking questions about the impact of studying away from the home campus for a very long time. In 1966, at a meeting of the Great Lakes Colleges Association (GLCA), Irwin Abrams of Antioch College suggested that for the sake of future student learning it would be useful to follow, over time, the 36 students who had just participated in a new GLCA program in Yugoslavia. The program brought together 18 U.S. and 18 Yugoslav students in Ljubljana for an intensive monthlong comparative seminar focused on economics, politics, and sociology. Abrams wanted to know if there would be a discernible relationship between, on the one hand, the students’ experience in this program and, on the other hand, their future career paths and community engagement. However, no followup study was ever launched. Today, in place of compelling data about the program’s impact, what we’re left with are participant anecdotes—the sort of evidence that has often been offered in discussing the impact of programs on student learning. Which brings us back to the question: How do we know in what ways, and to what extent, the experiences we design are impacting our students’ learning? At a conference in Atlanta in the late 1990s that brought together presidents, provosts, and international education directors from the GLCA, the Associated Colleges of the Midwest (ACM), and the Associated Colleges of the South (ACS), one of the participating provosts asked a question: What if we gave our students the full cost of their semester tuition, room and board, and also let them buy an airplane ticket or tickets so they could travel for three months—would they learn more about themselves and the world in which they live by traveling on their own than they do when we send them on our, or another college’s, program?

That provocative question went to the heart of the matter then; it still does today. What are our students learning when we send them away from the home campus? Are they learning in ways we believe they should—and ix

Book 1.indb 9

27-02-2020 15:42:03

x  

preface

how do we know that they are, to one extent or another? If we can’t gather convincing evidence that our students are learning as we hope they will— and learning more than they would if simply left to their own devices—how are we then to justify the considerable energy and expense we’re investing in these sorts of experiences? Outside of a growing interest during the 1980s in documenting secondlanguage acquisition abroad, there was relatively little interest in responding convincingly to these and related questions about the impact of studying away from the home campus. By the mid-1990s, though, a growing body of research was starting to focus, in broader and more methodologically appropriate ways, on the presumed benefits of studying in countries other than one’s own. Research journals focusing on study abroad were emerging: Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad published its first volume in 1995; the first issue of the Journal of Studies in International Education appeared two years later. In 2004, Frontiers devoted a special issue to the assessment of student learning abroad (Vande Berg, 2004), and in 2007, the Forum on Education Abroad published A Guide to Outcomes Assessment in Education Abroad (Forum, 2007). During the past decade, however, educators have increasingly been asking whether it makes sense to focus research narrowly on learning abroad; many are now proposing that we instead broaden our frame of reference and focus our efforts on global learning. In August 2014, Elon University’s Center for Engaged Learning (CEL) took a step toward exploring the meaning of this newer construct and some of the implications of using it to frame research on learning. CEL Executive Director Peter Felten and CEL Director Jessie L. Moore invited a small group of higher education educators, a group that included the 2 of us, to consider what global learning is and how educators might foster it. Following that 1-day meeting, CEL took the bold step of inviting 21 educators from diverse institutions, each of them involved in various ways in student learning beyond their home campuses, to participate in an interinstitutional research seminar. That seminar enabled the 21 participating educators to identify, design, and carry out 5 interinstitutional research studies between June of 2015 and June of 2017. At a public symposium at Elon University in June 2017, seminar participants showcased findings from the 5 studies they had designed and carried out; several other invited researchers, representing other institutions, shared findings from studies of their own that shed additional light on the seminar findings. Seminar and symposium participants have, to date, produced an impressive array of presentations and publications, among them this volume. All of this activity has taken place under the guidance of Moore and the seminar’s four coleaders: Nina Namaste and Amanda Sturgill, both Elon faculty

Book 1.indb 10

27-02-2020 15:42:03

preface  

xi

members, who have done most of the heavy lifting throughout the project’s three years, and the two of us, Neal W. Sobania and Michael Vande Berg, who have brought our diverse global experiences and expertise to this collaborative work. As we look back across those three years, it’s clear that the two of us have gotten at least as much as we’ve given—which is to say that our engagement in the project has allowed each of us to develop our own thinking about what global learning is, and about what we and other educators can do to foster it. Both of us came to this project with some strongly held views about global education. As was the case back then and still is now, coauthor Sobania (2015) strongly believes that off-campus study, whether international or domestic, which he and some other educators now call study away, needs to be grounded in a knowledge base that is cultural and historical. He argues that this foundational knowledge must be taught to students through purposeful activities, whether in or out of the classroom, in order for them to take full advantage of what they experience. Back then and now, coauthor Vande Berg strongly believes that if educators want students to be able to interact more effectively and appropriately with “culturally different others,” we need to be knowledgeable about and skilled in intervening in ways that support intercultural development. He argues that we need to focus on facilitating the intercultural development of not only students who are studying away from campus but also faculty and staff who are engaging those students. However, in saying that we believed these things “back then and still do now,” we don’t mean that our seminar collaboration with colleagues from very different backgrounds, and with very diverse beliefs about global learning, has left us unaffected. Quite the contrary: Our engagement has brought us to new insights and allowed us to revise existing ones. First, to say that the world is getting smaller is both a cliché and a reality. Barring a nuclear holocaust, environmental collapse, or some other apocalyptic event, humans in the future are going to be living on a planet that’s considerably more “global” than the one we’re living on today. As we become ever more interconnected and interdependent, we’re experiencing an explosion of knowledge. The knowledge we’re now creating is expanding exponentially, and the percentage of that knowledge that can realistically be taught and learned, across any length of time, grows ever smaller. We both believe that at some point, perhaps much sooner than later, it will no longer make sense to talk about global learning—all learning will necessarily be global, will necessarily frame any educational activity through a multiplicity of diverse, and often competing, lenses. We imagine that at that point humans will still be talking about learning and, we hope, will still be asking what good learning is; how it occurs; and what roles educators can play in fostering learning that, they’ll understand, continues across the course of

Book 1.indb 11

27-02-2020 15:42:03

xii  

preface

every human life. In the meantime, however, as an evolutionary matter, we believe it makes sense for us to use the term global learning, as we advocate for what we believe we can do to help others, and ourselves, learn in effective and appropriate ways. In an evolutionary and a provisional spirit, then, we embrace CEL’s operational definition of global learning as “a lifelong developmental process in which the learner engages with difference and similarity and develops capabilities to interact equitably in a complex world” (CEL, 2017; also see the appendix). Second, although both of us “understood” three years ago that global learning is both developmental and holistic, we now understand those terms quite differently. We’ve come to a fuller appreciation of what it means to say that we humans create and recreate—construct and reconstruct—the world in the act of perceiving and acting in it. We’ve come to see more clearly that this basic constructivist observation applies to all knowledge—to our attempts, then, to define anything, including the socially constructed term global learning. Human evolution has equipped us with brains that seek the meaning of everything we experience and try to do this collectively; the feeling of satisfaction that we experience as we make sense of something, a sense that grows stronger as we powerfully share with others our meaning-making, is universal. Third, we believe an excellent case can be made for framing global learning broadly, as a variety of activities that includes but is not restricted to, learning that takes place in other countries. Domestic study, whether short or long term; internships; and service-learning and other community-based programs offer equally valid opportunities for global learning. That a learning experience occurs in an international context does not automatically grant it special status. Nor is global learning something that necessarily occurs away from campus, whether in an international or domestic physical context: Curricular and cocurricular learning can occur on as well as off campus. The stimulus for global learning is the dual recognition that, first, for any given object, value, or belief others are making meaning of that concept and themselves differently than I or my group conceptualize it. Simultaneously and second, we must recognize that those others are also making meaning of the world and of themselves differently than my group or I make meaning of it, and alternately, that those others are also making meaning in ways that are similar to, or the same as, the way my group or I do. We’re not suggesting that there’s nothing “special” about learning away from campus, whether the new environment is domestic or international—something about the experience away is clearly attracting the growing number of students, domestic and international, who are leaving “home” to travel and study away. But it’s useful to recall, again, that when any of us experiences anything as “special,” it’s

Book 1.indb 12

27-02-2020 15:42:03

preface  

xiii

our brain that’s creating that sense of specialness. One of the challenges we face as educators is in helping others understand that the meaning of things isn’t somehow in the things themselves—whether those things are “at home” or “away”—but in us. As famously attributed to Anaïs Nin, “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” Fourth, and following from each of the three previous insights, the way any of us are defining the term global learning today won’t be the same way that some of us define it tomorrow, isn’t the way others are defining it now, and won’t be the way others define it in the future. In collaborating with colleagues in a sustained way through this seminar, in working to understand and come to a consensus around global education, we’ve come to recognize, more clearly, that knowing is a process, not a product, and that different groups of educators make meaning differently as they construct and coconstruct the meaning of a term like global learning. In higher education, different groups of educators acknowledge this very differently; among other things, we frame knowing differently through our shared membership in our respective disciplines and specializations. Given the diverse ways that groups conceive of global learning, it’s not clear to us that higher education as a whole, or even individual institutions, are going to be able to embrace, or for that matter that they should try to embrace, a single way of conceptualizing, framing, or assessing global learning. Again, we’re comfortably embracing CEL’s working definition of global learning—even as we may find it necessary to frame the concept in another way at some future date, or in other contexts. Fifth, we’ve come to appreciate the extent to which the seminar has provided all of us who’ve participated in it with a richly diverse array of approaches for defining and practicing global education. In fact, we believe that the insights we have gained, individually and collectively, are a direct result of the fact that we’ve been working over a sustained period of time with people who approach global learning in such diverse ways. Again and again, the diverse frames that all of us have encountered during the seminar have challenged those more familiar and comfortable ways of understanding that each of us had brought to the seminar as it began. As the two of us coauthor this preface, discussing what we’re writing and rewriting, we’re keenly aware that our collaboration in the seminar has led each of us to reframe how we now perceive the work of the other, a reframing that is continuing as we share these insights with you. The two of us have known each other since 1988. Here’s what we knew, or thought we knew, about each other’s approach to global education as the seminar began in the summer of 2015: Sobania was broadly committed to a culture-specific approach to global education. He believed that before, during, and after studying away from campus, educators needed to ask students to learn about and come to understand

Book 1.indb 13

27-02-2020 15:42:03

xiv  

preface

the history and culture of specific cultural groups and places, and from such a foundation, move forward to consider what it means to encounter difference more broadly and the global dimensions of the world in which they live. Vande Berg was broadly committed to a culture-general approach, preparing students and faculty by asking them to engage topics that are relevant to the act of entering into any cultural space: the nature of stereotyping, a focus on contrastive cultural values (some cultural groups are more collectivist whereas others are more individualist), practicing self-reflection and increasing self-awareness, and so on. Our collaboration in the seminar hasn’t entirely changed our respective orientations: Sobania continues to focus on learning about specific cultures and Vande Berg on culture-general learning. However, our shared work in the seminar has led each of us to frame and to perceive the other’s work in new and different ways. We now understand, more than either of us has in the past, the extent to which culture-specific and culture-general approaches are synergistic, and we’re each committed to doing more to bring both of these perspectives into our work. We’ll end this preface by thanking the many colleagues who’ve contributed in important ways to the success of the seminar, including the appearance of this volume. We are particularly appreciative of Elon University for the extraordinary commitment it is making institutionally to explore the nature and practice of engaged learning. Neither the seminars nor the monitoring of research projects, and now the editing of the chapters for this volume, would have happened without Moore, Namaste, and Sturgill—we thank them for their commitment, enthusiasm, and passion for learning. Finally, we want to thank the 21 seminar participants. They’ve taught each of us more than many of them may suspect. We especially appreciate the ways they both challenged and supported us as we worked to understand what it meant to “lead” in a seminar as open and collaborative as the one that all of us cocreated during the time we spent together.

References Center for Engaged Learning. (2017). Elon statement on integrating  global learning with the university experience: Higher-impact study abroad and off-campus domestic study. Retrieved from http://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/doing-engagedlearning/elon-statement-on-integrating-global-learning/ Forum on Education Abroad. (2007). A guide to outcomes assessment in education abroad. Retrieved from https://forumea.org/resources/outcomes/ Sobania, N. W. (Ed.). (2015). Putting the local in global education: Models for transformative learning through domestic off-campus programs. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Vande Berg, M. (Ed.). (2004). Assessing student learning abroad [Special issue]. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10.

Book 1.indb 14

27-02-2020 15:42:03

INTRODUCTION Nina Namaste and Amanda Sturgill

Ready for a global experience? Do we have options for you! If you are one of the new faces of global learning, with a structured professional major and little time, we have what you need in our first option. Students get to see many of the great sights of Europe in the university’s short course: E.U. Capitals. This faculty-led program, conveniently taught in a Maymester, visits Vienna, Brussels, Sofia, Prague, Riga, Helsinki, Stockholm, Berlin, Budapest, and, of course, Rome and Paris in a fast-paced and intense global experience. From the first bite of Sacher Torte to the last sip of Bordeaux, students get a taste of the best of the Continent. Another wonderful option could be our sister school in Paris. Fully immerse yourself as you step out of the international dorm each day and have to get by in your rapidly improving French. After class, sit with your classmates in the Sister School Program in one of the charming sidewalk cafés and absorb what it means to be a citizen of the City of Lights. Learn to speak and be French by “swimming in the pool” of Frenchness! Or you could strike out on your own as a visiting student for a fabulous semester in Hanoi. This one is a challenging chance to live with a Vietnamese roommate and take classes with locals. Our Independent Learner program requires you to complete assignments for a professor here at your home university, keep a guided reflective journal, complete cultural exposure exercises, and participate in an online video discussion group with other students from our university who are learning about cultures where they are—all over the world. Or join our program with the National Student Exchange and experience the diversity of the United States and Canada when you cross-enroll at a school in another state.

These snippets, though invented, are based on real program descriptions at real universities like the sister school programs at University of the Incarnate Word, the many faculty-led short-term classes like those offered at Elon University, the University of Texas, University of Southern California, or the direct-enroll options at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The National Student Exchange facilitates cross-campus enrollment between states and provinces in the United States and Canada. They capture the essence of highly divergent approaches to off-campus international study experiences—from 1

Book 1.indb 1

27-02-2020 15:42:03

2  

introduction

grand tour to sink-or-swim to supported immersion. Hundreds of thousands of students study abroad and in off-campus domestic study for academic credit each year, and many universities identify these experiences as highimpact practices that have the potential to maximize learning. As Salisbury (2011; Salisbury, An, & Pascarella, 2013) notes, scholars have completed many studies of individual study abroad experiences, looking at learning outcomes such as the development of intercultural competence measured at the start and end of a study abroad course. However, as Hayward and Charette (2012), Hoff and Paige (2008), and Deardorff (2014) discuss, developing competence is an iterative process and thus is difficult to capture in research studies. Scholars don’t agree on the expected outcomes—personal growth, intercultural competence, language proficiency, intellectual understanding of difference, and so forth—of study abroad and off-campus domestic study, further complicating research on these practices as well as consistency of learning outcomes on study away programs. Although a solid body of work has emerged investigating the interactions of the before, during, and after attributes of the campus experience with off-campus study (Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009; Vande Berg, Paige, & Lou, 2012), questions remain about the larger picture of offcampus study and its integration with college education as a whole. Previous studies (Rexeisen, 2013; Stebleton, Soria, & Cherney, 2013) have generally investigated global learning as a particular type of high-impact practice, primarily focused on students in the context of study abroad. Up until now, research has tended to specialize, such as in the area of global learning assessment or program-specific practices (e.g., Anderson, Lorenz, & White, 2016; Deardorff, 2014; Dietrich & Olson, 2010). These investigations, although important, do not capture the full nature of global learning that colleges and universities wish to provide, both on and off campus, for students who bring a variety of experiences, levels of knowledge, and demographic and cultural backgrounds. There is growing awareness that global learning is not confined to creditbearing university off-campus international programs, and that institutions of higher learning have, up until now, conceived of global education too narrowly. Global learning through study abroad and off-campus domestic study fits into a larger context of students’ educational experiences (Council on International Educational Exchange, 2006). You can find global learning as part of other high-impact practices; domestic off-campus programs, undergraduate research, and service- or community-based learning all can be global learning opportunities. On-campus global learning can occur in the disciplines and in the core curriculum as well. Language and culture, anthropology, sociology, and other departments; multicultural centers; and

Book 1.indb 2

27-02-2020 15:42:03

introduction  

3

diversity and inclusivity offices, to name a few, also teach students to be global learners. Global learning pertains to the many staff and faculty educators who intentionally encourage students to engage with and successfully navigate difference. Thus, there is a growing need for bridging across disciplinary and administrative silos, silos that are culturally bound within academia. The gaps between these silos matter as students seek to integrate off- and on-campus learning. Since existing studies such as the Georgetown Consortium work (Vande Berg, 2009) were published, the landscape of global learning has changed substantially. Universities offer many more short-term, faculty-led, international, off-campus courses that target affinity groups like majors, athletes, professions, and so on, which have expanded accessibility and increased participation. Teachers and scholars are finding evidence that domestic offcampus experiences can be as enriching and educational as international ones. Students have more ways to learn about and even engage with the world. They share their study away experiences with others on required blogs and optional Instagram stories. When they read what others have done, it’s another data point for preconceived notions about the difference they may encounter. Travel has become less expensive, so more students are having initial encounters with difference before they enroll in college. And college itself has changed—students today have the opportunity to interact and engage with a broader array of people. In the past 20 years, there has been a 15% increase in students of color attending U.S. colleges and universities, with Hispanics making up the majority of those attendees (Espinosa, Turk, Taylor, & Chessman, 2019). Despite persistent inequities in educational attainment documented by Espinosa and colleagues, political changes, demographic shifts, and improving educational technologies have made blended learning, completely online degrees, compacted degrees, and certificate programs all a substantial part of the higher education landscape. For example, in 2019, the American Council on Education (ACE) reported that students of color composed 45% of the student body at colleges and universities (ACE, 2019). Students of indigenous and Hispanic origin still lagged, suggesting there is still work to be done on inclusion in higher education. Yet less is known about how global experiences affect and are affected by micro to macro elements of higher education. Global experiences can be intentionally woven through the curriculum (Vande Berg et al., 2012), and as Brewer and Cunningham (2009) suggest, integrating global experiences at all levels across the university is vital. Doing so can transform students, educators, and ultimately institutions. In turn, scholarship that conceptualizes study abroad and off-campus domestic study as global learning practices integrated into the rest of a university education can lead to higher impact

Book 1.indb 3

27-02-2020 15:42:04

4  

introduction

study abroad and off-campus domestic study. We need research studies, such as those in this edited volume, that move beyond the student question and look at faculty, structures, pathways, and so on that impact global learning. The research in this edited volume stems from the Elon University Center for Engaged Learning (CEL) seminar on Integrating Global Learning, which focused particularly on issues of off-campus international and domestic study. The multi-institutional research teams committed to and collected data for two years; the findings from four groups comprise chapters in Part Two. Additionally, at the end of the second year, CEL held a symposium open to others interested in global learning to present evidence-based research on global learning, which comprise chapters in both Part One and Part Three. The multi-institutional projects, and chapters, explore four main areas: 1. Students’ integration of study abroad and off-campus domestic study with other university global learning experiences 2. Educators’ roles in students’ study abroad and off-campus domestic study 3. Curricular and programmatic factors that integrate study abroad and offcampus domestic study with students’ other global learning experiences 4. Institutional factors that integrate student learning from study abroad and off-campus domestic study

The chapters in this book look at recent developments such as short-term off-campus international study and certificate/medallion programs, as well as blended learning environments and undergraduate research. Research from the CEL seminar demonstrates that global learning has a variety of complex interactions with higher education and is a skill that learners of all sorts can develop and improve, with appropriate interventions. This book meets a significant need to connect research and practice to enhance global learning. We aim to address two related gaps in the literature, both of which constrain institutional, programmatic, and pedagogical effectiveness. 1. Global learning is often divided, both structurally and intellectually, into separate categories such as study abroad, domestic off-campus study, intercultural competence training, and diversity and identity-based education. These silos may make organizational sense, but they do not reflect the integrated nature of learning nor do they meet the needs of students who are exploring intersectional identities (Barnett & Felten, 2016). Many scholars and practitioners recognize this problem. More than a decade ago, for instance, ACE published a report criticizing the

Book 1.indb 4

27-02-2020 15:42:04

introduction  

5

ubiquitous divisions between international and multicultural education on campuses and calling for bridges to be built—or, even better, for silos to be eliminated—to meet the common and essential goals for student learning (Olson, Evans, & Schoenberg, 2007). Unfortunately, persistent gaps continue to divide programs and the practices of global learning in U.S. higher education. 2. Scholarship in this broad area often does not provide useful guidance to those actually doing the work of designing programs or teaching students in global learning. On the one hand, large-scale survey research has been invaluable in identifying the powerful outcomes of “Diversity/Study Away/Global Learning” (Kuh, O’Donnell, & Schneider, 2017, p. 10), the most recent formulation of this category of high-impact practices. On the other hand, these quantitative studies do not offer much insight into how to effectively enact these practices to support student learning because the components of high-quality high-impact practices like global education are difficult to discern from large-scale research (Kuh, O’Donnell, & Reed, 2013). Recognizing this challenge, many scholars have conducted studies of individual programs or institutions (e.g., Allen, 2010; Jackson, 2008; Rexeisen, 2013). This work can be illuminating, but practitioners often struggle to generalize from scholarship that is so context-specific.

This book fills both gaps by presenting new multi-institutional, practiceoriented research on global learning, broadly defined. Mind the Gap focuses on the need to bridge silos; it identifies evidencebased approaches designed to address the many gaps among the various parties teaching and researching aspects of global learning. The hope is that with the findings from collaborative, multi-institutional research the field can move beyond the present case study approach toward one that is more generalizable and thus significantly improve the manner in which we foster and evaluate global learning. For half of the chapters in Part Two, faculty and staff collaborated on research that investigated institutions ranging from small, liberal arts colleges to large, research-intensive state institutions. They share findings from research projects that investigated individual student, structural, faculty, and programmatic interventions that affect global learning within international education contexts. The other chapters include faculty, staff, and other educators who analyzed data from traditional academic contexts to online environments. The variety of perspectives, angles, institutions, and collaborators provided in the book are meant to bridge the silos that currently exist within the study of global learning. Part Three and

Book 1.indb 5

27-02-2020 15:42:04

6  

introduction

the concluding chapter draw these various and varied perspectives together. Thus, • Part One: Intent and Evidence in Designing Effective Global Learning Practices explores the definitions, institutional frames, and important conceptual shifts necessary to integrate global learning throughout the collegiate experience. “Mapping Understandings of Global Engagement” by Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler, Joan Ruelle, and Tim Peeples (Elon University) examines the term global engagement within the scholarly literature of global learning and high-impact educational practices and proposes an operational definition that will clarify the term and provide guidance for an emerging scholarship of global engagement (SoGE). “Approaching Internationalization as an Ecosystem” by Linda Drake Gobbo and Joseph G. Hoff (University of North Carolina-Charlotte) approaches internationalization as an ecosystem, the organizational structure and process component of internationalization that focuses on what is needed to nourish and sustain outcomes. • Part Two: Using Multi-Institutional Research on Study Away to Understand the Context of Gaps features research that extends previous explorations of off-campus study through the holistic frame of global learning, domestically and abroad, including investigating institutional and student factors that both encourage and discourage global learning. Each chapter describes a research project in context, shares the scholars’ findings, discusses the implications for integrating global learning, and offers evidence-based recommendations for practice. “When Does Global Learning Begin? Recognizing the Value of Student Experiences Prior to Study Away” by Scott Manning (Susquehanna University), Zachary Frieders (University of California-Davis), and Lynette Bikos (Seattle Pacific University) suggests that existing predeparture work largely ignores what students consider to have prepared them for study abroad and therefore misses valuable opportunities to use strategies that build on students’ strengths and the connections they make between their predominantly “local” (U.S.) prior cultural experience and their upcoming “global” studies abroad. “Exploring Patterns of Student Global Learning Choices: A MultiInstitutional Analysis” by Iris Berdrow (Bentley University), Rebecca Cruise (University of Oklahoma), Ekaterina Levintova (University of Wisconsin-Green Bay), Sabine Smith (Kennesaw State University), Laura Boudon (Florida International University), Dan Paracka

Book 1.indb 6

27-02-2020 15:42:04

introduction  

7

(Kennesaw State University), and Paul M. Worley (Western Carolina University) argues that global learning is a broader, cumulative process, involving study abroad, international student clubs, international internships, foreign language acquisition, and extracurricular activities wherein students who engage in one type of activity will then be more likely to engage in additional learning opportunities indicating global learning integration. “Crossing Borders at Home: The Promise of Global Learning Close to Campus” by Amanda Sturgill (Elon University) demonstrates that learners don’t have to cross geopolitical borders to be global learners, which is good news for students whose degree plans, life factors, or finances preclude international travel. This chapter explores some of the types of global learning possible without even leaving town, offering results that suggest that quality domestic off-campus study can, indeed, produce change toward intercultural competence. “Assessing Intercultural Competence in Student Writing: A MultiInstitutional Study” by Melanie Rathburn (Mount Royal University), Jodi Malmgren (St. Olaf College), Ashley Brenner (Community College of Philadelphia), Michael Carignan (Elon University), Jane Hardy (Wabash College), and Andrea Paras (University of Guelph) uses student reflections to conclude that short-term programs contribute to global learning, and that intercultural competence can be enhanced through intentional cultural training. “Up for the Challenge? The Role of Disorientation and Dissonance in Intercultural Learning” by Andrea Paras and Lynne Mitchell (University of Guelph) analyzes the relationship between students’ responses to the cognitive dissonance created by disorienting events and how students’ ability to cognitively reframe disorienting experiences directly impacts the potential to improve their intercultural competence. “Global Competence Development: Blended Learning Within a Constructivist Paradigm” by Bert Vercamer, Linda Stuart, and Hazar Yildirim (AFS Intercultural-Sentio, Inc.) explains how well-designed technology redefines learning by allowing a global cohort to engage both synchronously and asynchronously with each other while developing self-awareness, awareness of cultural others, emotional intelligence, and effective bridging techniques. “Have Interest, Will NOT Travel: Unexpected Reasons Why Students Opt Out of International Study” by Ekaterina Levintova (University of Wisconsin-Green Bay), Sabine Smith (Kennesaw State University), Rebecca Cruise (University of Oklahoma), Iris Berdrow (Bentley University), Laura Boudon (Florida International

Book 1.indb 7

27-02-2020 15:42:04

8  

introduction

University), Dan Paracka (Kennesaw State University), and Paul M. Worley (Western Carolina University) argues for a greater attention to additional dimensions of educational equity, particularly for student parents, student athletes, student veterans, and students experiencing anxiety. “#FacultyMatter: Faculty Support and Interventions Integrated Into Global Learning” by Prudence Layne (Elon University), Sarah Glasco (Elon University), Joan Gillespie (Independent Scholar), Dana Gross (St. Olaf College), and Lisa Jasinski (Trinity University) offers a unique assessment of how faculty as learners make meaning and adjust prior perceptions to experience their own paradigm shifts. • Part Three: Assessing Expanded Notions of Global Learning draws the various perspectives in Part One and Part Two together to offer a synthesis of the field for both practitioners and scholars. “Expanding the Perceptions and Realities of Global Learning: Connecting Disciplines Through Integrative Global Learning and Assessment” by Darla K. Deardorff (Duke University) and Dawn Michele Whitehead (Association of American Colleges & Universities [AAC&U]) examines ways to expand notions of global learning by bridging silos—schools and departments, curricular and cocurricular—across institutions through shared understanding and implementation of integrative global learning and a changing paradigm of global learning assessment. “Assessing Global Competency Development in Diverse Learning Environments” by Horane Holgate, Heidi E. Parker, and Charles A. Calahan (Purdue University) introduces a series of formative assessment short scales using Bloom’s affective domain, based on the AAC&U’s Global Learning, Civic Engagement and Intercultural Knowledge & Competence Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) Rubrics. “Opportunities and Challenges of Ethical, Effective Global Learning” by Nina Namaste and Amanda Sturgill (Elon University) uses the history of global learning models to examine some of the reasons why programs fail to deliver the high learning goals they aspire to, and argues that deep, conceptual reform is necessary. “Epilogue: Global Learning as High-Quality Engaged Learning” by Jessie L. Moore, a series coeditor for the Stylus Publishing and Center for Engaged Learning Series on Engaged Learning and Teaching, connects the collection’s work to broader conversations about engaged learning in higher education.

Book 1.indb 8

27-02-2020 15:42:04

introduction  

9

Mind the Gap: Global Learning at Home and Abroad ends with the Elon University Statement on Integrating Global Learning With the University Experience: Higher-Impact Study Abroad and Off-Campus Domestic Study as a reference to help guide discussions that will empower change agents.

References Allen, L. (2010). The impact of study abroad on the professional lives of world language teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 93–104. American Council on Education (ACE). (2019). ACE unveils new resource on the state of race and ethnicity in higher education [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/ACE-Unveils-New-Resource-on-theStatus-of-Race-and-Ethnicity-in-Higher-Education.aspx Anderson, C., Lorenz, K., & White, M. (2016). Instructor influence on student intercultural gains and learning during instructor-led, short-term study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 28, 1–23. Barnett, B., & Felten, P. (2016). Intersectionality in action. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Brewer, E., & Cunningham, K. (Eds). (2009). Integrating study abroad into the curriculum. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Council on International Educational Exchange. (2006). Our view: A research agenda for study abroad. Retrieved from http://www.ciee.org/images/uploaded/ pdf/A%20Research%20Agenda%20for%20Study%20Aboad.pdf Deardorff, D. (2014, May 15). Some thoughts on assessing intercultural competence [Blog entry]. Retrieved from http://illinois.edu/blog/view/915/113048 Dietrick, J. W., & Olson, K. (2010). In quest of meaningful assessment of international learning: The development and implementation of a student survey and ePortfolio approach. The Journal of General Education, 59(3), 143–156. Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. M. (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report. Washington DC: American Council on Education. Hayward, L. M., & Charrette, A. L. (2012). Integrating cultural competence and core values: An international service-learning model. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 26(1), 78–89. Hoff, J. G., & Paige, R. (2008). A strategies-based approach to culture and language learning in education abroad programming. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 17, 89–106. Jackson, J. (2008). Globalization, internationalization, and short-term stays abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 349–358. Kuh, G., O’Donnell, K., & Reed, S. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Kuh, G., O’Donnell, K., & Schneider, C. G. (2017). HIPs at ten. Change, 49(5), 8–16. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00091383 .2017.1366805

Book 1.indb 9

27-02-2020 15:42:04

10  

introduction

Olson, C. L., Evans, R., & Schoenberg, R. E. (2007). At home in the world: Bridging the gap between internationalization and multicultural education. Washington DC: American Council on Education. Rexeisen, R. (2013). Study abroad and the boomerang effect: The end is only the beginning. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 22, 166–181. Salisbury, M. H. (2011). The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence among undergraduate college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Salisbury, M., An, B. P., & Pascarella, E. T. (2013). The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence among undergraduate college students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(1), 1–20. Stebleton, M., Soria, K., & Cherney, B. (2013). The high impact of education abroad: College students’ engagement in international experiences and the development of intercultural competencies. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 22, 1–24. Vande Berg, M. (2009). Intervening in student learning abroad: A research-based inquiry. Intercultural Education, 20(suppl. 1), S15–S27. Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, M. P. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium Project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1–75. Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (Eds). (2012). Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Book 1.indb 10

27-02-2020 15:42:04

PA R T O N E INTENT AND EVIDENCE IN DESIGNING EFFECTIVE GLOBAL LEARNING PRACTICES Amanda Sturgill

I

ntention and evidence matter in global learning. In this section, authors seek to define the processes by which global learning, writ large, should be planned for and realized at institutions. Several metaphors have been used to describe the process by which students become global learners. Students need to see other cultures as part of a well-rounded education. They need to be immersed in the milieu of the other. They need to build up their models of cultures, to construct bridges between their own cultural understandings and those of others in their own communities, in their own country, and in others. Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler, Joan Ruelle, and Tim Peeples provide a new metaphor of global engagement, which occurs “when there is intentional integration of three critical foundational domains: learning/knowledge, skills/behaviors, and attitudes/ dispositions” (p. 18, this volume). They note that mentored authentic experiences are the mechanism by which global engagement occurs. They suggest a research agenda for global engagement that focuses on student factors like open-mindedness and institutional factors like sequencing of experiences on campus, in the home country, and abroad. Linda Drake Gobbo and Joseph G. Hoff suggest a second metaphor— that of the internationalization ecosystem. In this model, they suggest that global learning factors need to be the major criteria by which institutions develop and assess efforts to internationalize learning. This shift in mind-set, away from increasing access to travel or mitigating risk onto learning, helps integrate the study away experience for those who participate and encourages institutions to think about how to provide global learning for students who can’t travel. The contributors suggest that faculty are essential in setting these 11

Book 1.indb 11

27-02-2020 15:42:04

12  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

goals and that institutions should structure incentives to encourage faculty to think beyond disciplinary applications. Thus, Part One explores the definitions, institutional frames, and important conceptual shifts necessary to integrate global learning throughout the collegiate experience.

Book 1.indb 12

27-02-2020 15:42:04

1 M A P P I N G U N D E R S TA N D I N G S OF GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler, Joan Ruelle, and Tim Peeples

A

lthough global learning and some associated terms (e.g., intercultural competence, global citizenship) have been defined in research and practice (Center for Engaged Learning, 2017), there is less clarity about an umbrella term that is increasingly used to capture the complexity and overlapping nature of global educational processes and outcomes— global engagement. In this chapter we examine the term global engagement within the scholarly literature of global learning and high-impact educational practices and map the use of conceptually related terms into three domains: learning/knowledge, skills/behaviors, and attitudes/dispositions. We propose an operational definition that will clarify the term and provide guidance for an emerging scholarship of global engagement (SoGE).

Global Engagement in the Context of Higher Education Many colleges and universities in the United States aim to increase participation in global educational experiences with a goal of preparing graduates to enter the global workforce with greater awareness, knowledge, and competencies related to economic, social, and civic engagement (Dolby, 2007; Engberg, 2013; Hovland, 2014; Norris & Gillespie, 2009; Tarrant, 2010). Over the past two decades, the rate of study abroad by students from the United States has tripled, and the population of those who study abroad has increased in diversity (Institute of International Education, 2017). The number of international students enrolled in U.S. higher education has also increased significantly over the past decade, with 85% more international students studying in the United States than a decade ago (Institute of International Education, 2017). Domestic off-campus experiences of varied 13

Book 1.indb 13

27-02-2020 15:42:04

14  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

duration continue to be offered as well, often combined with other highimpact practices (HIPs) like service-learning. Increased participation rates are clearly not sufficient as markers of quality global education. Administrators and faculty grapple with fundamental questions such as: What makes an institution truly global? What gains can we reasonably expect from students in four short years (or four short weeks abroad, for that matter)? Or when should students engage in global educational experiences and what types of experiences are most effective? Case studies of institution-specific courses and programs abound (e.g., Association of American Colleges & Universities [AAC&U], 2015). Our own institution, Elon University, prioritizes global studies as foundational for all coursework, beginning with a required first-year course titled “The Global Experience.” The aims are to provide an interdisciplinary framework from the outset that will frame all subsequent learning and to advance the institutional mission of preparing students to be global citizens (Coker, Haskell, & Nelson, 2014). A basic question lies at the heart of global education: What is global learning? Recognizing that institutions need a shared language in order to translate abstract mission statements into practice, the AAC&U partnered with numerous organizations, institutions, and individuals to define global learning, articulate the related values, and suggest student learning outcomes (Hovland, 2014). They offered the following definition: Knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world . . . focused by engagement with big questions; intellectual and practical skills . . . practiced across the curriculum; personal and social responsibility . . . anchored through active involvement with diverse communities and realworld challenges; [and] integrative and applied learning . . . demonstrated in new settings and in the context of complex problems. (p. 6)

Although the definition was meant to be adapted within specific institutional contexts, an emphasis on (a) gaining knowledge about diversity, (b) considering issues within local and global communities, and (c) collaborating to solve problems is at the core of many curricular designs for global learning (Hovland, 2014). Although other definitions abound, the research seminar titled “Integrating Global Learning With the University Experience: HigherImpact Study Abroad and Off-Campus Domestic Study,” sponsored by the Center for Engaged Learning at Elon University, defined global learning as “a lifelong developmental process in which the learner engages with difference and similarity and develops capabilities to interact equitably in a complex world” (Center for Engaged Learning, 2017, para 4).

Book 1.indb 14

27-02-2020 15:42:05

mapping understandings of global engagement  

15

Numerous other national associations in the United States have developed collaborative curricular initiatives and programs designed to facilitate students’ global learning. For example, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) developed Global Challenges, an online program composed of extensive digital resources developed by faculty, now known as Global Engagement Scholars, who work in a collaborative, often virtual, multidisciplinary community of practice (Summit, 2013). The American Council on Education (ACE) appointed a Blue Ribbon Panel on Global Engagement to investigate ACE’s role in supporting American colleges and universities to address the new globalized higher educational environment and interconnected world (ACE, 2011). Diversity/global learning has been identified by AAC&U as one of their HIPs, widely recognized as high-quality teaching and learning praxes that promote student engagement, student retention, and positive student learning outcomes (Kuh, Schneider, & AAC&U, 2008; Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013). Diversity/global learning encompasses courses and programs that foster learning of other cultures and different worldviews. Study abroad, domestic off-campus study, and experiential learning in the community are increasingly frequent pathways to global learning. Research supports educators’ assumptions that participation in these HIPs challenges students to experience diversity and develop new ways of thinking. A largescale longitudinal study of the links between HIPs and student learning confirmed that study abroad was a significant, positive predictor of intercultural effectiveness (Kilgo, Sheets, & Pascarella, 2015). Although it is clear that mere immersion in another cultural context is not sufficient for global learning, research indicates that development of intercultural knowledge and understanding is most likely to occur when students are actively engaged with diverse communities (Engberg, 2013; Hovland, 2014; Vande Berg, Paige, & Lou, 2012). Researchers and practitioners have made definitional progress in regard to terminology such as intercultural communication (Deardorff, 2009) and global citizenship (Hartman & Kiely, 2014). These terms are helpful, but don’t completely describe a term representing the integrated and complicated system of the means and products of global education known as global engagement. A quick search of “global engagement” and “higher education” in Google Scholar yields 8,740 results. A review of the scholarly literature of HIPs and campus websites reveals that global engagement is not used synonymously with global learning, but instead is conflated with multiple programs, pedagogies, and practices that contribute to global engagement. Those using the term seem to imply that there are smaller component parts (study away, global learning, intercultural competence) that contribute to a greater whole

Book 1.indb 15

27-02-2020 15:42:05

16  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

(global engagement). A decade ago, Sandmann (2008) articulated a similar argument in regard to the scholarship of engagement, which in her words “references such a wide variety of activities in higher education that confusion often results from the use of the term” (p. 91). Sandmann’s desire to define the term to inform an emergent, interdisciplinary field mirrors our concerns about the term and scholarship related to global engagement. In summary, although many of these individual components of global engagement have received significant attention in the scholarly literature, we find no widely accepted definition of the term itself. What, then, is global engagement? If we as practitioners want to use the term global engagement, we cannot merely rely on implicit connections to other practices and outcomes. We must define the term, and study it. We need evidence-based research that includes more than descriptive case studies and assessment of component parts. At Elon University, we recently developed a Center for Research on Global Engagement (CRGE) to facilitate, support, and promote scholarship on global engagement (international and domestic). With CRGE, we aspire to foster high-quality scholarship related to research on global engagement not only on our own campus but also in collaboration with national and international partners. Our initial search for an established definition became a realization that we had an opportunity to define the boundaries of research and scholarship on global engagement on our own campus and perhaps provide a definition that would help move the emerging field of scholarship forward. Our operational definition could guide an emerging SoGE.

Mapping the Term Within the Literature of HIPs To situate our inquiry about global engagement within the context of highimpact educational practices we chose to use Kuh and colleagues’ (2008) introduction of HIPs as a foundational text and used the following methodology as a means of identifying the salient aspects of global engagement (see Figure 1.1). We employed Google Scholar to identify 1,453 articles that cited Kuh and colleagues’ 2008 source document. Our student colleague Morgan Ferguson researched these articles for inclusion of the term global engagement (resulting in 54 articles). Because we were seeking a broad definition, we further filtered out articles that were primarily case studies, discipline-specific instances, provided only brief mentions of the term (usually in the list of HIPs), or where the article was primarily about different HIPs (first-year seminar, learning communities, service-learning, etc.). We then reviewed the remaining 27 articles to identify elements of a shared or emerging definition.

Book 1.indb 16

27-02-2020 15:42:05

mapping understandings of global engagement  

17

Figure 1.1.  Identifying global engagement within HIPs.

58 articles used the phrase global engagement

1,453 articles cited "High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter" (Kuh, Schneider, & AAC&U, 2008)

Filtered out case studies and disciplinespecific instances

Reviewed remaining articles and searched for conceptually related terms commonly associated with global engagement

Through this review, we identified 21 conceptually related terms commonly used when referring to global engagement (e.g., global learning, intercultural learning, global citizenship, global mindedness). Using the basic foundation of many models of learning processes and competencies (e.g., Baartman & de Bruijn, 2011; Deardorff, 2009), we sorted each term into one of three domains: learning/knowledge, skills/behaviors, or attitudes/ dispositions. Under learning/knowledge, we were able to sort a number of related terms fairly easily, as most include learning or a related term in their formation (e.g., global learning and intercultural knowledge). Another set of terms fell fairly neatly under skills/behaviors, as these terms often reference competence or ways of being (e.g., cultural competence and global citizenship). A final set of commonly referenced terms began forming under attitudes/ dispositions (e.g., openness and intercultural sensitivity). The resulting table became our first mapping of an understanding of global engagement (see Table 1.1). As noted by the Elon Center for Engaged Learning (2017) statement on Integrating Global Learning With the University Experience, there is an emerging consensus that each of these components is necessary for global learning. Similarly, Gobbo and Hoff (chapter 2) argue for a holistic approach

Book 1.indb 17

27-02-2020 15:42:05

18  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

TABLE 1.1

Mapping Global Engagement Terms Learning/Knowledge

Skills/Behaviors

Attitudes/Dispositions

Global learning

Intercultural proficiency

Global perspective

Intercultural learning

Intercultural competence

Global-mindedness

Intercultural knowledge

Globally engaged citizens

World-mindedness

Intercultural awareness

Global citizenship

Openness

Global ecology of learning

Global leadership

Cultural relativism

Diversity/global learning

Globally competent citizens

Intercultural maturity

Cultural competence

Intercultural sensitivity

Global competence

in their conceptualization of internationalization as an ecosystem in which global learning is the main focus. Thus, engagement is more than learning or “knowing that.” It is also more than skills or “knowing how.” Furthermore, global engagement is not neutral or simply instrumental; it carries with it a set of attitudes and dispositions. Overlap in these domains is the embodiment of engagement. Based on our initial mapping of these interrelated terms, we propose the following working definition of global engagement: Global engagement occurs when there is intentional integration of three critical foundational domains: learning/knowledge, skills/behaviors, and attitudes/dispositions. Our initial mapping, however, requires additional maps in order to capture the variations that are possible within what can be defined as global engagement. It would be an error to conceive of the domains of learning/ knowledge, skills/behaviors, and attitudes/dispositions all necessarily in balance. Each component is necessary but not itself sufficient for global engagement, and all three components do not have to be simultaneous or equal in focus or intensity. For example, Figure 1.2 represents a form of global engagement wherein learning/knowledge is predominant. This figure may represent a course, at home or abroad, focused heavily on knowledge-building that includes a service-learning component through which students apply and develop skills, and develop attitudes and dispositions through intentional reflective practices. The majority of time may be spent in the classroom on learning/ knowledge-building, but there is also represented in this mapping intentional building of time and space for emphasis on skills/behaviors and attitudes/ dispositions.

Book 1.indb 18

27-02-2020 15:42:05

mapping understandings of global engagement  

19

Figure 1.2.  Learning is predominant.

Learning/knowledge

Global engagement

Attitudes/dispositions

Skills/behaviors

Figure 1.3 represents what may be considered an ideal. In this case, there is intentional overlap and maximum integration of all three domains. Some short-term study away experiences may be represented in this mapping—for example, wherein students are engaged equally in knowledgebuilding, skill development, and attitudes/dispositions development. Nevertheless, one should not mistake this map as illustrating absolute balance. Each domain is not necessarily engaged simultaneously, for instance. Figure 1.3.  Domain in balance.

Learning/ knowledge

Global engagement

Attitudes/dispositions

Book 1.indb 19

Skills/behaviors

27-02-2020 15:42:06

20  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

They could be sequential, with predeparture learning predominating the first portion of time, on-the-ground skills being the focus of the middle portion, and ongoing reflection used to enhance dispositional shifts. Still, there is intentional integration of all three domains. In spite of variations in time, intensity, and explicit focus, these three components are essential for global engagement. Additional figures mapping different understandings and practices of global engagement could represent an emphasis on skills/behaviors; or attitudes/dispositions; or possible combined emphases across two domains, such as learning/knowledge and skills/behaviors. What we wish to emphasize here is that multiple mappings are necessary to understand the space that is marked by the term global engagement.

Assumptions The model we propose is based on a number of assumptions. First, this model grows out of a valuing of and commitment to liberal learning and the liberal arts tradition. A long historical tradition articulates this first assumption upon which we build our model. One contemporary source is AAC&U’s Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) project. The four essential learning outcomes of the LEAP initiative focus on knowledge, skills, personal responsibility, and integration, all part of the model we propose. Furthermore, of the seven “Principles of Excellence” upon which the LEAP initiative is built, the sixth focuses on civic, intercultural, and ethical learning. Our model presumes an approach to engagement in the world that embraces these liberal learning values, which would also include perspective-taking, personal and social responsibility, and cultural relativity. Intercultural knowledge and skills can be paired with very different sets of values and commitments and deployed in highly engaged ways that lead to, for example, globalization or imperialism. Our model is built on a different set of assumptions, assumptions that grow out of a long tradition of liberal learning. A second assumption is that the role of teaching and teacher/mentors is facilitative if not critical within and across domains. When the AAC&U proposed the HIPs, they also identified eight essential elements or quality indicators (Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013): 1. Performance expectations set at appropriately high levels 2. Significant investment of time and effort by the student over an extended period of time

Book 1.indb 20

27-02-2020 15:42:07

mapping understandings of global engagement  

21

3. Interactions with faculty and peers about substantive matters 4. Experiences with diversity 5. Frequent, timely, and constructive feedback 6. Periodic, structured opportunities to reflect and integrate learning 7. Opportunities to discover relevance of learning through real-world applications 8. Public demonstration of competence (p. 8)

Each of these indicators requires a combination of student initiative and motivation with faculty support. In regard to our definition of global engagement, using some if not all of these elements to support the three domains of learning/knowledge, skills/behaviors, and attitudes/dispositions requires developmentally appropriate, sensitive scaffolding and guidance by faculty/ mentors (Vygotsky, 1978). Inquiry-based learning in the HIPs becomes an apprenticeship of sorts, in which students learn through engaged, sustained, collaborative participation in authentic activities with the guidance and expertise of faculty/mentors. Students then gradually develop personal and professional knowledge, skills, and identities within larger communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016). As noted by Shanahan, Ackley-Holbrook, Hall, Stewart, and Walkington (2015), teaching and mentoring should ideally be scaffolded within and across a variety of opportunities over time. Undergraduates may participate in several global, high-impact experiences with multiple mentors, including adults outside of the academic institution (e.g., internship supervisors). Our assumption is that these teachers and mentors provide critical support for students’ developing global engagement. If our first assumption grows out of the liberal arts tradition, our second grows out of a value central to the modern university. Our effort to define global engagement is tied to the goal of defining a research space: the scholarship of global engagement. With a more clearly defined term, we can generate research that helps guide our practices more effectively. We assume that research-informed, evidence-based practice is critical to guiding the development of global engagement. We do not position research as prior to practice. Rather, we foresee a future with a strong praxis loop, wherein practice both drives important questions and is driven by research-based understandings of global engagement (see Bronfenbrenner, 1974, for a related discussion of research and social policy). Finally, the integration of learning/knowledge, skills/behaviors, and attitudes/dispositions fuels the assumption that scholarship related to global engagement involves significantly more than an assessment of the

Book 1.indb 21

27-02-2020 15:42:07

22  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

component experiences. The points of convergence across domains in our model imply an additional complexity that is seldom studied. What research questions might emerge from this convergence? Defining a research agenda for SoGE is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, we explore a few compelling lines of inquiry in the following, and we expect that many more may be generated. In offering these questions our intention is not to exclude but to welcome disciplinary perspectives that may further inform research questions and methodologies. Brought into the space of SoGE, disciplinary lenses may not only further disciplinary knowledge but also add complexity to the nature of global engagement and invite multidisciplinary project approaches. As noted in chapter 2, in institutions with truly embedded internationalization efforts throughout their campuses, faculty work in communities of practice to connect disciplinary knowledge with intercultural content. They are afforded opportunities to collaborate on pedagogical approaches, assessment, and research in safe, supportive environments that allow for complexity and risk-taking. The distinguishing feature of SoGE is that investigating students’ developing global engagement forms the core of the research agenda and is at the very heart of the questions. Examining the convergence of students’ developing attitudes, skills, and knowledge offers a unique way to study global engagement. To that end, the following section offers several questions for future study.

Research Questions for Future Study It is widely accepted that the three domains—learning/knowledge, skills/ behaviors, and attitudes/dispositions—are all critical components of global learning. We posit here they are also critical to global engagement, yet little is known about whether or not the sequencing of the three domains is influential for learning and development. Questions that may emanate from this work include the following: Is open-mindedness required for maximum learning and skill development? When students gain skills and experience in a global context, does that drive further learning/knowledge and foster intercultural sensitivity? To what extent should content knowledge serve as a prerequisite for a global experience? Future research that encompasses the three domains and attends to the sequencing of each could contribute to our knowledge and inform practice. In addition to sequencing, there are related questions focused on the nature of integration across domains. Does greater integration across domains deepen engagement? Is any particular domain especially salient? These questions may require large-scale; longitudinal; and

Book 1.indb 22

27-02-2020 15:42:07

mapping understandings of global engagement  

23

collaborative, multi-institutional designs that also account for student characteristics and programmatic factors. Another set of questions relates to the integration of HIPs. What is the impact, if any, of multiple high-impact global engagement experiences on student learning and development? Little is known about the synergies between HIPs conducted simultaneously, such as participating in an internship or an undergraduate research experience during study away, or sequentially across semesters and/or years of the undergraduate experience (Banks & Gutiérrez, 2017). How does student development transfer across experience and time? Is there lasting impact over time? Given the importance of the faculty/mentors’ role in guiding the essential elements of quality HIPs, there are also many unanswered questions related to the faculty role. What qualities are necessary for teachers and mentors? What supports do they require to facilitate high-quality teaching and learning in global contexts?

Conclusion Our review of the literature throughout this project has revealed many examples of programmatic and operational-level case studies and assessments dealing with global educational experiences, both within and beyond the framework of HIPs. However, we did not find a generally accepted definition of the term global engagement. Using the frame of HIPs, we mapped conceptually related terms in three domains: learning/knowledge, skills/behaviors, and attitudes/dispositions. We proposed an operational definition in order to clarify the term and provide guidance for an emerging SoGE: Global engagement occurs when there is intentional integration of three critical foundational domains: learning/knowledge, skills/behaviors, and attitudes/dispositions. We acknowledge several of the foundational assumptions of our model, including the reality that although integration across all three domains is critical, the domains themselves may not be balanced within or across global learning experiences. Our model is constructed on the basis of a valuing of and commitment to liberal learning and recognition of the critical role of teachers and mentors to guide student learning and development in a variety of authentic experiences. We also assume that research-informed, evidencebased practice is critical and offer several potential areas for future SoGE with the hope that our definition fosters research that grounds our practices more effectively. The results of complex, multidisciplinary SoGE projects, such as examining the impact of sequencing domestic and international service-learning experiences or studying the transfer of learning from a semester away to a

Book 1.indb 23

27-02-2020 15:42:07

24  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

semester on the home campus, have potential relevance for teaching and learning practices on and away from campus. Thus, there are direct implications of SoGE research findings for faculty and staff who aim to educate university students to engage difference and for stakeholders in higher education who seek to assess and study these practices. This scholarship must be more than an assessment of the experiences, as the points of convergence across domains in our model denote additional complexity that is seldom studied. Like the scholars in the Center for Engaged Learning seminar on global learning whose work is featured in this volume, we highlight the potential for disciplinary and multidisciplinary scholarship to inform the field (Center for Engaged Learning, 2017).

References American Council on Education. (2011, November). Strength through global leadership and engagement: U.S. higher education in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/2011-CIGE-BRPReport.pdf Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U). (2015, Summer). Engaging global challenges. Diversity & Democracy, 18, 3. Retrieved from https:// www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2015/summer Baartman, L. K., & de Bruijn, E. (2011). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 125–134. Banks, J. E., & Gutiérrez, J. J. (2017). Undergraduate research in international settings: Synergies in stacked high-impact practices. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 37(3). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/32621416/ Undergraduate_Research_in_International_Settings_Synergies_in_Stacked_ High-Impact_Practices Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Development, 45(1), 1–5. Center for Engaged Learning. (2017). Elon statement on integrating global learning with the university experience: Higher-impact study abroad and off-campus domestic study. Retrieved from http://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/doing-engagedlearning/elon-statement-on- integrating-global-learning/ Coker, J. S., Haskell, R., & Nelson, T. (2014). Teaching global studies to all undergraduates: A required first-year course. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 13(1–2), 267–280. Deardorff, D. (Ed.). (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Dolby, N. (2007). Reflections on nation: American undergraduates and education abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 141–156.

Book 1.indb 24

27-02-2020 15:42:07

mapping understandings of global engagement  

25

Engberg, M. (2013). The influence of study away experiences on global perspectivetaking. Journal of College Student Development, 54(5), 466–480. Hartman, E., & Kiely, R. (2014). A critical global citizenship. In P. Green & M. Johnson (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Tensions and transformation in international service-learning (pp. 215–242). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hovland, K. (2014). Global learning: Defining, designing, demonstrating. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Retrieved from http:// www.aacu.org/globallearning Institute of International Education. (2017). Open Doors report. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Why-IIE/Announcements/2017-11-13-Open-Doors2017-Executive-Summary Kilgo, C. A., Sheets, J. K. E., & Pascarella, E. T. (2015). The link between highimpact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509–525. Kuh, G., Schneider, C., & Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Kuh, G. D., & O’Donnell, K. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Norris, E. M., & Gillespie, J. (2009). How study abroad shapes global careers: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 382–397. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996–2008. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91–104. Shanahan, J., Ackley-Holbrook, E., Hall, E., Stewart, K., & Walkington, H. (2015). Salient practices of undergraduate research mentors: A review of the literature. Mentoring and Tutoring, 23(5), 359–376. Summit, J. (2013). Global citizenship demands new approaches to teaching and learning: AASCU’s Global Challenges initiative. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(6), 51–57. Tarrant, M. A. (2010). A conceptual framework for exploring the role of studies abroad in nurturing global citizenship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 433–451. Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (2012). Student learning abroad: Paradigms and assumptions. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 3–28). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Book 1.indb 25

27-02-2020 15:42:07

26  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

Vandermaas-Peeler, M. (2016). Mentoring undergraduate research: Student and faculty participation in communities of practice. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning eJournal, 9(1), 1–10. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Book 1.indb 26

27-02-2020 15:42:07

2 APPROACHING I N T E R N AT I O N A L I Z AT I O N AS AN ECOSYSTEM Linda Drake Gobbo and Joseph G. Hoff

M

eeting global learning objectives throughout the campus invol­ ves some internationalization. Often this means structural and organizational approaches, led by a central office of international education or an administrative or faculty council that enacts changes to the curriculum, like various programming and policy innovations that apply to students and faculty. What’s left out is considering whether those faculty and staff who will implement it have the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to do so. The big picture can be left behind, as institutions ignore how all the internationalization pieces fit together. Lessons already learned in the field of international education can help, and in this chapter, we show how the field of international education has developed comprehensive inter­ nationalization concepts and practices and, in the process, embraced the con­ cept of global learning. Campus internationalization can be seen as an ecosystem, with global learning outcomes as the primary goal. Then the focus of internationaliza­ tion shifts from organizational structure and programs to nourishing and sus­ taining the desired curricular outcomes and student learning. For example, faculty leaders can make discipline-focused study away programs stronger by incorporating global learning outcomes. To make this work, however, institutions must support the faculty leader’s efforts to gain needed global learning expertise (see chapter 10). Done correctly, internationalization then becomes holistic, centered on global learning outcomes. To succeed, institu­ tions should focus on treating global learning as an ecosystem. We define a global learning ecosystem as 27

Book 1.indb 27

27-02-2020 15:42:07

28  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

the complex of administrative, academic, and cocurricular efforts and developments that promote global learning for faculty, staff, and students. As in a biological ecosystem, the global learning ecosystem would include the “nutrients” needed for sustainability and the interrelationships among the constituents. The resulting institutions actively integrate global learn­ ing throughout their academic, administrative, and cocurricular efforts in order to achieve true internationalization. This model makes global learn­ ing outcomes as important as other learning outcomes.

A visual representation of this global learning ecosystem can be seen in Figure 2.1 and will be addressed more fully in the following pages. What follows is an exploration of the concepts of internationaliza­ tion and global learning, and examples of their successful interdependence. Current examples of learning ecosystems demonstrate how a shift in empha­ sis can maintain and grow communities of practice that ensure global learn­ ing outcomes are achieved. Seen this way, internationalization efforts can continue to thrive. Finally, we identify the necessary conditions we believe Figure 2.1.  Global learning ecosystem. Global learning outcomes - Cross-disciplinary intercultural learning - Faculty collaboration on curriculum - Improved intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes in students - Collaborative online integrated learning activities with international partners

Global learning outcomes Internationalization

Mobility programs

Mission and institutional structure

Mobility programs - Education abroad - International students and scholars integration - Faculty development and citizen exchanges Mission and institutional structure - Institutional mission statement with global focus - Appropriate staffing for internationalization efforts - Financial administration support - Adequate faculty resources and policies

Book 1.indb 28

27-02-2020 15:42:08

approaching internationalization as an ecosystem  

29

must be in place for the global learning ecosystem to grow and be replicated in other academic environments.

Internationalization Defined The American Council on Education’s (ACE) Council for International and Global Engagement (CIGE) identifies the following interconnected key areas, or pillars, for internationalization (ACE, n.d.a): • Articulated institutional commitment to increasing internationaliza­ tion efforts and integrating these into the academic community • Administrative leadership, structure, and staffing appropriate to the levels of commitment desired at the institution • Increased intercultural learning throughout the curriculum and cocurriculum, and the assessment of achieving global learning outcomes • Policies and practices to develop faculty professionally and recognize their contributions to global learning improvements in the curriculum • Student mobility programs of all sorts—study abroad in the form of coursework, internships, and service-learning, and increasing numbers of incoming international students and scholars with integration into the existing community • Increased and improved collaborations and partnerships with international universities and nongovernmental organizations This all-inclusive definition gives equal weight to each of the key areas. Another current, well-known definition is that of comprehensive internationalization (CI) (Hudzik, 2011; Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012). This frame­ work begins with recognizing the leadership and structural requirements that must be present to transform and internationalize an educational institution. Both Hudzik (2011) and Hudzik and McCarthy (2012) work on interna­ tionalization recognize desired global learning outcomes, but the strategic implementation does not prioritize seeking them first. The result is that the global learning ecosystem does not reinforce itself. An example of a well-functioning ecosystem would start with an initia­ tive to host larger numbers of international students on campus. It would provide faculty and staff with development training about the needs of these students in and out of the classroom, with attention to how the international students may be better integrated with domestic students, and identifying opportunities for the international students to engage in the local commu­ nity. The end goal of this cross-cultural exchange and integration includes

Book 1.indb 29

27-02-2020 15:42:08

30  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

faculty understanding of how to create an inclusive learning environment where all students acquire content knowledge, discover the cultural para­ digms associated with it, and understand the value of learning about both for their future careers. DePaul University researchers found that although fac­ ulty said they believed international student perspectives added value to their classrooms, faculty practices did not demonstrate this belief. They concluded that pedagogical practices needed to be further developed and institutional support for faculty and students increased (Jin & Schneider, 2018). In this well-functioning ecosystem, staff must also be well versed in how to frame the contributions of international students for the campus and community as a whole. Admissions and alumni offices would understand how to strategically enroll international students to build academic depart­ ments and provide academic experiences for students and opportunities for faculty development. An obvious connection in the ecosystem is the educa­ tion abroad unit, employing international students as cultural informants and vice versa. Successful internationalization requires an interdisciplinary perspec­ tive. Intercultural learning is by definition a companion of, and complement to, specific academic disciplines. In an effort to address the gap between desired goals of global learning and the single disciplinary focus of academia, Sanderson (2008) notes that individual faculty and staff need to feel like they can achieve their goals. Sanderson references the Jane Knight definition of internationalization, “the process of integrating an inter-national, intercul­ tural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (Knight, 2004, p. 11) as one of the most widely accepted in his home country of Australia and beyond (Sanderson, 2008). He adds that Knight’s definition, although groundbreaking, is limited: Once it is recognized that currently favored theory that focuses on interna­ tionalization at the organizational level is largely limited in terms of dealing with the substance of how staff, themselves, might “become international­ ized,” a conspicuous gap in the literature becomes apparent. This is despite the perceived importance of the area. (p. 281)

Sanderson (2008) goes on to explain the theory of the “Internationalization of the Academic Self ” (p. 282) as a theoretical area that needs to be devel­ oped in order to achieve comprehensive internationalization at an institution. Institutions must create professional development opportunities for faculty to determine how the academic discipline addresses critical global issues and intersects with intercultural competencies. Leask (2012) also wrote about how internationalization at home is connected to global learning. Local,

Book 1.indb 30

27-02-2020 15:42:08

approaching internationalization as an ecosystem  

31

national, regional, and global contexts connect to academic disciplines, she writes, and she states internationalization of the curriculum can happen only if the faculty, academic staff, and leadership encourage and evaluate curricu­ lum changes. Internationalization requires different, but complementary, sets of knowledge to achieve its goals. Mestenhauser (1998) describes levels of knowledge needed for internationalization. He writes, “The advanced level of internationalization focuses on developing cognitively complex global skills and on integrating a variety of concepts from other disciplines and other cultural systems” (p. 71). Thus, the institution as a whole needs a certain level of knowledge in order to attain this level of internationaliza­ tion. Mestenhauser questions how faculty and staff will obtain the neces­ sary skills to effect the internationalization of an institution: “Many faculty who are interested in internationalizing their courses often claim they do not have the skills and knowledge to do so. The question then is: Who will teach the teachers?” (p. 72). Mestenhauser (1998) also goes beyond the levels of knowledge, call­ ing for educational reform to enact true internationalization. In a similar manner to the contrasts between the foci of global learning and internation­ alization, Mestenhauser discusses the differences between the goals of inter­ nationalization and its structure. The goals, which should reach down to the learner level, may not always be reflected in the organizational structure of an institution’s internationalization plans. If internationalization includes insti­ tutional mission, attention to organizational structure, staff training, and global learning content, does it make a difference from where one starts the process? We believe the global learning outcomes must come first. Achieving them will engage all members of the academic community equally. A closer look at the current state of the key areas of internationalization as identified is warranted.

The Current Internationalization Picture In “Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses” (Brajkovic & Helms, 2018), an ongoing project of ACE and CIGE (ACE, n.d.b), the current state of internationalization is assessed. The study has been conducted at fiveyear intervals since 2001. The mapping project measures progress or decline along each of the six key areas, or pillars, of internationalization named ear­ lier. It also looks at institutions across Carnegie classifications to get a sense of changes in each of these areas at different types of higher education institu­ tions. This latest edition, summarized in the following, supports our concept

Book 1.indb 31

27-02-2020 15:42:08

32  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

of a learning ecosystem. Illustrations are provided on how to attend to some of the weaker elements in the ecosystem and ultimately strengthen the entire system. In the areas of institutional commitment, administrative staffing, and planning, institutions are confident about the progress they have made in strategic planning toward internationalization. In part, this can be attributed to the growth in the appointment of senior international education offic­ ers and administrative consolidation to steer internationalization efforts. According to the report, mobility of students and scholars into and out of the United States continues to be the main focus of internationalization efforts. This is also one of the most prevalent means of faculty development to support the growth of internationalization on campuses across Carnegie classifications. The mobility numbers are steady or growing in all stake­ holder groups. The learning ecosystem is strengthened by all these efforts that increase academic travel. Note that this approach deliberately does not consider the potential and implications of off-campus domestic study toward global learning outcomes. More institutions are increasing curricular and cocurricular global learning components. Examples include virtual learning in class in multiple countries, or programs such as speed-friending or international houses that bring together domestic and international students. Academic requirements have changed to reflect a more international and intercultural curriculum, but institutions have made more progress in cocurricular programming than actual changes to the academic curriculum. Institutions report more initial support for international campus community members, although ongoing assistance efforts still lag. And faculty development opportunities favor international travel rather than on-campus workshops and other pro­ fessional development activities that could benefit larger numbers of fac­ ulty. Sponsoring workshops and providing space for faculty to develop an interdisciplinary approach to global learning for the institution will pro­ vide nutrients to more components of the ecosystem (Brajkovic & Helms, 2018). Faculty members are essential to internationalization, and support for their development has not made the consistent gains seen in the other key areas, particularly mobility programming. When considering these results through the lens of Mestenhauser (1998), Sanderson (2008), and Leask (2012), structural components have made the most progress, which means current approaches do not deliver the greatest potential impact for global learning. The last relevant topic covered in the mapping report is the assessment of internationalization efforts and global learning. It appears progress in this area has stalled in the past five years. Although more institutions are tailoring

Book 1.indb 32

27-02-2020 15:42:08

approaching internationalization as an ecosystem  

33

global learning outcome statements to their specific institutional academic needs, assessing success at meeting these outcomes has not progressed. With this “Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses” (Brajkovic & Helms, 2018) report as a backdrop, it is important to also mention the influence of current economic and political climates. Data collection and writing for the report will always lag behind the present reality. An example of this is the sea change that has been set in motion for international and higher education since the presidential election of 2016; it certainly impacted how internationalization efforts have been implemented moving forward. Indeed, there have been reports of declining international student numbers coming to the United States (Redden, 2018). Demographic changes in the current and anticipated college population will also influence internationalization efforts in the future. These findings suggest that if institutions want to continue to meet internationalization goals and achieve global learning outcomes, they must emphasize capacity-building on campus for all, not just those who can travel internationally.

Global Learning Defined As we shift from discussing the structure needed for internationalization toward determining the desired learning outcomes, a shared definition of global learning is required. The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) definition states: Global learning is a critical analysis of and an engagement with complex, interdependent global systems and legacies (such as natural, physical, social, cultural, economic, and political) and their implications for people’s lives and the earth’s sustainability. Through global learning, students should 1) become informed, open-minded, and responsible people who are attentive to diversity across the spectrum of differences, 2) seek to understand how their actions affect both local and global communities, and 3) address the world’s most pressing and enduring issues collaboratively and equitably. (AAC&U, 2009, para. 3)

Given that engagement is part of this definition of global learning, it implies action as much as a theoretical analysis. Engagement that proceeds “collabo­ ratively and equitably” entails both substantial knowledge and experience of interactions with the other. Whether the domain is a business transaction or collaborative work on global climate change, the goal of global learning is to be able to interact effectively with others and achieve specified outcomes in a

Book 1.indb 33

27-02-2020 15:42:08

34  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

collaborative and equitable manner. AAC&U further defines global learning with a rubric intended to identify knowledge, skills, and attitudes that dem­ onstrate the elements of global learning, such as perspective taking, (under­ standing) cultural diversity, and applying knowledge to contemporary global contexts (AAC&U, 2009). This definition is consistent with the one offered by Elon University’s Center for Engaged Learning: “a lifelong developmen­ tal process in which the learner engages with difference and similarity and develops capabilities to interact equitably in a complex world” (Center for Engaged Learning, 2017, para. 4). And the “other” may be within our own communities as well as across oceans and continents. Global learning across the institution is the ultimate goal of interna­ tionalization. When students meet the goals of global learning according to the AAC&U, they will be successful in a variety of cultural and disciplinary contexts. If global learning is the objective for our students, then how do we as institutions achieve this goal? Global learning is one important goal of mobility programming, and mobility across borders at home and abroad is a key area of internationaliza­ tion. The impact of global learning in that instance can really be assessed only at the individual level, perhaps by others who come in contact with these travelers. For the ecosystem to be nurtured and strengthened through­ out the rest of the institution, the lessons from global experiences must be integrated into the larger learning community.

The Ecosystem—How Do We Maintain It? An ecosystem requires a variety of constituents as well as a flow of energy and nutrients in order to survive, and the same applies to global learning. If we treat global learning as the main goal for internationalization, we can then examine what is needed to attain that goal. For example, in addition to mobility programs that send students away from campus for intercultural experiences, what on-campus programs help prepare students and then con­ tinue to assist them in development upon return? How does this work for international students and scholars, who will need more than an initial orien­ tation program in order to become a part of the ecosystem? As Mestenhauser (1998) asked in the 1990s, what do faculty and staff need so they can support global learning for students? What is needed is a holistic approach to global learning beyond structures and programs, looking at all the nutrients needed to sustain and nourish the ultimate goal. One “nutrient” to support the ecosystem of global learning is the human resource component. If institutions adopt a form of the AAC&U global

Book 1.indb 34

27-02-2020 15:42:08

approaching internationalization as an ecosystem  

35

learning definition and/or rubric as their goal, institutions must ensure that their own faculty and staff will have the background needed to support their students. Of course, the beauty of the global learning rubric is that it can be adapted to fit individual institutions as needed. However, it will still be necessary for each institution to review its human resource needs, no matter how the rubric components are modified.

Examples of Ecosystem Capacity-Building There are many examples of institutions that have strategically altered the emphasis of their internationalization efforts from structural to global learning and assessment. Following are two examples that demonstrate this shift to an interdependent “learning community of practice.” Here, the capacity-building across the various disciplines and schools is appar­ ent, as faculty and advisers share their expertise at incorporating global learning for all students, not just educational travelers. Although the con­ figuration of each of these learning communities in this form is relatively new to each institution, all have had a long-standing commitment to internationalization. Purdue University’s Center for Intercultural Learning includes a fac­ ulty community of practice that promotes learning and sharing of ideas and actions (Purdue University, 2018a). In 2018, the goal was stated as having faculty and staff trained in intercultural communication theory in order to be able to integrate these concepts and to assess learning from both on- and off-campus international programs. The project spans multiple disciplines, from science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs to the usual humanities departments. These efforts help fulfill the institution’s goals to instill cultural self-awareness and knowledge of cultural worldviews into the core curriculum (Purdue University, 2018b). Kennesaw State University’s Interdisciplinary Teaching and Assessment of Intercultural Competence (ITAIC) program creates a similar community of practice among its faculty. The goal of the project is to explore best prac­ tices for learning intercultural competence across disciplines that work at the university (Kennesaw State University, 2018). Faculty from across disci­ plines, but mainly in the humanities and social sciences, first defined intercultural competence and created a rubric of agreed-upon dimensions for its assessment. They then created teaching modules incorporating the rubric as examples of how to integrate global learning into the curriculum. In each of these two cases there are similarities worth exploring.

Book 1.indb 35

27-02-2020 15:42:08

36  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

• There is a commitment to a community of practice where faculty are free to investigate the relationship of their discipline to intercul­ tural content and fuse the two as useful to themselves and their stu­ dents. Additionally, they are encouraged to share new approaches to delivering content specific to their academic discipline in a multi- or an intercultural audience in a manner that is more accessible. And there is a method of assessment and evaluation of this global learn­ ing that is visible to participants as well as the faculty and student advisers. • In all cases, the institutional mission and structure are in place to support this global learning, ensuring that faculty and advisers have a safe environment in which to research and innovate. This encourages an interdisciplinary approach and a community of assessment that is safe enough to take risks while also familiar enough for them to stretch their unique definition of global learning in their academic community. In other words, as part of the institutional mission, there is support to explore global learning within the context of each individual institution.

Conclusion What conditions are required for a learning ecosystem that combines the concepts of internationalization and global learning to thrive? This explora­ tion has suggested the following: • The institutional leadership must frame global learning outcomes as the primary goal. Leadership must then orient the institution in a direc­ tion that honors its unique mission and pedagogical approach but emphasizes global learning outcomes first. This needs to be clear from the institution to faculty and staff and from faculty and staff to students. • Faculty must be willing to start the conversation. This can only happen in an environment that is encouraging and safe. Although many institutions have taken the “champion” approach of supporting individual faculty development through mobility, the approach needs to shift to include more sharing in workshops and communities of practice on campus. • Faculty and advising staff need to embrace the idea that global learning can be both particular to an academic discipline and interdisciplinary. This model is important for students and others in the institutional and local community to see.

Book 1.indb 36

27-02-2020 15:42:08

approaching internationalization as an ecosystem  

37

• Administrators must be willing to live with the definitions and assessment methods faculty embrace. The global learning ecosystem is strengthened when all community members, including students, are not only introduced to the new approaches but also encouraged to internalize the content and integrate it into existing paradigms. Approaching internationalization as an ecosystem with global learning as the main focus allows for a more holistic approach to the internationaliza­ tion process. This holistic approach creates a sustainable process as the focus changes to what is needed to achieve the agreed-upon global learning out­ comes rather than focusing on structure or number of programs that an insti­ tution runs. The result is true individual and institutional transformational change.

References American Council on Education (ACE). (n.d.a). CIGE model for comprehensive internationalization. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/ CIGE-Model-for-Comprehensive-Internationalization.aspx American Council on Education (ACE). (n.d.b). Internationalizing student learning. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/higher-education/topics/Pages/ Internationalizing-Student-Learning.aspx Association of American Colleges & Universities (ACE). (2009). Global learning VALUE rubric. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/global-learning Brajkovic, L., & Helms, R. M. (2018). Mapping internationalization on U.S. cam­ puses. International Higher Education, 92, 11–13. Center for Engaged Learning. (2017). Elon statement on integrating global learning with the university experience: Higher-impact study abroad and off-campus domestic study. Retrieved from http://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/doing-engagedlearning/elon-statement-on-integrating-global-learning/ Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington DC: NAFSA, the Association of International Educators. Hudzik, J. K., & McCarthy, J. S. (2012). Leading comprehensive internationalization: Strategies/tactics. Washington DC: NAFSA, the Association of International Educators. Jin, L., & Schneider, J. (2018). Teaching in the global classroom: A study on faculty perspectives [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved from https://www.eventscribe .com/2018/NAFSA/ajaxcalls/PresentationInfo.asp?efp=TFNRRUpIS1o0NDAz &PresentationID=342697 Kennesaw State University. (2018). Interdisciplinary teaching and assessment of intercultural competence (ITAIC). Retrieved from http://dga.kennesaw.edu/sig/itaic .php

Book 1.indb 37

27-02-2020 15:42:08

38  

intent and evidence in designing global learning practices

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Leask, B. (2012). Internationalisation of the curriculum (IoC) in action—a guide (Uni­ versity of South Australia). Canberra, Australia: Office for Learning and Teach­ ing, Australian Government. Mestenhauser, J. A. (1998). International education on the verge: In search of a new paradigm. International Educator, 7(2–3), 68–76. Purdue University. (2018a). Purdue Intercultural Learning Community of Practice (PICLCoP). Retrieved from https://www.purdue.edu/IPPU/CILMAR/Mentorship/ Community_of_Practice/index.html Purdue University. (2018b). International experiences. Retrieved from http://www .purdue.edu/purduemoves/initiatives/education/internationalExperience.html Redden, E. (2018, January 22). International student numbers decline. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/01/22/ nsf-report-documents-declines-international-enrollments-after-years-growth Sanderson, G. (2008). A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276–307.

Book 1.indb 38

27-02-2020 15:42:08

PA R T T W O USING MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ON STUDY AWAY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF GAPS Amanda Sturgill

G

lobal learning happens in a broader context. In Part Two, a set of structured investigations provides some clues about factors that affect global learning experiences and the lessons that students can take away. The studies suggest that both educators and learners benefit from interrogating this context. Understanding the context can be used to increase participation, to improve the experience during study away, and help learners apply the lessons from study away to new experiences in the future, helping learners to mind the gap between global learning and content learning. These studies report several factors that are important. First are factors linked to individual learners. Scott Manning, Zachary Frieders, and Lynette Bikos remind us that often students enter campus with impactful prior knowledge and experiences that shape both their study away choices and their perceived ability to learn from the things they choose (chapter 3). They suggest that self-assessment followed by reflections designed to encourage students to look at their experiences in context could help maximize learning. Ekaterina Levintova, Sabine Smith, Rebecca Cruise, Iris Berdrow, Laura Boudon, Dan Paracka, and Paul M. Worley look at the reverse perspective and find that prior life experiences including military service, mental health challenges, and others may convince learners that study away would not offer valuable learning (chapter 9). Quality domestic, off-campus study may provide global learning for these students with challenges, as can attending to messaging about study away from advisers and study abroad offices that expressly addresses students with challenges.

39

Book 1.indb 39

27-02-2020 15:42:08

40  

using multi-institutional research on study away

Second are institutional contexts. Iris Berdrow, Rebecca Cruise, Ekaterina Levintova, Sabine Smith, Laura Boudon, Dan Paracka, and Paul M. Worley look particularly at study abroad and find a variety of institutional factors make a difference in encouraging participation (chapter 4). They suggest that universities need to make the value of the experience toward career more obvious to students. The good news is that their findings suggest that students themselves see global learning as a process. An important part of the institutional structure is the instructors who lead off-campus experiences. Prudence Layne, Sarah Glasco, Joan Gillespie, Dana Gross, and Lisa Jasinski survey a diverse group of faculty and find a great desire for more faculty development for those teaching in study away (chapter 10). This development helps more than just students on faculty-led programs. They discuss how the experience of teaching away transfers back with many faculty respondents, indicating that their work on the home campus was affected, as they incorporated lessons learned from teaching away. Third is interventions in the global learning process. Two projects looked at preparation experiences prior to study away and another at interventions while off campus. Melanie Rathburn, Jodi Malmgren, Ashley Brenner, Michael Carignan, Jane Hardy, and Andrea Paras suggest that preparation for study abroad courses works well when students explicitly reflect on the lessons from preparatory work during the experience and suggest that instructors can use reflections to observe and intervene in student efforts to regulate the emotions caused by crossing cultural boundaries (chapter 6). Andrea Paras and Lynne Mitchell stress the importance of explicitly teaching students to identify and make meaning of disorienting dilemmas during their immersive experiences in order to increase cultural learning (chapter 7). Bert Vercamer, Linda Stuart, and Hazar Yildirim report that hybrid online modules can work well as a platform for preparation and have the advantage of allowing learners from different cultures share the predeparture experience together (chapter 8). To ensure fairness, providers must ensure that these online systems meet accessibility guidelines for diverse learners and differently abled persons. When it comes to global learning, we talk about crossing cultural borders. Amanda Sturgill echoes the argument that international travel is not required (chapter 5). She suggests that cultural experts in one’s own community can become partners and coteachers for learners starting to engage differences that already exist, even close to the college campus. Thus, Part Two features research that extends previous explorations of off-campus study through the holistic frame of global learning domestically and abroad,

Book 1.indb 40

27-02-2020 15:42:09

using multi-institutional research on study away  

41

including investigating institutional and student factors that both encourage and discourage global learning. Each chapter describes a research project in context, shares the scholars’ findings, discusses the implications for integrating global learning, and offers evidence-based recommendations for practice.

Book 1.indb 41

27-02-2020 15:42:09

Book 1.indb 42

27-02-2020 15:42:09

3 WHEN DOES GLOBAL LEARNING BEGIN? Recognizing the Value of Student Experiences Prior to Study Away Scott Manning, Zachary Frieders, and Lynette Bikos

P

rofessionals in the field of international education commonly consider some degree of predeparture work essential to students’ success when they participate in a study away program. Yet the delivery of this preparatory work varies greatly in content, scope, and format. Is it required or optional? Presented as a course, workshop, or series of workshops? Delivered in person, online, or in a hybrid learning format? What are the goals of this work? Who establishes these goals and how are they communicated to participants? Differences in financial resources, campus culture, number of student participants, and many other factors will impact the answers to these questions. However, across all of these variables, such workshops and courses seem to focus primarily on logistics and occasionally on global learning outcomes. They rarely acknowledge the prior experience students bring to the table as nascent global learners. We found that students do have prior experiences that they expect will affect their trajectory as global learners in college or university. It is incumbent on educators, then, to discover and account for prior student experience as they seek to integrate individual global learning experiences into the larger college or university experience.

Project in Context The two principal professional U.S. organizations focusing on study away both highlight the importance of predeparture work in their materials. But 43

Book 1.indb 43

27-02-2020 15:42:09

44  

using multi-institutional research on study away

these publications also largely ignore what students consider to have already prepared them for study abroad (we use this term because these organizations focus solely on study outside the United States) and therefore may miss valuable opportunities to use these experiences as a foundation for global learning during students’ time away. NAFSA: Association of International Educators’s Guide to Successful Short-Term Programs Abroad (Chieffo & Spaeth, 2017) offers an overview of many common components in predeparture. It includes a chapter on orientation (and reentry) programming with an array of suggested subjects. A comparative overview of orientation types as well as suggested content checklists for general and program-specific orientations follow descriptions of the various elements (Kirchgasler, 2017). The Forum on Education Abroad (2015) Standards of Good Practice highlight the value placed on this work in Standard 4 on student selection, preparation, and advising: Students are adequately prepared for the challenges of the education abroad context, with pre-departure training and on-site orientation that equips them to achieve academic success and broader program goals; anticipates personal, health, or safety issues that might arise; and where appropriate, re-entry measures that prepare them for their return. (p. 6)

The queries that help to contextualize this standard focus on how professionals prepare students for the “challenges of the education abroad context,” “academic success,” health and safety issues, as well as academic and career goals. Although both publications represent invaluable, foundational tools for predeparture preparation, they do not consider the wide range of prior knowledge that students bring to their study away experiences. Similarly, little predeparture training appears to focus on intercultural learning, or at least does not do so effectively. In “What Students Are and Are Not Learning Abroad,” Paige and Vande Berg (2012) observed that in the Georgetown Consortium Project (Georgetown study) of nearly 1,300 students, “pre-departure and on-site arrival orientation programs, long a staple of study abroad programs, did not show a statistically significant relationship with intercultural or language learning” (p. 38). In fact, the only highly statistically significant variable was the presence of intentionally designed intercultural intervention, found at just one program in the study. Students at the former American University Center of Provence showed results so significant that including them skewed the overall results of the entire Georgetown study. Paige and Vande Berg go on to mention studies of a few other programs with intentional interventions on which students made more modest intercultural

Book 1.indb 44

27-02-2020 15:42:09

when does global learning begin?  

45

gains, one of which is described in more detail in a separate chapter of the same book. Lou and Bosley’s (2012) intentional targeted intervention model groups students by pretest Intercultural Development Inventory scores in order to tailor learning interventions in their predeparture work to students’ intercultural ability, suggesting one method of recognizing the importance of, and variation among, students’ prior experiences and abilities as they impact the capacity for intercultural growth. Literature on predeparture training rarely takes students’ experience into account. As educators, how do we decide what to include in these trainings if we do not know what our students are bringing to the table? Increasingly, study away is seen as only one type of experience within the broader context of global learning, which can take place in a variety of settings. But where does it begin? Do study away students begin learning at their first predeparture orientation meeting? This may sound like an unusual question presented in this manner, but in fact most current predeparture work seems to assume just that. We believe that a better understanding of the lived experiences that students consider preparatory for study away is vital to practitioners charged with preparing students to learn globally. Given the increasing importance of study away within U.S. higher education, more and more institutions are seeking to understand the outcomes associated specifically with this experience. Instruments have been designed to test student knowledge before and after their experience, hoping to isolate to some degree the impact of the experience itself. The value of these studies is clear to those of us who wish to learn more about the impact of study away: They provide objective substance to the often anecdotal accolades of study away outcomes. Yet many of these studies only require taking a snapshot of students’ predeparture state in an attempt to isolate and understand the impact of what happens during the study away experience itself. The substance of students’ prior experiences relevant to global learning that occurs through study away remain largely ignored. Some researchers have looked more broadly at general higher education outcomes and possible differences between students who study away and those who do not, but they tend to focus on demographic differences, not on prior experience. Several projects (e.g., Engel, 2017) examine issues such as persistence to graduation, graduation rates, and grade point average (GPA), to understand the relationship between study abroad and these outcomes. They look at how these impacts may vary depending on demographic factors such as ethnicity, gender, first-generation status, and socioeconomic status. The research that does consider a student’s experience prior to study away has been centered primarily on the demographic factors that seem to have

Book 1.indb 45

27-02-2020 15:42:09

46  

using multi-institutional research on study away

inhibited their participation. Some of these studies have looked at cultural factors associated with race and ethnicity (Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2011). Others have looked at gender differences and lack of participation (Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2010). Although these researchers do look at the impact of prior student experience, they are primarily concerned with identifying factors related to students’ choices to study abroad at all (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2015). What is largely missing in prior research, and in most predeparture work, is sufficient emphasis on the value of the prior experience that students build on when they study away.

Findings Data The aim of our study was to understand the wide variety of experiences that students bring to their studies away, to expand the horizon of work that necessarily isolates the experience itself from the broader continuum of global learning. To learn more about what students understand as preparation for study away, we created an instrument to examine this question. We asked students to list up to 12 experiences that prepared them for their upcoming program. There were no rules about the types of experiences they could list. We did ask that they add enough description to all the items they listed to help us understand the connection between their previous experience and the preparation for study away. Finally, we asked students to select up to 3 of the 12 items that were the most influential in preparing them. We requested that they provide as much detail as they could about how these 3 experiences prepared them for the study away program in which they would participate. We received 1,200 responses from 458 students from our 3 institutions (Susquehanna University, University of California Davis, and Seattle Pacific University). The mean age of respondents was 20.69. Regarding gender, 72% of the respondents identified as female. Regarding race/ethnicity, 55% of the students identified as White, 17% Asian American, 16% Hispanic, 4% African American, and less than 1% Native American. Another 4% identified as students from outside the United States. We used a modified consensual qualitative research method (CQR-M) to collect and analyze these narratives (Spangler, Liu, & Hill, 2012). It relies on open-ended questions to gather narrative data, in which respondents describe phenomena in their own words. This method allowed us to highlight the importance of context while analyzing written responses from a

Book 1.indb 46

27-02-2020 15:42:09

when does global learning begin?  

47

large number of participants. It works by using a team approach, drawing on an inductive analytic process, and making decisions by consensus. It also allows for the use of existing theory as a starting point for data analysis. In this instance we adopted a model based on social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (e.g., see Lent, 2013), a theory whose primary foundation lies in Bandura’s social cognitive theory. More narrowly focused, SCCT explains “how people (a) develop vocational interests, (b) make occupational choices, (c) achieve varying levels of career success and stability, and (d) experience satisfaction or well-being in the work environment” (Lent, 2013, p. 115). Most importantly, this method (and theory) helped us to bring students’ voices to the fore and allowed us to focus on the strengths they bring to their experience, in their own words.

Analysis Well over half of the experiences identified by students as among their most important preparation aligned with the SCCT domain of sources of self-efficacy. In the model, sources can include vicarious experiences and previous personal performance accomplishments, among other things. In our data, the vast majority of experiences students identified represented past performance accomplishments—actions students had taken that they saw as directly connected to what they would experience during their study away. Previous international travel was the most commonly referenced (13.9%), but many also discussed travel within the United States, noting encounters of cultural differences or developing travel skills (3.7%). Although some students’ explanations centered on logistical or fairly superficial aspects of travel, others described recognition of differences, the value of learning in a new environment, and the sense of moving beyond their comfort zone. Many respondents identified previous study away experiences (7.0%), including church mission work, service-learning, and high school trips abroad. These were students eager to take their learning further and to build on what they had already experienced. Several described other past performances—moving away from home, working outside of school and home, and developing coping skills in uncomfortable or difficult situations (12.5%). The second largest group of experiences cited corresponded to the SCCT category of activity selection, behaviors that the model suggests are predicted by self-efficacy. Most of these responses centered on courses and workshops, including formal predeparture classes and orientations. However, language coursework, courses associated with global learning, and specific

Book 1.indb 47

27-02-2020 15:42:09

48  

using multi-institutional research on study away

skill-oriented classes (12.8%) were more prevalent than those explicitly dedicated to preparation for study away (8.9%). A third category of SCCT was somewhat prevalent and involved contextual influences, which, in the model, relate to the process of developing interest. In these data, these experiences focused mainly on the relationships of the students with their families and friends or their experiences living and working with others in diverse settings (12.8%). These were among the most interesting responses in our data, in which students described their previous experience with diversity and linked it explicitly to preparation for study away. Some of these students were first-generation Americans; others had relatives from another country or who lived overseas. Several students described the cultural diversity of their own living environment, providing ample opportunity to develop an intercultural mind-set. A small subset of our respondents were international students in the United States planning to study away in a third location, who linked these experiences directly. Other SCCT categories such as personal interests, specific performance goals (skill development), or activity goals were present but infrequent.

Implications for Integrating Global Learning What do these results tell us about our students? Prior travel was the most frequently cited preparatory experience in our study. This tells us that (a) many have it and (b) they value it. Curiously, recognition of prior experience with travel and/or the value it brings does not seem to be a common element in formal predeparture preparation offered in our institutions. There are sometimes workshops offered for students with little travel experience that focus on logistical issues such as packing, carrying medicines, protecting one’s belongings, dealing with jet lag, and other details. These workshops are unidirectional in that information goes from trainer to student and the prior experiential learning that students told us they value is unlikely to be acknowledged or discussed. However, if we assume that all students in predeparture need copious amounts of information about travel logistics, how engaged should we expect well-traveled students to be when they are looking forward to building on those prior experiences? This disconnect between what students say is important and what we choose to discuss with them may signal a greater issue in how we think about preparing students for study away and how little we focus on the strengths and abilities that our students already possess. Experience with diversity may be another important strength that is too often overlooked. Students specifically described travel to parts of the United

Book 1.indb 48

27-02-2020 15:42:09

when does global learning begin?  

49

States that offered them experience with cultural difference, and some discussed work and study experiences with people from cultural backgrounds different than their own. Some respondents simply noted the diversity of their own experiences living in multicultural urban environments. A few students talked about being first-generation Americans who live between two cultures. International students described their current studies abroad in the United States. As suggested previously regarding travel, traditional study away predeparture work may be missing some important learning opportunities around prior experience with cultural difference. Do our introductions to intercultural learning presume that students have already had such experience with diversity, or that they have had none? Do we even ask them to tell us? These narratives also underscore the potential disconnect that trainers may unwittingly accentuate by ignoring the important local/global links our students already make. As our field continues to embrace the concept of global learning, we might do well to follow our students’ lead and allow them to help us highlight the connections between local (U.S.) and global experiences. Students made these connections readily, but predeparture work offers a venue to examine them more critically: “What does it mean to study away?” and “What is global learning and does it always take place somewhere else?” We can use this local/global discussion to help students consider what it will be like when they return to their local environment. If students can imagine how their prior local experiences help them to learn globally, they can also begin to consider how they may be better equipped to transfer their study away learning experience into outcomes locally when they return home. If we are attentive to asking students about their experience with prior travel and diversity, there are many ways in which we can help students build on these strengths. But we must also be attentive to students who lack experience in these areas. Practitioners need to be cognizant of the role that affluence plays in access to international travel and consider ways to support students who have not had similar access (Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2009). Comfort with travel logistics may be one set of associated skills, but the potential for lack of confidence or lack of understanding from seeing regional or national differences firsthand may be worth considering further. Students from largely homogeneous environments may have a disadvantage when compared with those who have already had broader experience with difference. Given the importance of intercultural learning goals and the evident disparities among students, practitioners should have a sense of the prior experience students bring to the table and offer preparatory materials that focus on incremental growth rather than end results.

Book 1.indb 49

27-02-2020 15:42:09

50  

using multi-institutional research on study away

We must do more to understand the full spectrum of intercultural intelligence and confidence among students. Students presenting themselves to us at different ability levels—of every kind—is not new, but study away predeparture materials seem surprisingly unsophisticated in this regard. It is true that a small study away office staff may struggle to provide even the most basic preparation program, if provided at all. Many institutions may be unable to tailor predeparture work to students at different levels of intercultural intelligence, but the explicit acknowledgment of the differences in background among our students in trainings is an important first step. Even without the ability to assess students’ intercultural intelligence, trainers could acknowledge the likely developmental impact some students have already experienced through living in a diverse environment, of having familial or collegial relationships with individuals from other countries, and so forth. Further, there is room for growth at every level of ability. To not recognize this possibility risks disempowering or alienating students who feel unrecognized and who may then be inclined to dismiss the rest of the training. We did not construct our study to understand students’ choice process for study away. However, it is worth noting that our findings may suggest that a failure to acknowledge students’ prior experiences and motivations could inadvertently discourage their participation in study away altogether (Salisbury et al., 2009). If students are to choose to study away, the programs and outcomes must resonate with their life experiences and goals while in college or university. Responses in our study demonstrated a broad spectrum of prior experiences and reasons to study abroad—spanning all the way from reinforcing one’s worldview to challenging it. Just as we should be sensitive to these perspectives in predeparture training, we should be equally sensitive during the preapplication marketing and advising processes. Although difficult to quantify, one of the most striking findings from our work is the extent to which students demonstrated their ability to draw on strengths that they already bring to their experience. Many of them very thoughtfully characterized experiences, as well as more contextual situations, as initial steps in a learning process they assume will continue into their study away program. Although some students may achieve this on their own on site, at present most predeparture work may ignore them completely and so they are unlikely to benefit from intentionally designed interventions prior to their departure that could help them be even better prepared to build on their own individual strengths.

Book 1.indb 50

27-02-2020 15:42:09

when does global learning begin?  

51

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Practice The apparent dissonance between what students appear ready to build upon and what trainers provide has led us to consider new strategies in our own practice that we believe can be of use to others to design more effective predeparture work. Fundamentally, we should adopt a more student-centered focus. We must begin by acknowledging students’ strengths and experiences and addressing their value. We must also recognize that although students bring a lot of experience to the table that has traditionally been largely ignored, the learning from these experiences is not fully formed. There is tremendous opportunity for us as educators to help students learn and grow by listening to their stories so that we can then teach them how to reflect and learn more from them. From that vantage we offer the following specific recommendations for working with students in predeparture: • Work within a framework of strengths (Louis & Lopez, 2014). That is, assume that students’ lived experiences, abilities, talents, and resources can be leveraged in a way that will contribute to their study away experience. • Recognize that students’ lived experiences and demographics will interact with the predeparture, immersion, and reentry aspects of the study away program to influence the learning process and outcomes. Wandschneider and colleagues (2015) provided strong empirical evidence that “who we are affects whether, what, and how we learn” (p. 165). This is an assumption under which we must work. • Assign a predeparture self-assessment that includes the selfidentification of preparatory experiences. Formal and informal selfassessment is often used in study away programs (Bikos, Yamamoto, Dykhouse, & Sallee, 2016). This particular form of self-assessment can help students identify and recognize their own abilities. This empowerment may, in turn, have a positive impact on their development in and of itself. • Design reflective work that helps students bridge seemingly unrelated experiences to the challenges of study away. Structured, guided selfreflection has long been supported as an effective intervention (Kolb, 1984). Following students’ self-assessment of readiness, teaching reflective practice can also help students learn to make connections among the things they believe will help them succeed during study away.

Book 1.indb 51

27-02-2020 15:42:09

52  

using multi-institutional research on study away

This reflective work can be augmented by having students discuss their own experiences predeparture with each other in a safe space to practice understanding others’ meaning-making, cultural lenses, and concerns. This can help open students’ eyes to additional experience they have had themselves but which they had not yet considered related to study away. More importantly, a skilled trainer can help students understand how these conversations are a first step in intercultural learning: articulating their own experiences, understanding cultural differences within their own peer cohort, and discussing other perspectives on what is of value. Throughout the steps described previously, trainers must be prepared to recognize that some students are experienced but have not reflected on (or may not be able to articulate) their experiences, whereas others are reflective (or may have a theoretical understanding of intercultural learning) but not very experienced. It may be challenging to work with both groups in the same setting, because the developmental needs are different for each group. We recognize that these recommendations may be daunting for many international educators. In a small office, predeparture training is one of many competing priorities. At a large campus with hundreds or thousands of students studying away, attention to individual experience and learning is a significant challenge. In the absence of unlimited budgets or staff members, how can we achieve these goals? We hope that it is not overly simplistic to observe that doing something is better than doing nothing. We also hope that through this project we can help move predeparture work a step closer to recognizing student strengths and the value of the experiences they bring to their studies. As with any work, the scope of this study was limited in some specific ways. Our focus on student narratives was intended to provide a baseline of information for the next phase of our study. The present discussion is focused entirely on these narratives as a means of understanding student attitudes prior to study away. We intend to look at markers of student success before and after study away (e.g., through indicators such as GPA), to see how any of the categorized experience types described previously correlated with success on site. We also have data indicating the specific programs and program types selected by these students and wish to examine possible relationships between and among preparatory experiences, program choice, and success. Given the importance ascribed generally to study away predeparture work, we believe that there is reason to continue to study the content, delivery, and other factors including student experiences associated with this work and how they may contribute to successful study away. At the same time, we

Book 1.indb 52

27-02-2020 15:42:09

when does global learning begin?  

53

are convinced that we have uncovered sufficient advice from the students whose stories we read to refocus our predeparture work to a more studentcentered perspective, one which we hope will allow students to build on their preexisting strengths in order to become effective global learners.

References Bikos, L. H., Yamamoto, M., Dykhouse, E., & Sallee, O. (2016). Integrating offcampus international experience into on-campus coursework and research. In D. Gross, K. Abrams, & C. Enns (Eds.), Internationalizing the undergraduate psychology curriculum: Practical lessons learned at home and abroad (pp. 199–216). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Chieffo, L., & Spaeth, C. (2017). The guide to successful short-term programs abroad (3rd ed.). Washington DC: NAFSA. Engel, L. (2017). Underrepresented students in U.S. study abroad: Investigating impacts. IIE Publications. Retrieved from iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Publications/ Underrepresented-Students-and-Study-Abroad Forum on Education Abroad. (2015). Standards of good practice: Standard four (5th ed.). Retrieved from https://forumea.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Standards-2015 .pdf Kirchgasler, J. (2017). Orientation and reentry. In L. Chieffo & C. Spaeth (Eds.), The guide to successful short-term programs abroad (3rd ed., pp. 287–307). Washington DC: NAFSA. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lent, R. W. (2013). Social cognitive career theory. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., chap. 5, pp. 115–146). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Lou, K. H., & Bosley, G. W. (2012). Facilitating intercultural learning abroad: The intentional, targeted, intervention model. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 335–359). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Louis, M. C., & Lopez, S. J. (2014). Strengths interventions: Current progress and future directions. In A. C. Parks & S. M. Schueller (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions (pp. 66–89). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Luo, J., & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2015). Predictors of study abroad intent, participation, and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 56(1), 29–56. Paige, R. M., & Vande Berg, M. (2012). What students are and are not learning abroad: A review of recent research. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 29–58). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Book 1.indb 53

27-02-2020 15:42:09

54  

using multi-institutional research on study away

Salisbury, M., Paulsen, M., & Pascarella, E. (2010). To see the world or stay at home: Applying an integrated student choice model to explore the gender gap in the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 51(7), 615–640. Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). Why do all the study abroad students look alike? Applying an integrated student choice model to explore differences in the factors that influence White and minority students’ intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 123–150. Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009). Going global: Understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 119–143. Spangler, P. T., Liu, J., & Hill, C. E. (2012). Consensual qualitative research for simple qualitative data: An introduction to CQR-M. In C. E. Hill (Ed.), Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena (pp. 269–284). Washington DC: APA. Wandschneider, E., Pysarchik, D. T., Sternberger, L. G., Ma, W., Acheson, K., Baltensperger, B., . . . Hart, V. (2015). The Forum BEVI Project: Applications and implications for international, multicultural, and transformative learning. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 25, 150–228.

Book 1.indb 54

27-02-2020 15:42:09

4 E X P L O R I N G PAT T E R N S OF STUDENT GLOBAL LEARNING CHOICES A Multi-Institutional Analysis Iris Berdrow, Rebecca Cruise, Ekaterina Levintova, Sabine Smith, Laura Boudon, Dan Paracka, and Paul M. Worley

A

s the world internationalizes, colleges and universities have created study abroad opportunities in hopes of making students better and more aware global citizens. Yet little literature supports the validity of this process and the role that institutions can and should play. We argue that global learning is a broader process that can be accomplished in many ways. Using data from across six institutions, we found that (a) global learning is a cumulative process wherein students who engage in one type of activity will then be more likely to engage in additional learning opportunities indicating global learning integration, and (b) institutional process and structures impact student choice patterns.

Project in Context Theories of Student Learning and Development In the broadest sense, our project contributes to the body of literature on cognitive development. Kolb’s (1981) experiential learning theory presents a four-stage cycle of experiencing, reflecting, forming generalizations, and testing implications for new experiences as learners progress from simple reacting to concrete experiences to complex abstract thinking. Global learning

55

Book 1.indb 55

27-02-2020 15:42:09

56  

using multi-institutional research on study away

similarly builds on previous experiences. We use Bourn’s (2014) definition of global learning as an approach to learning that necessitates both reflection and critical thinking on the part of the educator. It is not about reproducing bodies of knowledge about development, but rather is about engaging in a process of learning that recognizes different approaches and different ways of understanding the world, and engages with them through different lenses. (p. 4)

Bennett (1993) describes a growth process of global learning wherein a person moves from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. Similarly, Mezirow and Taylor’s (2009) theory of transformative learning traces the irreversible evolution of one’s perspective toward greater inclusivity, openness, tolerance, reflexivity, and autonomy. Transformative learning is an ongoing process in which a person sees the world and their place in it differently. More recently, Johansson and Felten (2014) suggest that “learning that is transformative is characterized by a deep and enduring change in thinking that is evidenced through changed ways of being in the world” (p. 3). Deardorff (2009) posits a theory in which a person moves from changes in attitudes to changes in knowledge and comprehension, to desired internal and external outcomes. Because we assume that as learners engage in numerous; diverse; and, ultimately, integrative global learning experiences, they want further opportunities, Kolb’s spiral/circle of development supports our study. The other theories help us understand what changes we might expect from students who better integrate multiple experiences.

Structures and Opportunities Scholars note that institutional structures matter in education (Green & Olson, 2008; Olson, Green, & Hill, 2006). In global learning, structures provide opportunities, and sometimes requirements, to guide students’ global learning in knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Effective global learning environments include both didactic and experiential learning of culture-general and culturespecific topics (Berdrow, 2009). The research on the intersection of institutional structures and student choice has focused on the institutional and financial challenges of integrating global learning across the college or university, broadly. Most studies focus on curriculum itself and are not concerned with the process of global learning. An exception is Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi, and Lassegard (2002), who examined the learners themselves, advising them to integrate global experiences in acquiring intercultural and linguistic competencies. Salisbury, Umbach, Paulen, and Pascarella (2009) found that curricular, cocurricular,

Book 1.indb 56

27-02-2020 15:42:09

exploring patterns of student global learning choices  

57

and extracurricular institutional offerings impacted students because “diverse interactions and co-curricular involvement were significantly related to intent to study abroad” (p. 135). Finally, Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou (2012) analyzed institutional interventions in which students’ world perspectives (not merely their self-reported confidence) change toward intercultural competency. Vande Berg and colleagues’ work recommends sequenced and integrated intercultural learning courses be woven throughout the curriculum, suggesting that institutional structures truly matter for global learning.

Student Characteristics and Choices Scholars have documented global learners’ attitudinal/cultural traits and sociodemographic characteristics. Attitudinal traits, including motivation to choose and then engage in global learning experiences, are distinct from demographic characteristics that are used to assess differences in choices and learning outcomes among various subgroups. Extrapolating from a previous investigation of student choice of academic major (Parks & Jones, 2012) to student choice of study abroad and other global learning experiences, our study considers intrinsic interest in global content as an important variable. Pintrich (2004) suggests that “the individuals’ self-regulation of their cognition, motivation, and behavior” (p. 388) plays a role when learners seek global learning opportunities. Study abroad enrollment and, by extension, participation in global learning is unequally distributed among demographic categories, including race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status (Salisbury et al., 2009). Socioeconomic status is positively correlated with student consideration of study abroad; women are more likely than men to enroll; and, with the exception of Asian and Pacific Islander students, differences are minimal between White, African American, and Latino students. Students with higher literacy and openness to diversity are more likely to consider study abroad and “students in social science majors appear to be among the most likely to plan to study abroad” (Salisbury et al., 2009, p. 135). Although Salisbury and colleagues’ analysis looked at the influence of demographic characteristics (gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, etc.) on learners’ choice of study abroad, it did not incorporate curricular, cocurricular, and extracurricular global and intercultural experiences, nor did the study examine student attitudes, knowledge, and skills. According to Butterbaugh (2013), familial influences, including (a) student-parent relationship, (b) perception of parents’ financial and occupational success, and (c) family structure, have been shown to affect student academic preferences, including choice of college and major. It is plausible to

Book 1.indb 57

27-02-2020 15:42:10

58  

using multi-institutional research on study away

expect that the same variables might affect decisions to study abroad and to integrate that experience within a global learning process. The recent study of language and intercultural learning outcomes for study abroad participants uncovered “significant relationships between independent variables representing learner characteristics and program features and the intercultural and target language learning of students abroad” (Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009, p. 1). Based on the extant body of scholarship, we know that student characteristics and program characteristics matter, but what about student characteristics and institutional structures that might be supporting or impeding global learning as a process? For our study, we formulated the following research questions: 1. How do student choice patterns of global learning experiences (GLE) vary by institutional characteristics? 2. How do student characteristics relate to patterns of GLE? 3. To what extent do student global learning choice patterns relate to perceptions of the value of study abroad?

Findings Data To address the research questions, we determined that a mixed methods approach would generate the most explanatory data. As collaborators from six universities, we designed the study and collected data from multiple sources between 2014 and 2017. Data analysis was completed and crosschecked by individuals and small teams to curtail researcher bias. To triangulate findings from our original research, we reviewed additional data from institutional records at our institutions and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Student Surveys Survey 1, administered during spring/summer 2016, was disseminated at the 6 participating universities to all 2014/2015 graduating seniors who had studied abroad during their college or university career (see www.centerforen gagedlearning.org/books/mind-the-gap/). Survey 1 generated 382 responses. Similarly, Survey 2 was submitted to graduating seniors of 2014/2015 who did not study abroad to help us see potential patterns among learners who had chosen not to study abroad. We acknowledge that global learning is more than studying abroad, but the variable was a reasonable way to categorize

Book 1.indb 58

27-02-2020 15:42:10

exploring patterns of student global learning choices  

59

groups. Survey 2 was administered during the 2016/2017 academic year at 5 participating institutions (not Western Carolina), generating a total of 331 responses. Qualitative Data Both surveys included open-ended prompts regarding factors that impacted students’ decisions to go abroad or not. Surveys 1 and 2 generated 94 and 161 comments, respectively. At 3 institutions (Florida International University-1, University of Wisconsin Green Bay-3, Kennesaw State University-5), we conducted in-depth interviews with students and alumni who studied abroad during the 2016/2017 academic year. Institutional Maps Table 4.1 is an institutional map of the 6 institutions for the 2014/2015 academic year: Bentley University in Massachusetts, Florida International University (FIU), Kennesaw State University (KSU) in Georgia, the University of Oklahoma (OU), the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay (UWGB), and Western Carolina University (WCU) in North Carolina. The universities are diverse in designations (i.e., Carnegie classifications), funding models (Bentley is private), and student populations (ranging from 5,700 to 54,000 students). Additionally, the universities differ in terms of number and kinds of global learning opportunities available and financial commitment to global learning. Visit https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/books/mind-the-gap/ to see resources for this volume and for more information.

Analysis Research Question 1 How do student choice patterns of global learning experiences vary by institutional characteristics? Although each institution valued internationalization, they differed substantially in how they facilitated global learning experiences. The larger schools in the sample (FIU, KSU, and OU) all provided more global learning opportunities, more institutional support, and more resources. The two smaller, more regionally or locally focused universities (UWGB and WCU) were limited, although they touted the advantages of global learning and offered scholarships (41 scholarships totaling $51,000 at UWGB) and study abroad opportunities (70 and 32 at WCU and UWGB, respectively). We surmise resource limits, local pressures, and other priorities obstructed follow-through on global learning commitments. Bentley University was the only private institution and business school. Although Bentley’s resources or opportunities were less than those of the bigger public universities, the school made a concerted effort to advance global learning.

Book 1.indb 59

27-02-2020 15:42:10

Book 1.indb 60

TABLE 4.1

Institutional Map Bentley

WCU

OU

KSU

UWBG

FIU

Carnegie Designation

MA Large

MA Comp.

R1

R3

MA 2 Small

R1

Public/Private

Private

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Region

N. East

South

Border South

South

N. Central

South

Student Population

Small

Medium

Large

Large

Small

Very Large

Diversity*

Moderate

Low

Mod-High

Mod-High

Low

Moderate

% Study Abroad (SA)

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

% Int’l Students

High

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

SA Offerings

Low

Moderate

High

Moderate

Mod-Low

Moderate

International Organizations

Mod-Low

Low

High

Mod-High

Low

Moderate

Supporting Offices

Some

Some

Many

Many

Some

Many

Scholarship Amounts

Very Low

Low

High

High

Moderate

Low

Additional GL Offerings

Some

A Few

Moderate

Moderate

A Few

Moderate

Degrees Requiring SA

Yes, >5

No

Yes, 5

Yes,