The Global Imperative: Dealing with Global and International Education in Small Institutions and Programs
James K. Daly
The call for schools to prepare students for life in an inter-connected globalized world has been strongly articulated for years (Mansilla, V. B., & Gardner, H., 2007; Byker and Marquardt S., 2016; Majewska, I. A. ,2023). The Council of Chief State School Officers and the Asia Society have provided thoughtful guides that both highlight the need for global competence and suggest ways in which to develop it (see https://pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/bookglobalcompetence.pdf).
In a 2012 report the U.S. Department of education highlighted the need for
schools to focus on global issues (see https://wvde.us/sites/default/files/2018/03/InternationalStrategy.pdf). The report called for rigorous standards that would use top performing countries as a baseline for rethinking and redesigning schools in preparation for success in the global economy. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills
(https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519427.pdf) included global awareness in their 2009 identification of key topics and approaches. Several states have incorporated these and their own locally devised approaches on global knowledge and skills
into their education standards.
As a result of these efforts many different approaches and goals have emerged. However, the effort to infuse and develop global knowledge and skills is not without controversy. Byker and Marquardt (2016) challenge some of the foundational frameworks in the call for global awareness in schools. There are many different
programs and curricula that address variations and different areas of focus within the field. Among these approaches are preparation for global citizenship, global awareness, global competency, preparation for global economic participation, and
more. These various plans are themselves global, with international organizations identifying essential components needed for this area, seeking to guide schools on how to address instruction and assessment.
Global by nature, expectations for schools
Schools in the United States are culturally and linguistically diverse (NCES, 2013). The U.S. Dept of Education reports over 5 million English language learners in the Fall of 2021(National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). The languages spoken by students in public schools demonstrate a diversity representative of much of
the world. According to the 2023 American Community Survey, 21.7% of public-school students are children of immigrants (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Effectively designing instruction, teaching and assessing students from families
whose experiences and history go beyond national boundaries is cited as requiring globally competent teachers.
In framing a response to these issues powerful organizations have had a significant
impact on proposing guidelines for U.S. schools. International data have been gathered with a focus on economic outcomes and competition. The PISA tests, developed by the private international Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the World Bank, and other international organizations have used assessments and the interpretation of their results to promote standardization in school curricula, and the outcomes schools seek to achieve. This has seen efforts at the national level in the U.S. that include No Child Left behind, and The Race to the Top.
Additionally, national and state standards take global data into consideration. This removes much of the decision making from practitioners, administrators and school boards to politicians and bureaucrats, with many from outside of the U.S. Fueled by global and international interests, this movement towards standardization is seen by
many as problematic (Tienken, 2017). Critics suggest that these approaches often guide teachers into a passive acceptance of dominant narratives of
the value of global infusion within teaching (Rizvi and Beech, 2017). These contentions suggest this results in school practices that are implemented by
authorities not involved in teaching, and which result in schooling not related to the lives of students.
Teacher preparation
Given this context the role of teacher preparation has been increasingly cited as an arena for global and international education attention. Many groups have promoted a vision of global competence that includes developing competencies and awareness within teacher preparation programs. A prominent feature of this approach involves the study abroad experience.
Among US students who study abroad, one of the lowest categories of participation is that of students in preservice teacher education programs (Institute of International Education (2024). The total number of college students involved in study abroad programs in 2022-23 was 280,716. Of those, only 2.4% were in education majors.
However, many schools promote study abroad opportunities for pre-service candidates. Worth consideration is what impact this has for the future. Does study abroad prepare future teachers to design, share, and present lessons that help their future students better understand global issues, trends and events?
Most of the recent growth of study abroad experiences at the university level seem to be related to the increase in short-term study-abroad experiences, which lasted less than a semester. Many of these occur during summer or intercession terms (Kehl & Morris, 2008). According to a report Open Doors by the U.S. Department of State, 40.6% of study abroad experiences were during the summer term, and of those 31.6% were of two- eight weeks or less (Institute of International Education, 2024). How effective are such short term study abroad experiences? There are few studies that compare the benefits of long-term study abroad to those of short-term ones. Older studies suggest long term programs have an impact on students’ global or world mindedness, often described as cultural awareness and interest in international events. (Sharma & Klasek, 1986. Hett, 1993). Deng & Boatler (1993) report a consequence of feeling connected to the global community. An increased open-mindedness about other cultures has been cited (Stephenson, 1999). Other research suggests an increased level of global perspective (Zhai & Sheer, 2004). Long-term study abroad experiences of a semester or more appear to have greater impact (Kehl & Morris, 2008, Zorn, 1996; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004).
There is some evidence that short-term study trips can also help teacher education candidates develop global knowledge and skills (Dwyer, 2004; Willard-Holt, 2001, Shiveley, J., & Misco, T. ,2015). A caveat is that trips of short duration have the potential of reinforcing prejudices (McKay & Montgomery, 1995). This seems true as inadequate orientation and cursory involvement in a foreign culture may be the case with short study abroad programs. Short study programs may support confirmation bias that can reinforce prior stereotypes and may also provide a lack of authentic activities and projects with the host population. Goldstein, 2017, contends that American students often have pre-conceived views of how others see
them which short programs may not be able to address.
Very few teacher education candidates participate in study abroad, and of those who do, most are in short term programs. This evidence suggests concerns about the focus on study abroad as a means for developing and strengthening the global and international knowledge and awareness of pre-service teacher education candidates.
Other approaches in teacher preparation programs include the development of courses devoted to globalization and international topics. This is problematic as accreditation requirements and available resources for course development and delivery can be barriers for many institutions. In many cited examples an existing course, often a social studies methods course, was identified as a location for global work.
Possibilities for small institutions and programs As with many areas of importance, there is no one approach likely to work in all institutions. Critiques of the global and international education field challenge many of the assumptions that guide national and international programs and projects. Few teacher education candidates participate in study abroad programs. The challenge for smaller and less resourced institutions and programs can be significant. So, what can a small program
accomplish?
This reflection contends that a useful way to proceed might be to encourage and support individual effort. Individual faculty can build upon personal connections, membership in professional organizations, and partnering with schools and
institutions engaged in global and international initiatives. This narrative describes the ongoing work of over seventeen years begun by two professors in two institutions. One institution is in New Jersey, the other in Ukraine. Neither is funded,
their work is done out of a commitment to promoting international understanding and the knowledge and skills needed for future teachers.
The initial collaboration
When the New Jersey institution was awarded a Deliberation in a Democracy (DID) grant it was partnered with Ukraine (https://did.deliberating.org/about_us/index.html). For three years high school teachers and students from nine New Jersey school districts were paired
with partner teachers and high school students in Ukraine. At both the NJ site and the Ukrainian site teachers were taught a process of deliberation.
Controversial topics were identified by the international project staff directors and teachers were taught to approach each controversy using the deliberation model. The focus was on active listening and clear communication. At the conclusion of the project, the assessment completed by researchers at the University of Minnesota found that the results were exceptional, well beyond what would normally be expected (“About Us”, n.d.). The two faculty members decided to bring a revised and revamped version of the DID concept and process to their universities. Both had teacher training programs in which the venture was to be housed.
What was accomplished
This partnership is in its 17th year. At the conclusion of the DID grant students from high schools in both countries that had participated in the project were invited to virtual conferences. The university students from both sites facilitated and took part in these. The debriefings in focus groups demonstrated that the impact on high school students was significant (for a video of one of the conferences go to https://blogs.shu.edu/globaleducation/). NJ high school students stated that they hoped their Ukrainian counterparts recognized that they were a similar in many ways. They reported that they were growing in their knowledge and understanding, open minded and anxious to learn about others. The NJ students reported they sense their Ukrainian partners felt the same. They also shared that prior to the conferences they perceived Ukraine as a ‘grey’, unhappy place with unfriendly people. Those perceptions rapidly disappeared. Once grant funding ended, the conferences with high school participants came to an end and were replaced by collaboration between just the university students at each site.
Each semester a social studies methods course in NJ and a History of Ukraine course in Ukraine organized the collaboration. Regular communications by virtual sessions were conducted at least once each semester. Initially a discussion board was set up and served as the primary tool in between virtual meetings. Students quickly learned to analyze comments and responses carefully. On several occasions New Jersey students were surprised, and occasionally alarmed, by what their partners had written. In de-constructing the messages a focus for the NJ university students was on the use of English by non-native speakers.
Students realized that a formal way of speaking and writing often resulted in misunderstanding and misinterpreting. There was an appreciation for the
challenge faced in communicating in a second language. This was addressed on both sides, and students recognized the need to avoid jargon and cultural nuances. This understanding was explored in both the virtual sessions and dialogue on the
discussion board. Students also recognized the need to respectfully ask one another to explain what was meant in both their written and spoken comments. During the Revolution of Dignity –the Maidan Revolution, New Jersey students regularly communicated with Ukrainian partners. Near real time videos and messages provided instant access to events in Ukraine as they occurred.
For a variety of internal issues, the discussion board process was ended. Virtual
sessions using Zoom and TEAMS were still regularly scheduled to discuss critical issues selected by students and faculty from both institutions. Scholars from several departments at both universities were invited to share their expertise and join in conversations. At each meeting students also had an opportunity to speak about their educational experiences, their lives and interests and other topics.
One successful project was a two-year collaboration that explored the Ukrainian Diaspora in New Jersey. The faculty members and students from both universities were trained in creating a website which was used to post the research results of the project. In several sessions the student researchers met together virtually in real time to work on constructing the website. The New Jersey students conducted an oral history project. They met with the archivist for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States, located near their campus. They then conducted interviews over several weekends with parishioners from a local Ukrainian Orthodox Church. They gathered testimony about WWII and the Soviet era, as well as the experience of immigrating to the US. Inter generational stories revealed the integration into the larger culture, and current and emerging consequences of this immigration. The Ukrainian students compiled a history of Ukraine, with a focus on WW II and the post-Soviet time period. Both sides prepared videos that were embedded on the website. These included the oral history interviews, messages from campus groups, music and dance (Ukrainian). An interactive google map was posted, which brought viewers to both campuses. Using the features of the map it was possible to explore the areas around the campus and beyond. Everything on the website was translated into both English and Ukrainian.
Various elements of the project were shared at several national and international conferences. Several of the New Jersey students attended in person and there were videos from the Ukrainian partners, who also spoke via a Zoom connection. The Ukrainian university also hosted several international conferences at which the work was shared, with New Jersey students attending virtually to share and explain their work.
In 2020 this collaboration initiated an electronic journal. The Ukrainian university hosted it and provided the translation of articles into both English and Ukrainian. The journal has now published six editions, with four since the war with Russia began. Each published edition has been followed by an international conference hosted by the Ukrainian university at which the writers share their work with one another. The recent editions the war have focused largely on the war.
As the NJ program was small all of the future social studies teachers were engaged in this work as they took their social studies methods course. This course was recently replaced by a generic methods course and work now continues primarily with history classes as well as in a secondary education class with a broader range of student majors. Student and faculty continue to meet at least once a
semester, and to collaborate on the electronic journal.
Ongoing efforts
In this collaboration that even war has not been able to stop, institutional support from both universities continues to grow. A second partnership with another Ukrainian university has begun. Teacher education candidates in New Jersey have broader opportunities for contact. Over the years they have
met international partners, worked on common projects, shared ideas, researched and listened to one another’s dreams and challenges. For New Jersey students the war has been made real, not a social media or video clip.
These experiences provide both models for how to engage in global partnerships and learning, and a source of information and knowledge not open to most. Two professors in two universities, with a commitment to having students work
together without systemic institutional support or resources, have provided a wealth of experiences. Small programs can explore the arrangements described here, routinely bringing international perspectives and dialogue into classes. Larger programs with supportive funding and resources could seamlessly infuse such collaborations into existing global partnerships and projects. The possibility to engage all teacher education candidates into authentic global experiences exists and can be expanded.
References
About Us. (n.d.). Deliberating in a Democracy. https://did.deliberating.org/about_us/index.html
Byker, E. J., & Marquardt, S. (2016). Curricular connections: Using critical cosmopolitanism to globally situate multicultural education in teacher
preparation courses. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 7(2), 30–50.
Estellés, M., & Fischman, G. E. (2021). Who needs global citizenship education? A review of the literature on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 223–236.
Goldstein, S. B. (2019). Stereotype threat in U.S. students abroad: Negotiating American identity in the age of Trump. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v29i2.395
Institute of International Education. (2024). Detailed duration of U.S. study abroad, 2005–06 to 2022–23. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.
http://www.opendoorsdata.org
Kehl, K., & Morris, J. (2008). Differences in global mindedness between short term and semester long study abroad participants at selected private universities. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 67–79.
Majewska, I. A. (2023). Teaching global competence: Challenges and opportunities. College Teaching, 71(2), 112–124.
Mansilla, V. B., & Gardner, H. (2007). From teaching globalisation to nurturing global
consciousness. In M. M. Suárez-Orozco & C. Sattin (Eds.), Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalisation and education. University of California Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 2009–10 through 2021–22 (Table 204.27). U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_204.27.asp
OECD. (2016). Global competency for an inclusive world. OECD Publishing.
Paine, L., & Zeichner, K. (2012). The local and the global in reforming teaching and teacher education.
Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 569–583. Project Zero. (n.d.). Global competence. https://pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/bookglobalcompetence.pdf
Reimers, F. (2006). Citizenship, identity and education: Examining the public purposes of schools in an age of globalization. Prospects, 36(3),
275–294.
Rizvi, F., & Beech, J. (2017). Global mobilities and the possibilities of a cosmopolitan curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 47(1), 125–134.
Shiveley, J., & Misco, T. (2015). Long term impacts of short term study abroad: Teacher perceptions of preservice study abroad experiences. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 26, 107
Tienken, C. (2017). Defying standardization: Creating curriculum for an uncertain future. [Publisher not provided].
U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates [Data set].
U.S. Department of Commerce. https://data.census.gov/U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). Age and sex (ACS 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101). U.S. Department of Commerce.
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S0101
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Number and percentage distribution of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of
student, and control and level of institution: Fall 2021 and fall 2022 (Table 204.27).
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_204.27.asp
West Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). International education strategy.
https://wvde.us/sites/default/files/2018/03/InternationalStrategy.pdf
njcssjournal 