Global Perspectives in the Core: Student Attitudes and Instructor Performance

Abstract

Global learning and global citizenship education (GCE) continue to be integrated as co-curricular and curricular components in US higher education. Many institutions have linked their mission and values statements to global learning. However, their efforts fail to reflect a single shared understanding or philosophy of global learning or GCE. While scholars continue to discuss and debate the substance of these frameworks, few studies have analyzed perspectives of curricular global learning and GCE requirements. Three hundred fifty-four undergraduate students attending a university in the Southern US completed questionnaires assessing their attitudes towards global learning, international issues, and global citizenship, as well as their attitudes toward the college’s required global perspectives curriculum. Results indicate that students feel generally positive towards global learning and issues, believe global learning should be required at this and other institutions, and have high perceptions of faculty performance. INTRODUCTION In response to critiques that higher education in the US is not preparing students to confront the challenges of a globalized world (Alger, 1974; Council on Learning, 1981; El-Khawas, 1994; Merryfield, 1998; see Teichler, 2004 for discussion), many liberal arts colleges have incorporated global learning and citizenship as curricular and co-curricular components of undergraduate education. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and American Promise (LEAP) encourage institutions to emphasize learning outcomes that are “closely calibrated with the challenges of a complex and volatile world” (AAC&U, 2008, p. 2). They highlight findings indicating that 72% of employers want colleges to place increased emphasis on “global issues” and “cultural values and traditions” (AAC&U, 2008, p. 11). Studies demonstrate that employers want emphases on learning outcomes that encourage an understanding of global contexts and decisions, the role of the US in the world, cultural diversity, and intercultural competency (Hovland & Schneider, 2011). Administrators and faculty have responded to calls for internationalizing and incorporating global learning and citizenship into curricular and co-curricular experiences for undergraduates by asking how global learning can be articulated as a goal of higher education (see Green & Baer, 2001; Nair & Henning, 2017). As a term, global learning originated in the early 1980s and referred to the development of pedagogical practices that promote critical thinking and problem-solving (Hanvey, 1982; Soedjatmoko & Newland, 1987). Global learning was particularly salient for tackling pervasive issues, such as poverty, conflict, and the ethical debates arising from advances in science and technology (Hanvey, 1982; Doscher & Landorf, 2018). The term was further defined by Hovland (2006) as a way to prepare students for meaningful and active citizenship in a globalized world. Many institutions of higher education have linked their mission and values statements to global learning; however, these efforts fail to be clearly linked to a single and concise definition (Calahan, 2018; Hovland, 2014). Simultaneously “global citizen” remains operationally unclear. The term is used variously to refer to intercultural competence, sensitivity, world citizenship, and global learning, depending upon the researcher or author (Braskamp, 2008; Lewin, 2009; Sperandio, Grudzinksi-Hall, & Stewart-Gambino, 2010). Administrators and faculty are left to ask: How should we define global learning? How can we assess global learning and diversity education? How can we operationalize global learning as part of a cohesive institutional strategy to reach all enrolled undergraduates? Both global learning and global citizenship education (GCE) emerged as the principal frameworks for theorizing and assessing global perspectives and learning among undergraduates (Charles, Longerbean, & Miller, 2013). For example, global learning is enshrined in Liberal Education and America’s Promise’s (LEAP) essential learning outcomes (Hovland & Schneider, 2011) and associated VALUE rubrics. GCE is supported by pedagogical practices and institutional policies and structures that engage students in global social, environmental, political, or economic issues. Research examining GCE as a framework and a tool for creating, implementing, and assessing global learning has proliferated (Charles et al., 2013; Cortés, 1998; Mikander, 2016; Myers, 2016; Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007). GCE emphasizes the individual’s existence as part of a broader community and humanity as a whole and examines “political, economic, social and cultural interdependency and interconnectedness between the local, the national and the global” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 14). GCE aims to equip young people with the skills, attitudes, knowledge, and values to go beyond thinking about solutions (CUE, 2017). Instead, it encourages tackling pressing problems, such as climate change or conflict, and to be positioned for sustainable actions (CUE, 2017). According to the American Council on Education’s Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement, US higher education institutions are generally optimistic about their efforts to globalize and internationalize curriculum, particularly through in-house models (e.g., curricular and co-curricular changes; CIGE, 2017). However, only half of those institutions that responded to the CIGE survey indicated curricular changes focused on global learning and internationalization (2017, p. 18). Instead, many insti1 IJ-SoTL, Vol. 14 [2020], No. 1, Art. 4 https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2020.140104 tutions rely on co-curricular changes (e.g., international festivals or events; meeting place for students interested in international topics). These often fail to sustain learning or student interest (2017, p. 20), or rely upon external efforts (e.g., study abroad; international partnerships), which are often expensive for the student and therefore exclusionary (2017, p. 38). Furthermore, there are diverse types of GCE programs to promote engaged citizenship and awareness of globalization. However, there is little consensus regarding theories, philosophies, purposes, and practices to best achieve these goals (Fanghanel & Cousin, 2012; Myers, 2016; Sperandio et al., 2010). Universities launching global learning programs may be using GCE terminology as convenient monikers to gain support for diverse methods which may or may not be substantiated in their success by data-driven studies (Andrzejewski & Alessio, 1999; Young, 2004) and may or may not reflect desired GCE outcomes. There have been numerous scholarly discussions and debates about the potential benefits of GCE and global learning. Many institutions have made strides in integrating these as curricular and co-curricular campus opportunities. However, there are still relatively few studies that assess student perspectives of these efforts. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively assess student perceptions of efforts to integrate global citizenship and learning educational goals as a mandatory curricular core component. METHOD Procedures A public liberal arts university in the South with an enrollment of 6,000 undergraduates met calls for increasing global learning and knowledge of global issues by institutionalizing global learning in their core via a mandatory Second Year (GC2Y) or “Global Perspectives” course. GC2Y emerged as the second part of a two-part curricular series and advances critical thinking, writing skills, and global perspectives. GC2Y seeks to fulfill many of the goals espoused by GCE, the LEAP initiative, and the outcomes specified in the Association of American Colleges and Universities Global Learning VALUE Rubric (AAC&U 2014). Global learning is defined by AAC&U as “a critical analysis of and an engagement with complex, interdependent global systems and legacies...and their implications for people’s lives and the earth’s sustainability” (2014). As a result of 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, 2014). The Global Perspectives course requirement is a curricular effort to integrate global learning and GCE as a cohesive, sustained, and mandatory component of every undergraduate student’s experience. GC2Y targets sophomores and provides intensive engagement with global perspectives, multiple intellectual approaches to a particular topic or theme, learning beyond the classroom (LBTC) opportunities, and writing skills. GC2Y’s outcomes, including intensive writing, engagement with diversity, global learning, and reflects high-impact practices identified by the AAC&U (AACU, 2018b). These courses are also an innovative way to fulfill the university’s mission by providing opportunities to engage students outside the classroom and emphasizing global issues and topics to prepare students for success in a diverse world. The goal of Global Perspectives is to develop strong written communication skills, analytical thinking skills, a broad understanding of global issues, and an appreciation of diversity. GC2Y simultaneously fulfills the liberal arts mission and continued interest in facilitating undergraduate global learning by meeting two learning outcomes: (1) Students will be able to explain multiple intellectual approaches that clarify or respond to problems, topics, themes, and/or issues; and (2) Students will be able to evaluate diverse responses of peoples, cultures, societies, and groups to historic and/or contemporary global issues, themes, or topics. Faculty propose their own course topic