Preparing teachers with global perspectives

Jongewaard – Chapter 15 Revision – 1.30.12 1

The Challenge of Preparing Teachers with

Global Perspectives for 21st Century Classrooms

“Gobality – for want of a better term – spells significant changes in the cultural landscapes of belonging, not because it

supplants the nation-state…but because it changes the contexts (politically, culturally, and geographically) for them,

situates national identity and belonging differently, and superimposes itself on ‘nationality’ as a novel frame of

reference, values, and consciousness, primarily for the globalized elites, but increasingly for ‘ordinary citizens’ as

well.” (p. 14)

(Hedetoft & Hjort in Steger, 2008)

Introduction

In an era of globalization, teachers are at risk. They are seen as major contributors to the problem

of failing schools while at the same time heralded as the solution to those same problems. This is a difficult

place to be professionally, politically and personally. Consider the challenges of working with very

complex groups of students with multiple levels of ability and need. Then consider the implications of

globalization for future citizens and the pressures on teachers to devise a curriculum that will adequately

prepare their students for that future.

What essential knowledge, skills and dispositions are required to successfully meet the needs of

students in our highly diverse, 21st century classrooms? What can research tell us about the critical

components of a teacher preparation program designed to equip teachers with both competence and

confidence in such complex educational settings? What are the global perspectives needed to best prepare

teachers for these 21st century classrooms? Can our teachers successfully educate their students for their

roles as citizens of the 21st century?

In part one of the chapter, working definitions will be delineated. I have purposefully gone back

into some earlier sources on the topic as a way of illustrating how long we have been discussing

globalization in the field of teacher education. Many references from 35 years ago still resonate with

current discussions. It is reassuring on the one hand that we haven’t strayed too far from some of the

original calls for action. But it is also discouraging to recognize how little progress has been made over the

past three decades. Also in part one, global perspectives will be differentiated from multicultural

perspectives. They are regularly confused, one for the other. Are they connected in any way? Does one

have more influence than the other?

In part two, I will provide an overview of readings and research that have helped me develop my

approach to teaching for global, transcultural perspectives. The concept of cultural competence will be

introduced as a necessary component in the development of global, trans-cultural perspectives. A

theoretical model will be introduced that captures my current thinking about how best to prepare teachers to

teach using globalization as a central theme. The model’s developmental stages suggest a scope and

sequence of curriculum, drawing from earlier work by Piaget, Kohlberg, Dewey, Noddings and others.

When coupled with related pedagogical techniques, the model provides a framework for teachers and

curriculum writers interested in exploring the themes of globalization in the curriculum.

In part three, the characteristics of a global perspective will be discussed. My research with

undergraduate students related to global perspectives in teacher preparation is presented. As well, some

areas in need of further research will be discussed. Part three concludes with a summation of the chapter.


PART ONE: Historical Overview

Historical Context of Global Perspectives in Education

From my review of the literature, there appears to be a critical mass of theoretical writings and

related research that emerges in the early 1970’s, through the 1980’s, during which time the field of global

studies was firmly established as a central focus in social studies education (e.g., Hanvey, 1975; Cogan,

1978; Becker, 1979; Torney, 1979, Anderson, 1979; Jongewaard, 1981; Pike and Selby, 1988, among many

others).

Historical and anthropological references to what we might call globalization go back as far as the

first traders and explorers who wandered out of the Great Rift Valley, at first leading the way and later

encountering others who had gone before. Space travel and the Internet are just two examples of more

recent human activity that have introduced the elements of increasing speeds and shrinking distances.

Through the inexorable, exponential flow of such encounters, we arrive at today’s discussion.

The First Paradox of Globalization

In the ensuing 45 years since Hanvey’s article was published, the concepts of globalization and

global studies have been periodically re-defined and fine-tuned. Two major effects of globalization are at

the core of any such attempts at definition. The blurring of borders, both psychological and political, is a

phenomenon of globalization often included in these discussions. With this blurring comes the first major

effect of globalization, global shrinking, or time/space compression (Steger, 2008). While we all

acknowledge the shrinking world made possible via electronic communications and sub-orbital flight, there

comes with it a corollary effect of global expansion, the rapidly expanding potential for increased human

interaction. This shrinking/expanding tension is the first of several paradoxes inherent in globalization to be

explored in this chapter. It is a paradox with consequences for teachers and schools. The involuntary

coming together of all of Earth’s peoples in instantaneous ways, those ancient exploring and trading

impulses having been accelerated often beyond our capacity to adapt and assimilate, creates a sense of

urgency on the part of educators about what is the best approach for preparing future citizens who can

effectively exercise their rights and responsibilities in such an intensified, shrinking/expanding

environment. Having noted two key features of globalization, a relatively recent definition follows:

“…globalization is …‘the flow of technology, economy, knowledge,

people, values and ideas .... across borders’. Globalization affects each country [and its peoples] in different

ways due to each nation’s individual history, traditions, cultures, resources and priorities.” (p. 8)

(Knight and DeWit, 1997)

A next step in our overview is to explore the definition and intent of global education. Thirty years

ago, when the field was first being developed in pre-university education, it was defined in very basic

terms: “Global education consists of efforts to bring about changes in the content, in the methods, and in

the social context of education in order to better prepare students for citizenship in a global age.”

(Anderson, 1979 p. 15) While this early, basic definition still holds, most of the details necessary to

operationalize the concept are missing. What about curricular content, effective teaching methods and

social context? For example, two aspects of the social context question worth exploring are (1) how the

concept of cultural pluralism fits into the globalization conversation, and (2) how the field of multicultural

education interfaces with that of global education. How we define and connect these two has philosophical,

curricular and pedagogical implications.


The Relationship Between Global Education and Multicultural

Education

Concurrent with the development of global education was the development of multicultural

education, arising in the 1970’s and 1980’s primarily as a result of the Civil Rights movement in the United

States. Unlike global education, which has had only a modest impact on schools, multicultural education

has become a dominant narrative in teacher training, curriculum development and most forms of social

intercourse beyond the schools. However, I want to suggest here that an overemphasis on multiculturalism

can actually inhibit the attainment of a global perspective. And it is because of that concern that the

interdependent relationship of these two fields of study needs to be better understood. One early attempt at

such understanding came from the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE).

They created a Commission on Multicultural Education in 1972 and published a position paper titled “No

One Model American: A Statement on Multicultural Education” which stipulates:

“Multicultural education is education which values cultural pluralism…To endorse cultural pluralism is to

endorse the principle that there is no one model American. To endorse cultural pluralism is to understand and

appreciate the differences that exist among the nation’s citizens. It is to see these differences as a positive

force in the continuing development of a society that professes a wholesome respect for the intrinsic worth of

every individual. Cultural pluralism is more than a temporary accommodation to placate racial and ethnic

minorities. It is a concept that aims towards a heightened sense of being and wholeness of the entire

society based on the unique strengths of each of its parts [emphasis added].”

(AACTE Board of Directors, 1972, p. 264)

This AACTE statement suggests individual and group components and describes a kind of systems

interdependence, but its focus is largely domestic and stops short of embracing a fully global perspective.

However, it does provide an important marker as an early precursor to global perspectives.

From the 1980’s forward, the field of multicultural education has been a major conceptual and

curricular force in U.S. schools. James Banks, professor of social studies, civic education and multicultural

studies at the University of Washington in Seattle, emerged as an early leader in the establishment of

multicultural education as a field of study. He also is interested in defining the two concepts.

According to Banks (2004), a global perspective deals with ethnic diversity in countries outside

the United States and a multicultural perspective deals with ethnic diversity within the United States. And it

is here that I begin to see the potential for problems with a focus either on people and cultures at home, or

people and cultures abroad, because this leads to an approach that at best presents a false dichotomy. If by

definition globalization is about cross-border migrations of people, ideas and commerce, then there can be

no either/or in a borderless world. I also perceive a danger for our society and the larger community of

nations if the civic education of the next generation focuses so exclusively on multiculturalism, whether at

home or abroad. We risk getting stuck in an earlier, incomplete stage of civic identity, that of individual

cultural identity. However, I do believe there is a developmental connection between multicultural and

global perspectives. In fact, one stage leads to the next, each successive stage dependent on the former.

This leads me to a second paradox of globalization.

The Second Paradox of Globalization

The operating assumption among some advocates of the multicultural approach seems to be that

once self-identity (diversity) and mutual respect (multiculturalism) get established, the necessary global

perspectives will follow. I disagree. The stages of individual and group identity, while necessary, are stages

that without further development can lead to multiculturalism of the worst sort, a Balkanization of peoples

and perspectives that can give rise to highly prescriptive forms of identity, and at the nation-state level, a

real potential for a reactive, hyper-identification all too familiar even in the opening decade of the 21st

century. Black versus White, Conservative versus Liberal, Serb versus Croat, Muslim versus Jew, Hutu

versus Tutsi, Shiite versus Sunni, and the list goes on. The second paradox of globalization is thus

identified, the tension between global blurring on the one hand, the free-flow of ideas, values and

structures, and its corollary, the reactionary reassertion of global boundaries, the establishment of

prescriptive identities and geographic limits.


Other teacher educators anticipated these problems from the beginning. In a strikingly relevant

article in an early, thematic edition of the Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) addressing multiculturalism

(Winter 1973), authors Bernier and Davis walk us through a history of the development of multicultural

education based on a “…move toward individualism and diversity…in the decade of the sixties…[in

which] individuals who belonged to particular minority groups or subcultures were asserting their identity

and their right to flourish in ways determined by their own perceived needs and desires.” (p. 266).

According to these authors, this individual identity movement in the schools emerged out of the Civil

Rights movement in the United States in response to four earlier stages of schooling emphasis which they

label, in historical order: (1) Anglo-Conformity, (2) The Melting Pot, (3) Cultural Homogeneity, and (4)

Compensatory Education (based on the “cultural deficits” concept).

The fifth stage suggested above, that of individualism and diversity, seems to be a logical

extension of the Civil Rights movement. But is this focus on individual identity sufficient for living life the

21st century? How can we ensure that we are preparing citizens to function in the border-blurred

environment of globalization? In the second part of the chapter I will move these questions and paradoxes

into a developmental framework designed to incorporate them, and that leads to what we might think of as

a sixth stage necessary for living in the 21st century, that of trans-cultural competence.

PART TWO: Toward an Attainable Global Perspective

Genesis of the Trans-Cultural Model

The theoretical models from which I have derived my own developmental model range from

political to philosophical to psychological. All of them include a developmental aspect similar to the work

of both Piaget (Piaget & Weil, 1951, Woolfolk, 2004) and Kohlberg (Lickona, 1991). According to them,

we move through stages, based on biological imperative, through experience in the world, or both. Piaget

and Kohlberg are good examples in this regard because the former sees chronological age as a major

determinant of one’s developmental stage, whereas the latter sees experience as the more important

determinant of growth. With a Piagetian approach, a teacher could expect a student to be able to do certain

levels of work based on predetermined chronological age ranges. Kohlberg’s model of moral development

suggests a person is more likely to be in a certain stage of motive and decision-making based on experience

and instruction. The model being described in this section of the chapter draws from both.

Other writers who have influenced my thinking include Dewey (Gutek, 2005; Stanford, 2005),

Spinoza (Elwes, 1951; The Radical Academy, 2008) and Noddings (Reed & Johnson, 2000), primarily

because they each create levels or stages that I see as related to the development of a trans-cultural, global

perspective. Dewey, for example, discusses democracy as (a) an expression of individuality, (b) as a

process of social inquiry, and (c) as a function of the protection of popular interests. I arrange them in this

order because I see a developmental movement from individual interests to popular interests, or the

common good, mediated by the social inquiry process he describes. A further point in Dewey’s thought is

that of the interdependence of the stages, the systems feedback loops that require one for the other.

Dewey’s process of social inquiry fits here as well.

The ethical caring described by Noddings is also a practical manifestation of this stage. On a more

philosophical plane, this is where Spinoza’s intuition stage is located, his stage of moral perfection.

Elements of Spinoza’s stage of science can be superimposed as we learn about other cultures and expand

our definitions of self to include comparisons with cultures different from our own.

I believe each level is necessary, more or less in order, and in this sense my model is

developmental. It is also a developmental sequence because the learner brings with him/her an identity

shaped by the previous stage that can be applied to the next. Also implied in the model is the difficulty of

transitioning from an earlier to a later stage if there are components missing, or if there is an incomplete

development of the prior stage. Thus, the stages are interdependent, building on one another. Educators

would label this constructivism, suggesting a scaffolding of learners’ knowledge, skills and dispositions in

each stage, constructing meaning that leads to the next level. In combination, these earlier models suggest a

third paradox of globalization.


The Third Paradox of Globalization

This paradox draws on the tension between the expression of individual rights and the needs of the

group. Which comes first? I would assert that individual freedoms are dependent on some arrangement for

the common good, and it is because of and through those arrangements for the betterment and protection of

the whole that individuals gain their freedoms. It is my opinion that many educators have this formula

reversed. They maintain that if we first work on the self-esteem of the individual and get that right, creating

confident, just individuals, the impetus for the common good will emerge. Indeed, it is a chicken-and-egg

paradox. Do just societies develop from a just group of individuals, or does a just society produce them?

Broken down into the essentials for classroom practice, teachers are regularly reminding their

students that with each right they claim for themselves, they invoke a parallel responsibility to the group. It

is within this context of classroom rules for the common classroom good that individual students gain their

rights and freedoms. This interdependence of group and individual is the third paradox inherent in the

development of global perspectives being advocated in this paper.

A working definition of globalization is in order as we consider this final phase of development.

For our purposes, we revisit the definition offered earlier, that globalization is the flow of technology,

economy, knowledge, people, values and ideas…across borders. Globalization affects each country and its

peoples in different ways due to each nation’s individual history, traditions, cultures, resources and

priorities (adapted from Knight and DeWit, 1997). Essential to the attainment of a global perspective is an

understanding of the stages involved in its development. What follows is a discussion of cultural

competence, the concept that undergirds and ultimately defines global perspectives.

Three Stages in the Development of Cultural Competence

In his book on perception and identity theory, Marshall Singer posits that individual behavior

patterns are based on individual perceptions of the world, which are largely learned. The greater the

experiential and biological differences between individuals, the greater the potential disparity in their

perceptions of the world (Singer, 1998). This range of difference guarantees a diversity of perceptions in

any classroom. Singer goes on to say that people of similar world-views who communicate these

similarities to one another can be termed an identity or affinity group. Subsequent patterns of perceptions,

values, attitudes and behaviors that are accepted and expected within these identity groups are called

cultures (1998). Since cultures are learned and transmitted from generation to generation (Kohls, 1996),

teachers play an important role, for better or for worse, in this process of cultural transmission.

The essential first stage in the development of one’s cultural competence is that of the true-self

culture. It is forged primarily within the immediate family and community context, but it can be facilitated

and reinforced at school. In this stage the concepts of diversity and identity are introduced. This is the

pluribus stage from the American motto e pluribus unum. Students often come to school not fully formed,

perhaps even conflicted about their cultural identity. In addition, because public education is an important

social institution, and because social institutions are constructed and controlled by the dominant culture in

any given society, the culture reflected in the schools will be that of the dominant culture.

This complex of cultures coming together in school cannot be ignored. Recognizing this, and

knowing that this true-self stage is critical to the subsequent development of global or trans-cultural

competence, effective teachers understand the potential for one’s true-self culture to be at odds with the

school culture. They see an important part of their work to be helping each of their students feel welcome

and respected for their true selves, to help their students see themselves reflected in the curriculum and the

pedagogy of the classroom. Our students need to be culturally rooted. This is the critical first step.

The second stage in the development of cultural competence is the multicultural stage. Most of

this development occurs away from home and can be positively facilitated at school and reinforced in the

family. At this stage an individual’s true-self identity is tested against others’. An awareness of self and

other develops, the beginnings of globalization at the individual level. This stage introduces the concepts of

pluralism and community. At its best, this stage helps students develop an understanding of how the

pluribus and the unum can (and must) co-exist. Researchers in social studies education have noted that the

typical age-range for this developmental stage is between the ages of eight and fourteen (Anderson, 1979;

Torney, 1979). Schools have tended to focus on multiculturalism, and rightly so, but often to the point of


excluding other stages, and sometimes with a singularity that is actually at odds with intended outcomes.

One has to ask, after all these years have we taken a wrong turn along the way?

For example, we can look to some of the original discussions of the emerging field of

multicultural education and note the caution that multiculturalism should not refer to cultural maintenance,

“…mere transfusions to keep cultures statically surviving in their present form…reactionary attempts to

support a past-oriented ethnic pluralism...[that] seek[s] to trap individuals in cultural enclaves” (Bernier and

Davis, 1973, pp. 266-271).

Lopez (1973) cautions that an overemphasis on ethnic and cultural difference could create the

perception that no common educational means or ends exist, resulting in a default curriculum geared to the

majority. Further, Lopez expresses the concern that culturally relevant education could artificially create an

ethnic-cultural model or merely substitute one model of corporate identity and conformity for another.

Finally, he cautions that an over-emphasis on pluralism could restrict American cultural varieties from

evolving freely by imposing cultural norms either for minority or majority cultures, substituting one set of

external definitions of relevance for another (see Lopez, pp. 277-281).

These authors are zeroing in on features of cultural development and globalization that

acknowledge the shrinking of our social world in both time and space and thus the inevitability of our

coming into contact with one another, influencing each other’s cultures. As a result of this “bumping up

against” activity, one’s identity groups or cultures are in a constant state of flux. To attempt to fix cultures

too securely in time and space is to deny the imperative of cultural evolution. Where teachers tend to err in

their current approaches to multicultural education is in their focus on identifying difference, delineating

power relationships and rehearsing these contested histories. This is a necessary step, but we can get stuck

there and in the process, we end up establishing cultural limits and ideological boundaries instead of

building bridges within and across cultures.

What characterizes effective multicultural education, appropriate in a global era? Multicultural

education should be future oriented. According to Bernier and Davis (1973) and other writers (Lopez,

1973; Sue & Sue, 2003) multicultural education at its best recognizes cultures as dynamic, changing

patterns in constant contact with each other, and always evolving. We need to be preparing our students for

a world where rootedness in one’s own true-self culture is an important anchor point, but also for a world

where we can grow beyond cultural and ideological boundaries and work together as fellow citizens in

search of a better world for all. We need to take another step.

This leads to a third and final stage in cultural competence, that of trans-cultural

competence. Sometimes referred to as a set of skills for intercultural understanding or cross-cultural

communication, this essential third stage introduces concepts such as interdependence, cultural relativism

and germane to the discussion here, global perspectives. This stage can be positively facilitated at school

and reinforced at home.

I have labeled the three stages of cultural competence described above as the intra-cultural or “I”

stage, the inter-cultural or “we” stage and the trans-cultural of “everybody” stage, as depicted in Figure 1.

----------------------------------------------

insert Figure 1 about here

----------------------------------------------

Within this context of globalization we can push the definitions of cultural competence to the level

of practical applications and concrete manifestations by exploring the essential knowledge, skills and

dispositions required by teachers if they are going to be able to function as culturally competent educators.

What does a culturally competent teacher look like? In this next section I will explore the profile of a

culturally competent teacher, looking at the essential precursors to trans-cultural competence and global

perspectives.

Culturally Competent Teachers: From the Local to the Global

First, culturally competent teachers have well-developed cultural identities. It is difficult to work

with other people’s children and assist them through these developmental stages if one’s own true-self

culture is underdeveloped or perhaps resides only at the subconscious level. This is particularly important

for teachers, and perhaps especially important for teachers from the dominant culture. Because social


institutions, like schools, reflect the cultural values, beliefs and behaviors of the dominant culture, the

transition from home to school for those teachers is more seamless, more familiar and a better reflection of

their own values, beliefs and behaviors. To understand, and to be able to reflect on one’s own culture and

its interface with the school is an important first step. This exploration of one’s true-self culture has been

described as engaging in cultural archeology. (Ladson-Billings, 2010) Thus grounded in their own sense of

true-self, teachers are better equipped to help their students on their respective cultural journeys.

Culturally competent teachers work to help each student explore her/his own true-self culture.

Through activities and assignments, through classroom resources, and importantly, as expressed through

the teachers’ expectations for learning, students come to understand the building blocks necessary for

healthy cultural identity. They become culturally rooted. This activity constitutes most of what takes place

in school relative to the first stage of cultural development.

Second, culturally competent teachers learn about their students’ cultures and engage students in

an exploration of how their own and others’ cultures intersect. These teachers modify the curriculum to

better reflect the lived experience of their students. In addition, they work to stretch their students in new

directions, providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary for effective multicultural interaction,

encouraging them to be culturally curious.

Third, culturally competent teachers help their students to become confident, competent

participants in the creation of fresh perspectives and deeper cultural understandings. They assist their

students in further refinement of their own true-self cultures and to use the first developmental stage as the

foundation upon which to build the ability to seek and celebrate difference, to communicate effectively

across cultural differences, to embrace change. At this final stage, students become culturally mobile,

cultural cosmopolitans who can be at home in the world.

Culturally competent teachers work with their students to guide them through the three stages of

cultural development, using a developmental model similar to those by now familiar mainstays of the

curriculum, Piaget , Kohlberg, Gilligan (Reed & Johnson, 2000; Woolfolk, 2004), Dewey, Banks and

others. In part three the concept of global perspectives will be further developed. Characteristics of teachers

and students with global perspectives will be delineated. While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to

explore completely, the implications for curriculum content and pedagogical techniques will also be

discussed.

PART THREE: Global Perspectives and Future Directions

Characteristics of a Global Perspective in Teachers and Students

What are the characteristics of a global perspective in general, and for teachers in particular? What

research and theoretical literature is available to provide us with a set of characteristics that can be taught,

practiced and measured in our teachers and in their students? These questions provide the focus for the next

section of the chapter. What follows is a look at several sets of characteristics that have emerged in the

literature over the past 30 years.

Robert Hanvey's seminal article, "An Attainable Global Perspective" (1975), delineated the

following goals for global education: (a) perspective consciousness, (b) state-of-the-planet awareness, (c)

cross-cultural awareness, (d) knowledge of global dynamics, and (e) awareness of human choices. In their

book Global teacher, global learner (1988), Pike and Selby provide a list of characteristics of a global

teacher. Their early work presages the model presented in this paper, especially in their use of the terms

ethnocentric, nationcentric and globalcentric. They said the global teacher:

• is globalcentric rather than ethnocentric or nationcentric

• is concerned about culture and perspective

• is future oriented

• is a facilitator of student learning

• has a profound belief in human potential and is concerned with the development of

the whole person

• is rights-respectful and seeks to shift the focus and locus of power and decision-making in the

classroom to the students

(Adapted from Pike and Selby, pp. 272-274)


So the groundwork was laid more than 20 years ago, and yet we are just beginning to see the necessity

of moving beyond individual and group identity to a level of global consciousness and trans-cultural

identity. More recently, significant cross-national research has been conducted to determine from

educational and political leaders in six countries what should be the essential skills for the citizens of the

21st century. In the book that followed, Citizenship for the 21

st century: An international perspective on

education (2000), authors Cogan and Derricot introduce the concept of multidimensional citizenship,

consisting of four core dimensions and related skills. Teachers and students, 21st century citizens with

global perspectives, will exhibit some key citizenship traits across the following four dimensions:

(1) Personal dimension

• the capacity to think critically and systemically

• an understanding of and sensitivity to cultural differences and issues of human rights

• a repertoire of responsible, cooperative and non-violent problem-solving and

conflict resolution skills

• a commitment to protect the environment, to defend human rights, and to engage in

political processes

• a commitment to shape their personal lives in ways that enable them to attain these

qualities

(2) Social dimension

• the ability to participate effectively and thoughtfully in civic life

• the ability to act in a reflective and deliberative manner in a variety of civic settings

(3) Spatial dimension

• the ability to create students with the ability to think and act as members of several

overlapping communities, ie, local, regional, national and multinational

• the capacity to require or promote multilingual linkages

(4) Temporal dimension

• the ability to take account of both the past and the future, as well as the present

• the ability to think and act within a broad timeframe that encompasses both past

heritage(s) and the potential impact of their present actions upon the future

(Cogan and Derricott, pp. 143-144)

In his book published in 2008, The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the

new survival skills our children need, author Tony Wagner suggests seven essential skills for the 21st

century. Professor Wagner interviewed business and civic leaders involved in the global economy and

visited schools where global education was a stated emphasis. In his book he discusses each of the seven

essential skills and develops his thesis that even our best schools are failing to teach them, in part because

of the “distraction” of high-stakes testing. He asks the simple but provocative question: We may be

improving our students’ test scores, but are we teaching and testing the right thing? “What, then, does it

mean in today’s world to be an active, informed citizen, and how does a democratic society best educate for

citizenship?” (Wagner, 2008, p. xvi). Based on his research, students will need these in the workplace and

in their daily lives as citizens:

• Critical thinking and problem solving

• Collaboration across networks and leading by influence

• Agility and adaptability

• Initiative and entrepreneurialism

• Effective oral and written communication

• Accessing and analyzing information

• Curiosity and imagination

(Wagner, pp. 14-42)


Their test scores may be improving, but are our students learning what they need to know to be successful

in the 21st century? Wagner suggests the seven skills needed, as outlined above, and notes that most

schools are not teaching these skills systematically, and not to all students.

Again, a detailed analysis and discussion of each of these authors’ contributions is beyond the

scope of this paper. Nevertheless, they present us with a comprehensive set of knowledge, skills and

dispositions, (with a heavy emphasis on skills and dispositions), that we need to take into account if we are

to successfully prepare teachers to meet the challenges of their 21st century classrooms. Great teachers have

always demonstrated a good portion of these global characteristics and skills. Our challenge as teacher

educators is to insure that our programs of teacher training are aligned with these skills and dispositions, so

that our students and their students are well prepared for the work of citizenship in an era of accelerating

globalization.

Preparing Teachers, Teaching Children

Walter Parker, writing a chapter titled “Diversity, Globalization and Democratic Education:

Curriculum Possibilities” in James Banks’ Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (2004),

defines globalization as “…worldwide political and economic restructuring and a new geographic fluidity

such that human organizations at new scales, both subnational and supernatural, are now proliferating” (p.

441). Parker’s use of the terms fluidity and proliferation recall my earlier discussion of time/space

compression, and the acceleration of exponential change. What are the key characteristics of citizenship in

this environment of political and economic restructuring and geographic fluidity? They assert that all

citizenship requires an agreed upon set of knowledge, skills (habits of mind), values and dispositions

(habits of heart). For effective citizenship in a global era, Cogan and Derricott (2000) suggest a set of five

fundamental citizenship criteria:

• A sense of identity

• The enjoyment of certain rights

• The fulfillment of corresponding obligations

• A degree of interest and involvement in public affairs

• An acceptance of basic societal values

(Cogan and Derricott, p. 2)

In each case, these lists of guidelines and characteristics provide dimensions of a framework for

the development of curriculum and pedagogical techniques intended to equip teachers and students alike

with the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We have been

thinking about this for decades, tinkering towards utopia. Yet some of the latest research available, such as

that by Wagner, suggests we are not yet doing the job. Where do we go from here?

Where are we now?

In this final section of the chapter, I will discuss the current research project I have begun on the

development of trans-cultural competence and global perspectives in pre-service teachers. I will also

explore some future directions based on my research and work with pre-service teachers.

Schools bear a responsibility to bring all students through all three stages of the trans-cultural

model. This is no easy task given the constraints on teacher time, the demands of required curricula, testing

schedules, needy students, a critical public and so forth. To be more specific, there isn’t room in an already

crowded school schedule to add any new emphases. These concepts of diversity, multiculturalism and

global perspectives need to be fully integrated into the curriculum, infused throughout traditional subject

matter, not only added here-and-there in recognition of holidays and special events.

In a recent book edited by Suarez-Orozco, Learning in the global era: International perspectives

on globalization and education (2007), chapter author Rita Sussmuth, former President of the German

Federal Parliament, discusses the need for integrating intercultural skills into the curriculum:


“By and large, educational systems have taken only small and disconnected steps toward overcoming the

challenges young people face in rapidly globalizing societies…Too often, school curricula highlight only

linguistic and cultural learning gaps among immigrant youth, without evaluating their abilities or recognizing

the capacity and knowledge these young people possess and can contribute to their learning environment.

Therefore, it is essential that school curricula within the European Union and at the global level develop a

common approach to making intercultural education a central part of pre-university education.”

(Sussmuth, p. 209-210)

It is not so much a matter of placing these concepts into education, as interesting and occasional

additions, but rather it is one of immersing our students’ very education in these concepts. While this

statement may initially strike the reader as a mere play on semantics, the latter emphasis has significant

implications for classroom practice. Global perspectives, multiculturalism and diversity should not be add-

ons, but rather should be seen as the focus and purpose of all schooling. But the questions persist. How best

to train the teachers? How best to teach the children?

The Current Project

The action research I have been conducting most recently is taking place in a foundations of

education course titled Schools and Society. As part of the course, students are assigned to a teacher in the

public schools. The research project consists of gathering a series of three written reflections via a course

website consisting of student impressions from their field placement. Three different online prompts lead

students from reflecting on effective teachers from their own pre-university schooling to reflecting on

relationships built with students in their current field placement. It should be noted that the two school

districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul where my students are placed are “minority majority” districts. For

example, of the 39,000 students in the St. Paul schools, large percentages come from poor homes (75% on

free and reduced lunch), speak first languages other than English (36%), and are from non-European racial,

ethnic and cultural heritages (73%).

----------------------------------

insert Figure 2 about here

----------------------------------

In contrast, many of my students are experiencing such school demographics as these for the very

first time. Nevertheless, after just 30 hours as classroom assistants, my students’ growth in confidence in

quite striking. Statements like “I wasn’t sure at first, but now I know I can do this” exemplify that growing

confidence. I have collected several semesters of such online postings, which gave rise to the study outlined

below.

The work in which I am presently engaged is an attempt to capture this early growth in confidence

and competence. To do so, I have developed a set of 10 key indicators of the skill of cultural competence in

pre-service teachers, as noted below:

• Having high standards and expectations for learning

• Incorporating home cultures and contextualizing the curriculum in those cultures

• Capitalizing on students’ cultures, languages and lived experience

• Infusing global perspectives

• Actively engaging parents and guardians

• Identifying and dispelling stereotypes

• Using culturally relevant curriculum materials

• Using cooperative learning techniques

• Using thematic, interdisciplinary teaching

• Teaching and practicing empathetic activism

Jongewaard, 2010

My students’ online postings are read with these indicators in mind and a qualitative analysis of

the postings is conducted to determine patterns of early confidence and competence across the ten


dimensions. In addition to the qualitative analysis, I am also using two questionnaires as pre-/post-

measures of intercultural awareness. The first is an instrument developed by Chen and Startosa (2000). The

second is an adaptation of the California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale (2004) I have titled the

Cultural Competence Scale – Teacher Form (Jongewaard, 2010). I am expecting to see growth over the

eight weeks of the 30-hour clinical experience using both measures. I will adjust my course content as I

determine which readings and assignments tend to elicit the greatest growth.

While I am only able to report the outlines of this research project as of this writing, I anticipate

some interesting data over the next several semesters to help me refine my ideas about trans-cultural

competence and global perspectives. As more teachers are trained to be culturally competent at the trans-

cultural level, and as more of their students study these concepts in school, citizenship education for global

understanding will become the norm. Perhaps the concept of cosmopolitanism, as discussed below, can

provide the framework for the archetype global citizen.

Cosmopolitanism as the Archetype Cultural Identity

In a recent article in the Journal of Research in International Education (December 2004) author

Konrad Gunesch suggests a conceptualization of the development of global perspectives that both

highlights these problems and points to a solution. In his article titled “Education for cosmopolitanism?

Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity model for and within international education,” Gunesch

argues persuasively for a personal cultural identity of cosmopolitanism that transcends any single ethnic or

cultural identity. While he is writing specifically about students who are attending international schools in

countries around the world, in my view he is also presenting us with an archetype cultural identity for the

21st century. He describes the cosmopolitan as “feeling at home in the world” (p. 256), expressing an

“interest or engagement with cultural diversity by straddling the global and the local spheres in terms of

personal identity…a foot in both…striking a proper balance…global is decisive without necessarily

dominating all the time” (p. 256). This global component is the missing emphasis in today’s schools. And

as we will see below, Gunesch suggests that cosmopolitanism can straddle the local and global, moving the

global perspective to the fore as the final developmental destination.

Drawing from the works of many others, with a particular focus on Ulf Hannerz, Professor Emeritus at

Stockholm University, Gunesch discusses the need for a meta-cultural position necessary to achieve a

genuine cosmopolitan status: (1) A willingness to engage with the Other, (2) An intellectual and ethic

stance of openness toward divergent cultural experience, and (3) A search for contrasts rather than for

uniformity. (Gunesch, p. 258) And in keeping with the constructivist nature of the transcultural model,

Gunesch suggests a kind of “rooted cosmopolitanism” (p. 264) wherein individuals maintain a local

identity but are in the end, truly at home in the world.

Further, Gunesch sees cosmopolitanism as the antithesis of globalism if by globalism we mean

“cultural uniformity and homogenization” (p. 265). If on the other hand we mean to define globalism as a

manifestation of contrast rather than uniformity, then we arrive at a way of talking about globalization as

the advent of world culture “…not as a replication of uniformity, but as an organization of diversity”

(p. 266) [emphasis added]. The trans-cultural model meets this test. “World citizenship [stage three, the

everybody stage] is viewed in terms of individual engagement [stage one, the I stage] with cultural

diversity” [stage two, the we stage] (p. 268).

With these basic global citizenship guidelines established, I have pulled together a set of skills and

dispositions indicative of a global perspective and have developed a set of core characteristics for trans-

cultural competence that echoes aspects of each of the preceding lists. References to related sources are

noted in parentheses:

• Cross-cultural adaptability (Kelly and Meyers, 1995)

• Empathetic activism (Cogan and Derricot, 2000)

• Geographical global awareness (Corbitt, 1996)

• Shared values (Kidder, 1994)

• Political global awareness (Corbitt, 1996)

• Trans-cultural awareness (Landis and Bennett, 2004)

• A spirit of seeking and celebrating difference (Gunesch, 2004)

Adapted from Jongewaard, 2008


Future Directions

In his recent remarks at the Global Studies Association conference at Oxford-Brookes University,

Professor Scott Lash spoke about the emerging Beijing Consensus wherein the emphasis is on relational

negotiations and investment in a new commodity, that of potentials (Lash, 2008). It occurs to me that

teachers have been at the forefront of this emerging consensus in global relations, especially those who

promote the development of global perspectives in their curriculum and approaches to teaching. In my

interpretation of Lash, the lives of individual students represent pure potential. Collectively, the next

generation of citizens currently in our classrooms represents the critical investment in potential. Investing

in individual students can be seen as a way of creating a community of differences (Lash, 2008), and this

production of difference creates competition, or resistance, which in turn provides stability in this emergent

globalization of relationality.

His is essentially an evolutionary argument, one that suggests that more difference, not less, is

more stable, more resilient, more adaptable. The goal of the new globalization is not homogenization, but is

rather the organization of difference. Teachers working daily with the pure potential represented in their

students are helping to generate communities of difference. The implications of Lash’s thesis of emergent

globalization suggest an important area for new research related to the trans-cultural model. This lies in an

exploration of the interdependence of the three stages of the model as they relate to the development and

organization of difference, and the role our schools can play in that process, through a global curriculum

focus coupled with compatible pedagogies.

Summary Comments

The fields of global education and multicultural education developed more or less simultaneously

beginning more than 30 years ago. However, global education has yet to take hold in the school curriculum

in the same way that multicultural education has. The trans-cultural developmental model introduced in this

chapter provides a way to think about these curricular emphases as both interdependent and

developmentally sequenced.

At Hamline University the knowledge base in teacher education is designed to build both the

competence and equally important, the confidence, to work in highly diverse, complex school settings, and

to teach all subjects with a global perspectives overlay. The trans-cultural developmental model provides a

theoretical construct for that programmatic approach. Through attention to the theoretical models provided

by Piaget, Kohlberg, Dewey, Noddings, Banks, Parker and others, we have built the foundations of a

program designed to lead new teachers to global perspectives, regardless of where they end up practicing

their craft. Whether in the diverse classrooms of the urban core or the more homogeneous classrooms of

rural villages, teachers with trans-cultural competence can serve as bridge builders for their students to that

wider world of human being. In drawing from the lists of characteristics provided by Cogan and Derricot,

Pike and Selby, Wagner and others, we have structured a sequence of courses and school-based clinicals

designed to prepare teachers to think globally while acting locally. As the International Studies Schools

Association at the University of Denver puts it: “All classes through global glasses!” This is at once our

best hope and our greatest challenge.


Works Cited

AACTE Commission on Multicultural Education. (Winter 1973). No One Model American: A Statement

on Multicultural Education. The Journal of Teacher

Education, Vol. XXIV (4), 264-265.

Anderson, L. (1979). Schooling and citizenship in a global age: An exploration of the

meaning and significance of global education. Mid-America Program for Global

Perspectives in Education. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Banks, J. A., (Ed.). (2004). Diversity and citizenship: Global perspectives.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Becker, J. (Ed.). (1979). Schooling for a global age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bernier, N. R. and Davis, R. H. (Winter 1973). Synergy: A Model for Implementing

Multicultural Education. The Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XXIV (4),

266-271.

California Brief Multicultural Competence Scale (CBMCS). Gamst, G. et al. (2004).

Cultural competency revised: The California Brief Multicultural Competency Scale.

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37 (3).

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity

scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15.

Cogan, J. (October 1978). Implementing Global Education in the Elementary School: A

Case Study. Social Education, 42 (7), p. 505.

Cogan, J. & Derricot, R. (2000). Citizenship for the 21st century: An international

perspective on education. London: Kogan-Page Limited.

Corbitt, J. N. (1998). Global Awareness Profile. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, Inc.

Dewey’s Political Philosophy (2005). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political/ [First published Wed Feb 9, 2005].

Accessed August 4, 2008.

Elwes, R. H. M. (1951). Works of Spinoza: Unabridged Elwes translation (Vol. II), (pp. 187-242).

New York: Dover.

Gunesch, K. (December 2004). Education for cosmopolitanism? Cosmopolitanism as a

personal cultural identity model for and within international education. Journal of

Research in International Education, Vol. 3 (3), 251-275. Sage Publications.

Gutek, G. L. (2005). Historical and philosophical foundations of education: A biographical introduction

(4th

ed.), (pp. 344-349). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education

Hanvey, R. (1975). An attainable global perspective. New York: Center for War/Peace Studies.

Jongewaard, S. (1981). Learning the concept of interdependence using selected

curricular materials and/or cooperative goal structures. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Cited in Kobus, D. K. (Ed.) The

developing field of global education: A review of the literature. Educational Research

Quarterly, Vol. 8 (1), (1983), p. 25.


Jongewaard, S. (2001). The six characteristics of universal citizenship: Their development and

measurement in pre-service teachers [Juried paper]. College and University Faculty Assembly.

National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), San Antonio, TX. (See also: ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED454109).

Jongewaard, S. (24 January 2003). Beyond multiculturalism; toward a theory of transcultural competency

[Juried paper]. Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher Education

(AILACTE). New Orleans, LA.

Jongewaard, S. (22 March 2004). Teachers at risk: Preparing effective teachers for 21st

century schools. [Juried paper]. The Oxford Roundtable, Oriel College, Oxford

University, UK.

Jongewaard, S. (9 February 2008). Beyond multiculturalism: The challenge of

preparing teachers for 21st century schools [Juried paper]. International Studies

Schools Association (ISSA). Chicago, Illinois. (See PowerPoint slides at:

http://www.du.edu/issa/PresentationMaterials.html)

Jongewaard, S. (19 February 2010). Confidence and competence: Discerning the emerging skills of cultural

competency in pre-service teachers through clinicals and online reflections [Juried paper].

Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher Education (AILACTE).

Atlanta, GA.

Kelly, C. & Meyers, J. (1993). The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory. Yarmouth,

ME: Intercultural Press, Inc.

Kidder, R. M. (1994). Shared values for a troubled world: Conversations with men and

women of conscience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Knight, J. and H. DeWit (Eds.). (1997). Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia

Pacific. Amsterdam. European Association for International Education p. 8. In:

Higher Education in a Globalized Society. UNESCO Education Position Paper, 2004.

Internet: http://www.unesco.org/education/higher _education/quality_innovation.

Accessed June 28, 2008

Kohls, L.R. (1996). Survival kit for overseas living. (3rd

ed). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Landis, D., Bennett, J. M. & Bennett, M. J. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of intercultural training (3rd. Ed).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lash, S. (3 September 2008). Emergent globalization and the new consensus. Keynote

address, B. Axford (Chair). 8th

annual conference of the Global Studies Association of

the UK and Europe: Oxford-Brookes University, Oxford, UK.

Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility.

(pp. 242-248). New York: Bantam.

Lindsey, R., Robins, K. N. & Terrell, R. (1999/2003). Cultural proficiency. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Lopez, T. R. (Winter 1973). Cultural Pluralism: Political Hoax? Educational Need? The

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XXIV (4), 277-281.

Osler, A. and Vincent, K. (2002). Citizenship and the challenge of global education.

Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.


Parker, W. (2004). Diversity, Globalization and Democratic Education: Curriculum

Possibilities. In: James Banks (Ed.) Diversity and citizenship education: Global

perspectives (2004). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Piaget, J. and Weil, A. (1951). The development in children of the idea of the homeland

and of relations with other countries. UNESCO International Social Science Bulletin,

III, (pp. 561-578).

Pike, G. and Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder and

Stoughton. In association with the Centre for Global Education, York University.

Pollack, D. C. & Van Reken, R. E. (2001). Third culture kids: The experience of

growing up among worlds. Boston: Nicholas Brealey North America.

Reed, R. F. & Johnson, T. W. (2000). Philosophical documents in education (2nd

ed.), (pp. 243-257).

New York: Longman.

Robins, K. N., Lindsey, R., Lindsey, D. B. & Terrell, R. (2001). Culturally proficient instruction.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Singer, M. (1998). Perception and identity in intercultural communication. Yarmouth,

ME: Intercultural Press.

Steger, M. B. (2008). The rise of the global imaginary: Political ideologies from the

French Revolution to the global war on terror. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (Ed.). (2007). Learning in the global era: International

perspectives on globalization and education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sussmuth, R. (2007). On the need for teaching intercultural skills: Challenges for

educating in a globalizing world. In: Suarez-Orozco, M. (Ed.). (2007). Learning in

the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education, (pp. 195-

212). Berkeley: University of California Press.

The Philosophy of Benedict Spinoza. The Radical Academy. Center for Applied

Philosophy. Port Orford, Oregon. Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty, President.

http://radicalacademy.com/philspinoza.htm Accessed August 4, 2008.

Torney, J. V. (1979). Psychological and institutional obstacles to the global perspective

in education. In J. Becker (Ed.), Schooling for a global age (pp. 59-93). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Ukpokodu, N. (September 1999). Multiculturalism vs. Globalism, Social Education

63(5), 298-300. National Council for the Social Studies.

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach

the new survival skills our children need. New York: Basic Books.

Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology (9th

ed.), (pp. 28-42). Boston: Pearson.


Figure 1.

Figure 2. St. Paul Public Schools Demographics – 2009-2010 School Year

Total Students

K-12

Free/Reduced

Lunch

Racial/Ethnic

Non-European

Special

Education

English

Language

Learners

39,239 75% 73% 18% 36%

English Hmong Spanish Karen Somali Other

55% 24% 11% 2% 2% 6%

Source: www.spps.org

Documents

Preparing teachers with global perspectives