Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 1

Running head: TEACHERS WITH GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

The Challenge of Preparing Teachers with
Global Perspectives for 21st Century Classrooms

Steven M. Jongewaard, Ph.D.
Professor of Education
Hamline University School of Education, Box #139
1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
E­mail: [email protected]
Ph: (651) 523­2434; FAX: (651) 523­3170

A Paper Prepared for the Global Studies Association
Cultures and/of Globalization Conference
Oxford­Brookes University
Oxford, UK
September 3, 2008
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 2

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

 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 3

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 35 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
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 4

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
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 5

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. (see [REFS NEEDED], p. 255 in book)
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
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 6

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
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 7

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
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 8

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. (see [REFS NEEDED], p. 261 in book)

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
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 9

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 21st 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)

 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 10

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:
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 11

“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
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 12

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)
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 13

 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.
Lash’s or His, not Scott’s (Scott’s was an editor insert; see p. 269 in book) 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.
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 14

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.

(Please see top of p. 271 in book where Corbitt and Dewey references were combined)

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.

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

personal cultural identity model for and within international education. Journal of
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 15

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

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.
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 16

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.

Nel Noddings on the Ethics of Care. Wikipedia. Page was last modified on 8 May 2008,
at 14:47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nel_Noddings. Accessed August 4, 2008.

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.

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.
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 17

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

Total Students Free/Reduced Racial/Ethnic Special English

K-12 Lunch Non-European Education Language
Learners
39,239 75% 73% 18% 36%
 Jongewaard – GSA Chapter 18

English Hmong Spanish Karen Somali Other

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

Source: www.spps.org