|
Search This Site
|
The Difficulties of Internationalizing the American Undergraduate Curriculum
By Olga Bonfiglio [Olga Bonfiglio]
Wednesday, 03-Oct-2007, 17:45
This article appeared in the Fall 1999
Journal of Studies in International Education.
The global society is a relatively new phenomenon in human history. It has been taking shape since Columbus first sailed to the New World, and now has evolved into a global society of five billion-plus people. Different cultures have been in contact with each other throughout history, but the past 500 years have intensified these encounters so that they have formed a political, economic, social, historical, cultural, and environmental web characterized by constant change, complexity, and connectedness, and much contradiction. For example, this global society consists of people who are different from each other in physical appearance, philosophical orientation, and cultural tradition, yet highly dependent on one another. Linked by media that provide instant communication to and from almost any corner of the world at any time, the global society is not governed or controlled by a single legitimate body, it does not have a single currency or a universal means for directing finance and trade, and it has no effective means for settling disputes which may have developed from a time past or by people from distant lands. Nation-states are the ostensible structures of organization but there is a more pervasive network of competing multinational corporations that operate without borders and without rules that influence the world's affairs (Cleveland, 1993; Goldsmith, 1993; Reich, 1992; Thurow, 1993).
These examples are but a sampling of the realities that describe the kind of world our college students confront today. Because of the complexity of these global realities, sorting through them often leaves most people in a state of information overload. The patterns of the past 50 years have been especially difficult to define and articulate as the world has moved from an industrial to a "post-industrial" era. One hundred years ago, and for thousands of years before that, these societies were predominantly agricultural. Truly, this is a time of great change, unprecedented in history by its nature and scope. Some people believe that this period is a time of transition to a new era and maybe a new consciousness of (Boulding, E. 1988; Huston, J., 1994; Toeffler, 1970, 1980). However, with any kind of change comes ambiguity and uncertainty; even assumptions about reality and human life are fleeting. Preparing students for this environment is one of the great challenges before higher education.
Over the past 40 years colleges and universities have tried to answer the call to prepare students for this global society by "internationalizing the curriculum." However, these institutions are far from realizing a definition, purpose, and commitment to an internationalized curriculum for five reasons: shifting societal purposes and directions that confound change, governmental constraints that guide change from outside the institution, institutional structures that block change, theoretical assumptions about curriculum that fail to match global realities, and a lack of data to support curricular change. This paper will show how these factors drive curriculum and erect systems that sustain a veneer of internationalizing students but which lack the substance for preparing students for the challenges of a global society. The first section will provide a brief history of colleges' and universities' internationalizing efforts and illustrate how shifting purposes and directions have pulled these institutions away from committing themselves to a comprehensive educational mission.
Shifting Purposes and Directions
The move toward the internationalized curriculum first began in the 1950s as a response to the federal government's need for specialists capable of advising on the foreign policies of the Cold War (Smuckler, 1994). As a support to national security needs, specialists were sought to provide technical and development assistance programs in the Third World (Groennings, 1984). What grew out of these efforts were regional institutes, Ph.D. programs, and training and development programs in the areas of agriculture, engineering, and health care (McDonald-Gumperz, 1970). These programs, which were primarily research programs and contract work for faculty, helped to define "internationalization" at this time as "foreign policy studies," "regional or area studies" and "international development education." Their emphasis was on the study of international transactions between nation-states (Becker, 1979; Gutek, 1993).
In the 1970s "humanistic" educators were attempting to broaden this definition of internationalization to encompass the social and cultural aspects of society. One group emphasized "peace education," the study of how international cooperation could be achieved among nations (Gutek, 1993). For example, they developed strategies that could reduce the tensions produced by the arms race and promote understanding among diverse peoples as a deterrent to war, nationalism, chauvinism, and ethnic stereotyping. Peace educators sought to transform "institutional structures, human behavior, and consciousness" in order to "achieve a 'just and lasting peace'" and to "create a new, more humanistic and egalitarian society" (p. 29).
At the same time another group of internationalists emphasized "global education" which promoted the idea of interdependence among the peoples of "spaceship Earth." These educators looked for the commonalities of cultures rather than their differences, and they addressed global problems like population, environment, resource distribution, hunger, disease, and drug abuse as problems that affected all nations (Gutek, 1993). Proponents of global education were concerned with the "survival of the human species, with the prospect of fuller development of each individual, and with the enhancement of the quality of life for all" (Becker, 1979, p. 233).
Meanwhile, a fourth group of educators was interested in global interdependence and sought a wholistic approach to education. As a result they advocated infusing international subjects into the entire curriculum and promoting "world citizenship" as a value aimed at "two kinds of competence: professional expertise and citizen awareness" (Arndt, 1984).
A fifth group of educators saw the importance of establishing international exchange programs; the Fulbright and study-abroad are among the most well-known. Participants, who included students and faculty, went overseas to immerse themselves into the language and culture of a country through schools, universities, and homestays. They studied and/or conducted research on that country.
By the late 1980s conservative educators became alarmed that exposing students to the international programs of the liberal 1970s would weaken America's position in the world because students were exposed to a "subjective approach [to policies and relationships with other countries] based on feelings and attitudes which either bend to the will of other nations or which value victim cultures and downgrade America" (Fonte & Ryerson, 1994, p. 108). These educators objected to concepts like cultural relativism because it took a willy-nilly approach to values (Fullinwider, in Fonte & Ryerson, 1994). They scorned views that promoted "cooperation of a planetary future" as hostile to democratic capitalism (Sewall, in Fonte & Ryerson, 1994). Instead, they maintained that curriculum should focus on American cultural values and on Western civilization as the purveyor of progress in the world. They advocated a concentration on subject matter which they said should include history, geography, economics, international relations, comparative government, and foreign languages. Accompanying this conservative wave came business' pleas that higher education prepare students for work in the "global marketplace." This economic orientation to the internationalized curriculum was seen as a means that would assist U.S. international business in its competition with other countries for dominance over foreign and domestic markets.
As these examples show, the internationalized curriculum has been fraught with competing purposes and directions depending on the political and economic climate of the country. The effect of this approach is that the international education mission of colleges and universities is pulled between ideological argument and utilitarian concerns. Curriculum, in effect, is designed from the outside rather than from within the institution. This reactionary position inhibits an institution's ability to provide a balanced, wholistic, and long-term approach to curriculum in favor of a piecemeal, programmatic approach. The next section will show how this programmatic approach is fostered and how it constrains the institution from committing itself to a long-term educational mission.
Governmental Constraints to the Internationalized Curriculum
Colleges and universities have approached the task of internationalizing curriculum through a piecemeal, programmatic approach. They have encouraged their students to take courses in languages, area studies, or international relations, as well as to participate in study abroad, student exchanges, and service programs. Individual faculty members have revised their syllabi to infuse international components into general education courses or to design separate global studies courses and provide programmatic options and concentrations. International education centers have seen to it that libraries are stocked with books and resources; they have provided on-campus lectures and seminars and hosted world-cultures events and displays. Faculty and students are encouraged to learn how to interact with individuals outside the U.S. through computer-based simulations and direct communications technologies. Admissions offices have recruited students from all over the world to help make the campus more international. Academic deans have invited and funded their faculty to gain expertise and experience abroad so they might incorporate an international perspective into their courses (Backman, 1984; Picket & Turlington, 1992; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981).
These efforts are important contributions made by dedicated people who have used the resources available to them to provide international program. But the evidence remains that they have not "internationalized the curriculum." Instead, they have erected structures. These structures came into being largely because they were supported by grants from government, foundations, and other private sources. Ralph Smuckler (1994), a consultant to USAID and the former dean of international programs at Michigan State University illustrates how this emphasis on program-building set a precedent for the way universities tried to "internationalize the curriculum."
After World War II, the United States found itself in a position of power, wealth, and influence over a Europe and Japan that had been devastated by war. In order to extend itself through humanitarian as well as geopolitical interests, the government outlined the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe. This plan was soon extended to an "international development" program that endeavored to form alliances with countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. In this second effort, the government frequently called on universities to perform contract work through USAID. This contract work financed agricultural, technical, and engineering projects which gave universities a huge stake as well as a unique opportunity to extend themselves to the international level. Foundations supported government's lead by providing additional monies to universities who were interested in establishing linkages with other countries.
Michigan State University, led by President John Hannah, was among the first institutions to accept this challenge. Hannah enlisted faculty to engage in this work, which he felt was in line with MSU's mission as a land grant institution. Hannah also sought to extend this international emphasis to students through the newly-created area studies programs so that they might specialize in a particular geographical area. Finally, because Hannah wanted to give these internationalizing efforts credence, he created the Office of the Dean of International Studies and Programs. This dean was charged with overseeing the contract and programmatic ventures of the university. As a result all of these efforts, MSU became one of the top five universities in the nation involved in a high volume of international activity. MSU today remains one of the most highly-respected institutions offering expertise in international research, training, and education.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, strengthened the bond between universities and government by popularizing and legitimizing international development work through grants and contract work. This act thus became a core component of the U.S. foreign aid program as a means of providing assistance--and exacting allegiance--from Third World countries during the Cold War era. As a result, the grants were many and universities throughout the country began to establish international programs that would be able to take advantage of these grants.
By the 1990s this funding windfall began to diminish as decreasing the deficit became one of the priorities of the new Clinton Administration and as the bidding war against the communist block was no longer needed. Clifton Wharton, the new Undersecretary of State and former president of Michigan State University, was charged with realigning the foreign aid portion of the budget for a post-Cold War era. In doing so, Wharton wanted to continue the bond between government and the universities. However, other federal departments, including State, Commerce, Agriculture, and the Office of Management and Budget, all with an apparent stake in foreign aid policy, began to assert their interests and political muscle. What resulted was a "bureaucratic slicing up of power" and a prevalent disinterest in the human resource element of international development, much to Wharton's dismay. The Wharton Report, although widely circulated in draft form, was never issued to Congress and died a silent death.
Meanwhile, as America retreated to a more isolationist attitude, international education programs were considered expendable since their "rocky political backgrounds" were still tied to the defense priorities of the 1950s and 1960s. Foundations, which had always played an important supporting role in international programming, also became more inward-looking and likewise shifted their priorities to domestic concerns. As a result, the universities that had once played a major role in supplying the Third World with educational and technical assistance, were now looking for funding opportunities that would not only ensure the survival of their current international programs but open the way to new government-funded priorities. The gravity of this change was particularly hard on the area studies programs which had become national research and education centers funded by Title VI grants. In the mid-1990s the Title VI funding strategy was to decrease the funds of these established programs and then allocate the monies to a greater number of universities that wanted to start new programs (Campana, 1994). Meetings among the potential Title VI grant recipients were tense as competition escalated among those trying to retain their programs and those trying to start or expand theirs (Chavez, 1994).
The mid-1990s were to exhibit other changes in priorities for international education programs. For example, now that the Cold War was over, there was a diminished interest in Third World development--and the resulting alliances it incurred against the communist block. Funding priorities had switched to building democratic and capitalistic structures in former totalitarian states and socialist Third World countries. As a result, universities began "turning their attention from traditional [Third World] area studies programs" toward a new interest in Eastern Europe (Heginbotham, 1994, p. A68). Meanwhile, higher education in general was witnessing the increasing cost of education. Some institutions began to use its international programs as a "profit center" and "product differentiation" tool for positioning themselves in the college admissions market and as in responding to business' needs for global competition (Rubin, 1996).
Institutional Structures
From the previous section on governmental constraints, it is obvious that financial support plays a major role in determining the kinds of international programs colleges and universities offer to students. But faculty support of an internationalized curriculum can amplify these constraints. The example of Michigan State University provides insight into the ways faculty create institutional precedents which drive the curriculum.
In the early 1990s, Gill-Chin Lim, the new Dean of International Studies and Programs, who followed the original dean, Ralph Smuckler, attempted to internationalize the university's undergraduate curriculum by replacing the programmatic approach with a vision of an internationalized curriculum that was designed to transform students to the "global century" (Graham, 1993; Lim, 1993). Those most worried about this new move, however, were the directors and faculty members from the long-established area studies programs (Graham, 1993). Most faculty from the area studies offices were social scientists with more than 20 years of international field experience and programming. They were interdisciplinary in their approach and specialists in Third World affairs. The dean tried to broaden the field of international expertise by enlisting new faculty from other disciplines, but these new members had different program priorities than the old guard and they were not especially interested in the Third World. Not surprisingly, faculty from these two camps found themselves at odds even trying to define the internationalized curriculum.
The dean made a valiant effort to bridge the rift between the old and the new faculty by approaching individual members of each discipline and by avoiding any impression of mandating an all-out curriculum change (Lim, 1994). He did this by providing workshops and university-wide consultations on curricular and structural change. He sought to integrate knowledge and practice, to develop long-term structural strategies, to create stronger incentives and rewards for faculty and students to participate, to strengthen cultural understanding, and to reorient funding practices toward a longer term endowment approach (Lim, 1993). In short, he tried to balance the programmatic approach to internationalization with a new design of curriculum that reached the entire undergraduate student body. However, curriculum change was not what either faculty group wanted and in the end, international programs at MSU remained just that: programs and projects funded by outside sources which were still segmented and overseen by the area studies offices.
What is most consistent in this brief history of international programs is that faculty had inadvertently created institutional structures that responded to outside funding sources and kept them dependent on them. The unintended consequence of this strategy was that the undergraduate curriculum became restricted by these structures and funding agencies. And, although many of these programs provided some undergraduate students with opportunities and experiences to study and visit other countries, the primary objective of these international programs was to support faculty and graduate student research. What is most discouraging about this strategy is that time, money, resources, energy, and expertise expended toward these fine international programs was not extended with much interest to undergraduate students or to the undergraduate curriculum. The next section explains how these difficulties developed out of their theoretical assumptions.
Theoretical Assumptions of the Undergraduate Curriculum
A discussion on internationalizing the undergraduate curriculum cannot take place without a discussion of the theoretical assumptions that underlie and shape curriculum. These assumptions are important because they address basic questions about knowledge, reality, and humanity which in turn influence how professors teach, what they teach, and how they relate to their students (May, 1992). For example, in most undergraduate curricula, knowledge is segmented into disciplines like science, history, philosophy, art, literature which are then separated by specialties according to time, geography, ideology, or content area. Professors typically teach these disciplines with the assumption that human beings are a "tabula rasa," that is, students are without knowledge and therefore need professors to fill them with it. Learning is determined by the students' ability to accumulate and articulate the knowledge of the discipline usually through tests, papers, or recitation. Curriculum designers, who base curricula on disciplinary knowledge, assume that knowledge is authoritative and handed down by experts who have determined truth. These truths are to be consumed by students. Inherent in their design is that reality is linear, static, hierarchical, and ordered; human nature is predictable, rational, and controllable.
Today, in the Information Society, accumulating and articulating the knowledge of the discipline has been intensified thus producing an adverse effect on the undergraduate curriculum. For example, some people contend that education has become a mere proliferation of data and a quest for control over reality through data (Hutchins, cited in Smith, 1990). Others suggest that an "information explosion" produces a gap between students' knowledge and understanding (London, 1994) while others charge that specialization, complexity, and the increasing accumulation of disciplinary knowledge prevent faculty from connecting different fields of learning in ways that would subsequently enable undergraduate students to integrate their learning (Bok, 1986). One of the consequences of an emphasis on information and specialization is that the institution rewards credentialing over understanding (Gardner, 1991). Another consequence is that "experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other" (Dewey, 1938/1963, p. 25). That is, the learner's "continuity of experience," which "arouses curiosity, strengthens initiative, and sets up desires and purposes that are sufficiently intense to carry a person over dead places in the future" (p. 38) gets blocked and deterred. Learning becomes isolated and disconnected.
A good example of the effect of the discipline-centered approach on students is in the popular study-abroad program, one of the key components of an undergraduate internationalized curriculum. In a review of the research done on study abroad, Kauffman, Martin, Weaver, and Weaver (1992) point out that students' experiences overseas often lead to a change in their knowledge about the international community, their globally-oriented behavior patterns, and their affective growth. Students' personal development while on study-abroad assignments is enhanced as they become more self-aware, self-confident, and acquire a sense of autonomy. They learn how to integrate themselves with others, which eventually leads to an openness to new ideas and an empathy with the people of another culture. They also have an opportunity to reexamine their own values in the face of differences. Unfortunately, Kauffman et al. (1992) also found that when students came home they felt that no one was interested in them or their travels; their relationships with family and friends suffered; and they questioned and even rejected the values, beliefs, and behaviors of their home culture. Much of this difficulty was due to the personal and intellectual changes that occurred within the students as a result of their exposure to different people and cultures overseas. The void from sharing, debriefing, and understanding their experience with family and friends and with those in the academic community increased this difficulty.
Cross-cultural scholars claim that reentry into the home culture is one of the most difficult aspects of the overseas experience (Kohls, 1984) and that debriefing is essential (SIETAR, 1986). However, most colleges and universities are remiss in debriefing students and many do not even prepare students before they leave for overseas (Fugate, 1994). This is another consequence of the programmatic approach: much time, money, energy, and resources are appropriated to the structures, but not to the learners. In the case of study abroad, the omission of debriefing as part of the curriculum signals the unequal status of student knowledge and experience in comparison to disciplinary knowledge. There are several assumptions about curriculum behind this omission. First, in the discipline-centered curriculum the professor is the authority figure; knowledge is supposed to come from him/her not the student. Secondly, experience is subordinate to knowledge because it has presumably not gone through the rigors of expert analysis. Experience is seen as subjective, unmeasurable, and even irrational; knowledge of the discipline is seen as objective, logical, and authoritative. Third, experience does not systematically explain phenomena; it is deemed too casual, too random, and unable to be codified. Anyone can have experience but not everyone can have knowledge.
The undergraduate curriculum is boxed into disciplinary knowledge orientation that leaves little room for student input or response. It cannot entertain a conception of reality as a global society that is complex, interconnected, contradictory, and constantly changing. It cannot encourage students to construct their own knowledge. It cannot accommodate a vision of humanity that is diverse, has multiple perspectives, or is seen as connected to a global society. For these reasons, it is difficult to "internationalize" the undergraduate curriculum.
Lack of Evaluative Research of Internationalized Curriculum
Thus far, this paper has shown how institutional and governmental constraints, competing purposes, and assumptions about curriculum contribute to the difficulties of internationalizing the undergraduate curriculum. This last section will complete the analysis by demonstrating that even in the "information explosion" era the rational process of designing curriculum is curtailed by a lack of data and evaluative research. Little work has been done and most of it has focused on study abroad. For example, Barrows' (1981) landmark study of 3,000 university students and their study abroad experience tried to draw a correlation between students' knowledge and beliefs about international topics and their exposure to other cultures. He found that:
* There was no association between language study and the development of knowledge and sensitivity to other cultures, although the affective component of foreign language and history was moderately associated.
* Students' global knowledge was obtained most frequently from reading international news, which they became more attuned to as a result of a study-abroad experience.
* There was no association between course work and students' global knowledge.
* Experience abroad was related to global knowledge, but it was unclear whether the experience led to global knowledge or if globaly knowledgeable students engaged in experiences abroad.
This dismal state of the influence of the academic curriculum yielded similar results in Carlson's (1990) comparison of study-abroad and stay-at-home junior-level students, a replication of Barrows's 1981 study. Carlson's study revealed that the study-abroad students increased their foreign language proficiency, gained more global knowledge from their nonacademic experiences abroad than their academic experiences, and felt more satisfied with their junior year abroad than their stay-at-home peers. Nearly half of the study-abroad students expected to obtain careers living and/or working abroad.
Since the 1980s, research on internationalized curriculum has tended to focus on study-abroad programs. These programs have been successful in increasing students' knowledge and sensitivity to world affairs (Pickert & Turlington, 1992), however, they present an incomplete picture of their effectiveness as a curricular program for three reasons. First, the number of students involved in study-abroad programs is usually small (Barrows, 1981; MSU, 1984, 1990). Michigan State University, one of the premier international institutions that has long promoted study-abroad, had only 1,000 out of 40,000 students participate in study-abroad programs during the 1993-94 academic year. Second, the research studies do not differentiate the effect of the programs on students, nor do they measure the effect of curriculum. Students who are successful overseas may already have been predisposed to learning about and living with people from other cultures. Others may have already had overseas experience. Third, curriculum is not designed to transform students' attitudes, behaviors, or beliefs about the world. Rather, curricula tend to reinforce nationalistic perspectives, many of them ethnocentric and intolerant of differences (Bonfiglio, 1995). Fourth, most study-abroad programs take place in Europe, thus leaving out students' experience with two-thirds of the rest of the world. In 1993-94 at Michigan State University, for example, 63% of the study-abroad programs were located in Europe, 9.4% in Asia, 8.5% in Latin America, 6.2% in Oceania, 5.8% in North America, 3.5% in Africa, 3.1% in Russia, and 0.5% in the Middle East (MSU Study Abroad Office, 1995). Fifth, evaluations of study-abroad students' experience of the world are limited to their knowledge of world affairs. Questions about their ability to live and work with people from other cultures or to understand global problems are missing. However, another problem with previous assessments of the study abroad experience is that researchers rely only on quantitative methods. As ground-breaking as Barrows and Carlson's studies were for evaluating the international experience, their survey design left little room for participants to elaborate their responses.
Conclusion
An internationalized undergraduate curriculum should be something more than a collection of programs on international subjects that are ideologically in vogue and politically fundable. An internationalized curriculm should prepare students for life and work in a global society so that they can learn about their world and find ways of acting in it and on it. Such a curriculum does not require funding as much as it requires faculty and administrative commitment to make learning relevant to the students who will enter a global society. This can be done best through a generalist liberal arts approach to curriculum that helps students connect knowledge to world events, see the relationships between the local and global societies, and understand and deliberate over the social as well as economic and political issues.
An internationalized curriculum should be a course of study that is available to all students and not just to those who specialize in languages, foreign affairs, or international business. It should be focused more on generalized knowledge and reserve specialized knowledge for graduate studies. Studying the elements and consequences of life and work in a global society also precipitates an interdisciplinary and generalized approach to curriculum because issues must be examined from many different angles of scholarship, experience, and perspective. The expected outcome of a internationalized undergraduate curriculum is that students work toward becoming generalists by studying material that cuts across disciplines and connects to world events as well as to their own knowledge and experience (Peterson, 1990; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). This generalist approach contrasts the ineffectual nature of the compartmentalized disciplinary approach as noted by former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (1980) who said that "few foreign policy issues are easily subsumed under a single field such as history, economics, sociology, political science, or anthropology. More typically they combine all of them and more" (p. 5).
In preparing students for life and work in a post-Cold War global society, undergraduate curriculum must ready students for political and economic competition without glossing over the world's social problems like pandemic poverty, hunger, arms proliferation, environmental degradation, migration, overpopulation, ethnic conflict, and war. It must help them understand that one people's gain is frequently another's loss--and assist them with sorting out the moral and ethical issues and consequences involved among the available courses of action. Curriculum must provide students with opportunities to study the language and culture of other peoples and to learn how to find common goals among those who are different from themselves in culture, values, and perspectives.
A curriculum that relies on coursework in the disciplines, study abroad, and languages as the means for internationalizing students compartmentalizes knowledge and produces a gap between students' knowledge and understanding of life and work in the global society. This disciplinary approach to curriculum emphasizes a stockpiling of knowledge rather than an understanding or a creation of it. It encourages an analysis of phenomena but not a stake in it. It focuses on the veracity of data instead of uncovering and analyzing the contradictions, relationships, and contexts of the human condition.
In short, an undergraduate internationalized curriculum should steer away from a programmatic approach and instead focus on the needs of students who will live and work in "the global century." In this way higher education will be be revitalized because the curriculum will have purpose, it will provide experiences to attain these purposes, it will effectively organize itself to these purposes, and it will be able to evaluate to what extent these purposes were attained (Tyler, 1949). Internationalizing the undergraduate curriculum is really an opportunity for higher education to reinvent itself to the demands of the global society.
LIST OF WORKS CITED
Arndt, R.T. (1984). Rethinking international education. In W.C. Olson & L.D. Howell (Eds.), International education: The unfinished agenda (pp. 1-39). Indianapolis: White River press.
Backman, E.L. (1984). Internationalizing the campus: A strategy for the 1980s. In Approaches to International Education. (pp. 330-345). New York: ACE & Macmillan.
Barrows, T.S. (1981). College students' knowledge and beliefs: A survey of global understanding. New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.
Becker, J.M. (Ed.). (1979). Schooling for a global age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bok, D. (1986). Higher learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bonfiglio, O. (1995). Internationalizing the undergraduate curriculum: A qualitative study of students' images and experiences of the world. Unpublished dissertation.
Boulding, E. (1988). Building a global civic culture: Education for an interdependent world. New York: Teachers College Press.
Campana, G. (1994). Personal interview, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Carlson, J.S., Burn, B.B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study abroad: The experience of American undergraduates. New York: Greenwood Press.
Chavez, M. (1994). Personal interview, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Cleveland, H. (1993). Birth of a new world: An open moment for international leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Fonte, J. & Ryerson, A. (Eds.). (1994). Education for America's role in world affairs. New York: University Press of America.
Fugate, J. (1994). Personal interview, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, MI.
Fullinwider, R.K. (1994). Global education and controversy: Some observations. In J. Fonte & A. Ryerson (Eds.), Education for America's role in world affairs (pp. 23-30). New York: University Press of America.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
Goldsmith, J. (1994). The trap. New York: Carroll & Graf.
Graham, E.D. (1993). Internationalizing the university curriculum: Theoretical problems, practical solutions. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(5), 440-452.
Groennings, S. (1984). The American democracy in the global community: Federal and university roles in the international education triad. In W.C. Olson & L.D. Howell (Eds.), International education: The unfinished agenda (pp. 68-88). Indianapolis: White River Press, Inc.
Gutek, Gerald (1993). American education in a global society: Internationalizing teacher education. Chicago: Loyola University.
Heginbotham, S.J. (1994, October 19). Shifting the focus of international programs. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A68.
Huston, J. (1994). Spirituality and Training Workshop, Troy, MI.
Kauffman, N.L., Martin, J.N., Weaver, H.D., & Weaver, J. (1992). Students abroad: Strangers at home: Education for a global society. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Kohls, L.R. (1984). Survival kit for overseas living. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Lim, G.-C. (1993). Reforming education toward the global century. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(5), 567-576.
Lim, G.-C. (1994, January). Dean of International Studies and Programs, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Personal interview.
London, H. (1994). Implications of the "new demographics" and the "information explosion" for international education. In J Fonte & A. Ryerson (Eds.), Education for America's role in world affairs (pp. 39-41). New York: University Press of America.
May, W. (1992, Winter). Curriculum theory class, Michigan State University.
McDonald-Gumperz, E. (1970). Internationalizing American higher education: Innovation and structural change. Berkeley: University of California, Center for Research and Development in Higher Education.
Michigan State University (1984). Critical needs for international education at Michigan State University in the mid-1980s: A reassessment of the International Studies and Program Review and Planning Committee. East Lansing, MI.
Michigan State University. (1990). Survey of Michigan State University students' knowledge of international affairs. East Lansing: MSU Center for Survey Research.
MSU Study Abroad Office. (1995). Personal interview.
|
|
