Are We Graduating Global Citizens?: A Mixed Methods Study Investigating Students’ Intercultural Development and Perceptions of Intercultural and Global Learning in Academic Settings by Kyra Dawne Garson M.A.Ed., St. Francis Xavier University, 2007 B.A., University of British Columbia, 1995 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in the Educational Leadership Program Faculty of Education  Kyra Dawne Garson 2013 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2013 Approval Name: Kyra Dawne Garson Degree: Doctor of Education Title: Are We Graduating Global Citizens? A Mixed Methods Study Investigating Students’ Intercultural Development and Perceptions of Intercultural and Global Learning in Academic Settings Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Rebecca Cox, Assistant Professor Michelle Pidgeon Senior Supervisor Assistant Professor Christine Wihak Co-Supervisor Adjunct Professor Thompson Rivers University Roumi Ilieva Supervisor Associate Professor Kumari Beck Internal Examiner Assistant Professor Betty Leask External Examiner Professor Teaching and Learning Centre, La Trobe University Date Defended/Approved: November 12, 2013 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Ethics Statement iv Abstract Demographic shifts have brought changes to the Canadian higher education landscape. Increased cultural diversity is the result of increased access for and intentional recruitment of a wide range of domestic, Aboriginal, new Canadian, and international students. In addition, these students will live and work in increasingly diverse and globalized contexts. There is much rhetoric regarding the supposed outcomes of internationalization activities producing global citizens. This study sought to understand whether students completing programs in culturally diverse, internationalized institutions were developing intercultural and global competencies, and if their educational experiences influenced this learning. This mixed method study investigated the intercultural development scores and perceptions of intercultural and global learning of upper level students in British Columbian regional universities. Specifically, the study sought to determine the levels of students' (N=178) intercultural development scores and if demographic factors were related to intercultural development scores as measured by the Intercultural Development Inventory. The IDI results together with student perceptions of the influences of curriculum and pedagogy on intercultural and global learning in academic settings provide educators working in culturally diverse, internationalized institutions with data to consider enhanced strategies to prepare students to live and work effectively in multicultural, international, and global contexts. Keywords: Cosmopolitanism; global citizen education; global learning; intercultural competence, internationalization; Intercultural mixed methods v Dedication This work is dedicated to my parents, Mary and Bruce, who raised me with the confidence to see this through and who did not stand in the way of life choices that may have seemed questionable at the time but, ultimately, led me to the cosmopolitan perspectives and passion contained in this work. vi Acknowledgements As I near the completion of this work there are many people to acknowledge. First, I want to recognize my partner Dave and daughter Claire who endured the intermittent, yet consistent, absence of "mom" for more than four years. Their support for both me and the notion of cosmopolitanism was critical to my success. Admiration and thanks must be extended to my senior supervisors, Dr. Michelle Pidgeon and Dr. Christine Wihak, who balanced support and challenge throughout the journey by both offering sound advice and pushing me to go beyond what I thought I was capable of. I also wish to thank committee member Dr. Roumi Illieva for her thoughtful suggestions and questions that improved my thinking at several stages. Many thanks to Kumari Beck and Betty Leask who as the internal and external examiners respectively, provided insightful recommendations to the final copy. In addition, Vera Wojna, Emma Bourassa, and Mary Jordan should be acknowledged for their keen interest, contribution of ideas, and enthusiastic reading of drafts. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my broader family, friends, and colleagues for their patience and support. Many of you contributed to parts and pieces of my own personal and professional development that has resulted in this work. Thank you. vii Table of Contents Approval .......................................................................................................................... ii Partial Copyright Licence ............................................................................................... iii Ethics Statement ............................................................................................................ iv Abstract ........................................................................................................................... v Dedication ...................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... vii Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xii List of Figures................................................................................................................ xiii List of Acronyms............................................................................................................xiv Glossary ........................................................................................................................ xv 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose of Study .................................................................................................... 4 1.1.1. Context and Structure of the Study ............................................................. 5 1.1.2. Research Questions.................................................................................... 6 1.2. Situating the Study and the Researcher ................................................................. 7 1.2.1. Researcher Background ............................................................................. 8 1.2.2. Researcher Bias ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.3. Theoretical Lenses .................................................................................... 11 1.3. Overview of Methodology ..................................................................................... 12 1.3.1. Participants ............................................................................................... 13 1.3.2. Data Collection and Analytic Plan ............................................................. 13 1.4. Organization of the Dissertation............................................................................ 14 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Framing the Context ........................................................................................... 16 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 16 Global Influences on Higher Education ................................................................. 18 Internationalization ............................................................................................... 20 2.3.1. Internationalization at Home (I@H) ........................................................... 24 2.4. Global Citizenship Education ................................................................................ 26 2.4.1. Global Citizenship and Internationalization ................................................ 28 2.5. Cosmopolitanism .................................................................................................. 30 2.5.1. The Role of Critical Pedagogy................................................................... 32 Multicultural and Intercultural Education.................................................... 32 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. Review of the Literature ..................................................................................... 38 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 38 The Canadian Context .......................................................................................... 38 Intercultural Learning ............................................................................................ 39 3.3.1. Cross-cultural Contact vs. Intercultural Learning ....................................... 42 3.3.2. Intercultural Learning Models .................................................................... 42 viii Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity ....................................... 43 3.3.3. The DMIS and the IDI ............................................................................... 46 Process Model of Intercultural Competence .............................................. 47 3.3.4. Teaching and Learning ............................................................................. 49 3.3.5. The Role of Faculty and Staff .................................................................... 50 3.3.6. Pedagogy.................................................................................................. 51 3.3.7. Students' global and intercultural learning ................................................. 55 Intercultural Interaction.............................................................................. 57 3.3.8. The IDI in Educational Studies .................................................................. 59 The IDI and student mobility ..................................................................... 59 The IDI and non-mobile populations.......................................................... 60 3.3.9. Variables of Interest .................................................................................. 63 Gender...................................................................................................... 64 Age ........................................................................................................... 65 Ethnicity and student demographic ........................................................... 65 Time spent abroad .................................................................................... 66 Academic major ........................................................................................ 66 Pedagogical Intervention........................................................................... 67 3.4. Twenty-First Century Learning Outcomes ............................................................ 67 4. Research Methodology ...................................................................................... 70 4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 70 4.2. Mixed Methods ..................................................................................................... 70 4.2.1. The Paradigm Question ............................................................................ 71 4.2.2. Mixed Method Design and Process ........................................................... 75 4.3. Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................ 76 4.3.1. Research Questions.................................................................................. 76 4.4. Research sites...................................................................................................... 77 4.5. Design .................................................................................................................. 77 4.5.1. Participants and Sample Size ................................................................... 79 4.5.2. Survey Instrument ..................................................................................... 81 4.5.3. IDI Data..................................................................................................... 83 4.5.4. Focus groups ............................................................................................ 83 4.6. Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 84 4.6.1. IDI Data..................................................................................................... 85 4.6.2. Focus Group Data ..................................................................................... 85 4.7. Analytic Plan......................................................................................................... 87 4.7.1. Quantitative ............................................................................................... 87 Procedures: Descriptive ............................................................................ 89 Procedures: Inferential .............................................................................. 89 4.7.2. Qualitative ................................................................................................. 90 4.8. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ............................................................ 92 5. Influences on Level of Intercultural Development ........................................... 95 5.1. Full Sample .......................................................................................................... 96 5.1.1. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................. 96 ix 5.1.2. T-test Results ............................................................................................ 97 5.2. ANOVA Results .................................................................................................... 97 5.2.1. Demographic Variables Standard to the IDI .............................................. 97 Gender...................................................................................................... 97 Age ........................................................................................................... 98 Time Spent Abroad ................................................................................... 99 Ethnic Minority ........................................................................................ 100 5.2.2. Demographic Variables Unique to this Study .......................................... 101 Institution ................................................................................................ 101 Academic Discipline ................................................................................ 102 Student Status ........................................................................................ 103 5.3. Summary of Analyses......................................................................................... 104 6. Perceptions of Intercultural and Global Learning .......................................... 106 6.1. Global Learning .................................................................................................. 107 6.2. Global Learning and Globalization ...................................................................... 109 6.2.1. Confusion................................................................................................ 109 6.2.2. Resigned Passivity .................................................................................. 111 6.2.3. Global Competition ................................................................................. 112 6.2.4. Global Citizenship? ................................................................................. 113 6.3. Intercultural Learning .......................................................................................... 115 6.3.1. Conceptualizing Culture .......................................................................... 116 6.3.2. Two Solitudes ......................................................................................... 117 6.3.3. Negotiating Tensions .............................................................................. 119 6.3.4. Avoidance Strategies .............................................................................. 122 6.3.5. Multicultural Canada ............................................................................... 123 6.4. The Influence of Curriculum and Pedagogy ........................................................ 124 6.4.1. Scratching the Surface ............................................................................ 125 6.4.2. Pedagogy................................................................................................ 128 6.4.3. Improving the Outcomes ......................................................................... 133 Interaction ............................................................................................... 134 Interdisciplinarity ..................................................................................... 136 6.5. Linking the Data Sets ......................................................................................... 139 6.5.1. Academic Discipline ................................................................................ 139 6.5.2. Pedagogy................................................................................................ 141 6.6. Summary of Analyses of Student Perceptions .................................................... 142 7. Discussion of Findings .................................................................................... 143 7.1. Research Procedures ......................................................................................... 143 7.2. Intercultural and Global Learning ........................................................................ 144 7.2.1. Perceived and Developmental Intercultural Scores ................................. 144 7.2.2. Perceptions of Intercultural and Global Learning ..................................... 146 Global Learning ...................................................................................... 147 Intercultural Learning .............................................................................. 149 7.3. Implications for Canadian Higher Education ....................................................... 152 7.3.1. Re-visioning the Mission of Internationalization ....................................... 153 x 7.3.2. The Need for Professional Development ................................................. 155 7.3.3. Revisiting Curricula ................................................................................. 159 7.3.4. Improving Opportunities through Informed Intent .................................... 162 7.4. Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................. 166 7.5. Limitations of the Research ................................................................................ 167 References ................................................................................................................. 170 Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Invitation to Participate .................................................................... 189 Request to Assist in Invitation ......................................................... 193 Focus Group Consent ..................................................................... 196 Focus Group Protocol Script ........................................................... 200 IDI Example..................................................................................... 201 Focus Group Discussion Questions ................................................ 209 Email Script for Online Survey Participants ..................................... 210 xi List of Tables Table 1: Student demographic variables associated with intercultural development ................................................................................................ 62 Table 2: Study Variables – Findings summarized ...................................................... 63 Table 3: Breakdown of Focus Group Participant Demographics ................................ 81 Table 4: Quantitative Variables .................................................................................. 89 Table 5: Qualitative Themes ...................................................................................... 92 Table 6: Full Sample Summary Scores, N=178 ......................................................... 96 Table 7a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Gender PO ............................................. 97 Table 7b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Gender DO ............................................. 98 Table 7c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Gender OG ............................................. 98 Table 8a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Age PO ................................................... 98 Table 8b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Age DO ................................................... 99 Table 8c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Age OG................................................... 99 Table 9a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Time Spent Abroad PO ........................... 99 Table 9b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Time Spent Abroad DO ......................... 100 Table 9c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Time Spent Abroad OG ........................ 100 Table 10a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Ethnic Minority PO ................................ 100 Table 10b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Ethnic Minority DO ................................ 101 Table 10c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Ethnic Minority OG ................................ 101 Table 11a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Institution PO ........................................ 101 Table 11b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Institution DO ........................................ 102 Table 11c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Institution OG ........................................ 102 Table 12a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Academic Discipline PO ........................ 102 Table 12b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Academic Discipline DO ....................... 103 xii Table 12c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Academic Discipline OG ....................... 103 Table 13a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Student Status PO ................................ 104 Table 13b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Student Status DO ................................ 104 Table 13c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Student Status OG ............................... 104 List of Figures Figure 1: Model of the study structure ........................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity .......................................... 43 Figure 3: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and Intercultural Development Continuum ............................................................................. 47 Figure 4: Process Model of Intercultural Competence ................................................. 48 Figure 5: Competing Discourses in Four Quadrants ................................................... 52 Figure 6: IDI scales of measurement .......................................................................... 82 Figure 7: Percentage of Full Sample DO..................................................................... 96 Figure 8: NVivo Tag Cloud for Most Frequent Words Associated with Culture .......... 117 xiii List of Acronyms ANOVA AUCC CD DMIS DO GATS GCE GLM I@H IDC IDI PO OG K-12 STEM Analysis of Variance Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Cultural Disengagement (IDI Scale) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Developmental Orientation (IDI Scale) General Agreement on Trades and Services Global Citizenship Education General Linear Model Internationalization at Home Intercultural Development Continuum Intercultural Development Inventory Perceived Orientation (IDI Scale) Orientation Gap (IDI Scale) Kindergarten through high school (grade 12) Science, Technology, Engineering, Math xiv Glossary Cosmopolitanism having worldwide rather than limited or provincial scope or bearing (Merriam & Webster) Critical Multiculturalism An educational philosophy that goes beyond liberal multiculturalism by directly challenging structures of power and inequity (May & Sleeter, 2010) Critical Pedagogy "[Critical] pedagogy . . . signals how questions of audience, voice, power, and evaluation actively work to construct particular relations between teachers and students, institutions and society, and classrooms and communities" (Giroux, 1994, p.30) Developmental Orientation The Developmental Orientation (DO) indicates the group’s primary orientation toward cultural differences and commonalities along the continuum as assessed by the IDI. The DO is the perspective the group is most likely to use in those situations where cultural differences and commonalities need to be bridged. Global Competence "The ability to work effectively in international settings; awareness of and adaptability to diverse cultures, perceptions, and approaches; familiarity with the major currents of global change and the issues they raise; and the capacity for effective communication across cultural and linguistic boundaries" (Brustein, 2007, p. 383) Global Learning Learning that leads to the development of global competence including intercultural awareness, global events, issues, politics, and histories. Intercultural Competence Acquiring increased awareness of subjective cultural contexts (worldviews), including one’s own, and developing a greater ability to interact sensitively and competently across cultural contexts (Bennett, 2009, p. 1) Intercultural Learning Learning that leads to the development of intercultural competence and increased awareness of one's own and other cultural preferences. Internationalization "the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education" (Knight, 2004, p.11) Internationalizing the Curriculum "the incorporation of an international and intercultural dimension into the content of the curriculum as well as the teaching and learning arrangements and the support services of a program of study" (Leask, 2009,p.209) xv Orientation Gap The Orientation Gap (OG) is the difference along the continuum between the Perceived and Developmental Orientation. A gap score of seven points or higher indicates a meaningful difference between the Perceived Orientation and the Developmental Orientation. (IDI) Perceived Orientation The Perceived Orientation (PO) reflects where the group as a whole places itself along the intercultural development continuum.(IDI) xvi 1. Introduction In the past few decades a variety of globalizing influences have dramatically shifted the environment of Canadian institutions of higher education. In particular, increased global flows of educational consumers and products, as well as mobility within (AUCC, 2010; Statistics Canada, 2009) and across borders (Roslyn Kunin & Associates, 2012) have resulted in an unprecedented diversity of cultural perspectives and worldviews in our classrooms. As a result of both geographic and social mobility, the world is quite literally on our campuses. Canadian educators must pause to consider how, or if, students are gaining the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to effectively participate in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Our students are graduating into a world that is rapidly changing; this world may offer new opportunities but also presents unparalleled challenges. The first decade of the Twenty-first century has been one filled with media reports of natural disasters, environmental crises, worldwide economic fallouts, terrorism in variations never thought of before, political and military overthrows, military interventions of international coalitions against sovereign — yet perhaps, tyrannical — states, genocide, mass starvation, unprecedented numbers of displaced people, and diseases that threaten pandemic proportions. These global issues impact our campuses as increasing numbers of students have ties to these areas and people directly affected by such events and classroom populations can contain a wide variety of experiences and perspectives regarding these issues. Moreover, present and future generations will need to work collaboratively within varying cultural perspectives (Bok, 2009; Deardorff, 2006; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Lee, Poch, Shaw, & Williams, 2012), differing epistemologies (Kuokkanen, 2009; Lee et al, 2012), and unfamiliar social realities that require intercultural and global understandings in order to effectively address contemporary issues. 1 There are numerous sites where students may gain intercultural and global competencies, from their personal experiences to exchanges on social media; however, what educators must explore is whether what and how we teach is enabling the development of essential intercultural and global competencies relevant to academic disciplines. In today’s global and multicultural context undergraduate programs should include the development of cognitive, affective, and behavioural competencies that prepare students across the disciplines to work effectively with colleagues and clients whose experiences and worldviews may be different than their own. Successful participation in twenty-first century society, as well as university campus life, necessitates understanding of global issues and acceptance of cultural diversity as beneficial (Abdi, 2011; Asgharzadeh, 2008; Lee, Poch, Shaw, & Williams, 2012; Shultz, 2011). This dissertation seeks to explore the role of the academy in enhancing intercultural and global learning. By investigating both the intercultural competencies of students as they complete undergraduate studies and by soliciting perspectives from students regarding their understanding of intercultural and global learning in academic settings, this study endeavours to add to and enhance our understanding of how globalizing influences are impacting student learning in Canadian higher education. Shifts in student demographics, particularly socio-cultural diversity, have transformed many classrooms and campuses. These demographic changes have been influenced by three populations that are increasingly represented on Canadian campuses: Aboriginal students, new Canadian students, and international students. The number of Aboriginal students enrolling in Canadian postsecondary education continues to increase (Malatest & Associates, 2004), and since Aboriginal youth represent the fastest growing population, with almost half a million presently under the age of 20 (AUCC, 2010), it is likely this trend will continue. Immigration has and will continue to give rise to cultural diversity on Canadian campuses. According to Statistics Canada (2009) by 2031 almost half (46%) of Canadians over the age of 15 will have been born outside of Canada or have at least one parent born in another part of the world. Furthermore, Statistics Canada projects that even without consideration of immigration; Canadian-born cultural diversity will continue to increase (Statistics Canada, 2009). Finally, in a recent report to Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Roslyn Kunin and Associates (2012) estimate over 218,000 international students were studying in Canada 2 in 2010, of which almost 30% studied in British Columbia. In a previous report Roslyn Kunin (2009) estimated that the international student population represented between 5 and 12% at the then seven provincial universities in British Columbia. Statistically, it would appear that higher education is poised to increasingly be a site of intercultural exchange; however, quantitative indicators do not account for the powerful hegemonic traditions that promote assimilation into mainstream norms in contexts of intercultural contact (Abdi, 2011; Banks, 2009; Camicia & Franklin, 2010; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Kuokkanen, 2008; Otten, 2010). Canadian higher education follows established curriculum designed from a specific cultural worldview that may subjugate or fail to acknowledge “an entire set of historical assumptions about ‘tradition’, about the existence of a social consensus over what should count as legitimate knowledge, and about cultural superiority” (Apple, 2000, p. 68). Still, these demographic shifts offer educators a myriad of opportunities to promote intercultural competencies, international perspectives, global citizenship orientations, and cosmopolitan understandings; yet, despite popular rhetoric that internationalization produces globally minded citizens, there is scant empirical evidence that such lofty learning outcomes are being met. Although research studies involving intercultural and global competency are becoming popular within education, the majority tend to either focus on pre-service teachers (Davies, 2006; Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010a; Ukpokodu, 2003) or faculty members (Caruna, 2010; Childress, 2010; Dewey & Duff, 2009; Olsen & Kroeger, 2001; Odgers & Giroux, 2006; Schweitz, 2006; Shultz, 2011). Less common are studies that attempt to answer questions in regard to the intercultural and global learning of students, particularly domestic students. Generally, there is a lack of research that looks at students’ responses to globalization (Bourne, 2010; Rizvi, 2010) and the majority of research with students has been focused on the adaptation of specific student groups to the prevailing educational milieu. Of the research to date that does measure students’ intercultural and global learning, the vast majority are documenting the outcomes of study abroad programs or experiences (Engle & Engle, 2004; Nichols, 2011; Savicki, 2008; Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009, Vande Berg, Paige, & Lou, 2012). A handful of qualitative studies have examined the 3 classroom experience in terms of the intercultural interactions between students (Absalom & Vadura, 2006; Gu, Schweisfurth, & Day, 2009; Harrison & Peacock, 2008; Leask, 2010), and a few that influence this study take a more comprehensive approach to understanding students' intercultural development (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Brown, 2008; Grayson, 2008; Jon, 2009). The majority of this scholarship is provided by American, Australian, or British scholars; this study seeks to explore the impact of increased diversity in a globalized context on students in British Columbia's regional universities in order to identify convergences and divergences from previous scholarship within this unique educational context. 1.1. Purpose of Study The internationalization of higher education is viewed by some scholars as a response to globalization (Altbach, 2004). Critics of internationalization argue that this response is primarily an economic enterprise for institutions to compete in the knowledge economy (Stromquist, 2007), for others internationalization offers opportunities for collaboration and interdependence (Deardorff, 2006; Leask, 2010). These seemingly contradictory perspectives form, in part, the basis for this study’s query regarding the learning outcomes for students studying in internationalized institutions and will be discussed at length in the forthcoming chapters. Within higher education there is not only this apparent divide in terms of orientation to internationalization but ample confusion over the meaning and direction of internationalization efforts (Bond, 2006; Knight, 2004; Stier, 2004). A growing number of Canadian institutions are engaging in internationalization activities from international student recruitment to transnational partnerships; yet, there does not appear to be consensus on the definition of, motivation for, or desired outcomes of such activities. Within this milieu, we cannot be certain that students are gaining critical competencies related to intercultural and global learning. Moreover, given the mixed approaches and rationales, outcomes are likely ambiguous, irregular, and potentially inequitable. Although institutional rhetoric claiming intercultural and global learning is often present on websites and promotional materials, learning outcomes with these foci may not be the reality of all students’ educational experiences. The purpose of this study is to 4 examine the intercultural development of students during their final phase of undergraduate study and to explore their perceptions of intercultural and global learning in their academic environments. This endeavour fills an important gap in Canadian international education scholarship and practice by measuring the developmental competencies of students who are in the completion stages of a four year degree and have therefore both completed the majority of their academic program, as well as studied in an internationalized, culturally diverse campus environment for some time. This study will also provide Canadian educators with student perspectives regarding how curriculum and pedagogy influence their intercultural and global learning. 1.1.1. Context and Structure of the Study As a study situated within both micro and macro contexts, employing a variety of theoretical lenses within a mixed methods paradigm, it is appropriate to clarify how the contexts, lenses, and approaches are interrelated and employed in this study. Figure 1 provides a conceptual model to illustrate the nested yet distinct layers that structure the study. At the core is the mixed methods design which used ANOVA statistical analysis for the quantitative data and thematic analysis for the qualitative data informed by two intercultural development models: the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1986; 1993) and associated IDC / IDI models, and the Process Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff, 2006; 2009). These analytic frameworks are nested within the overarching philosophical and theoretical lens of critical pedagogy. The entire study is further nested within three current contexts and conversations within higher education: internationalization, global citizenship education, and cosmopolitanism. All of these lenses and approaches are surrounded by the forces of globalization, both on higher education and the context into which our students will graduate. Figure 1 provides a visual model of the study’s approach in which the two outer layers provide the context, moving inward to the theoretical and analytical lenses to the innermost layer of mixed methods design and data analysis. 5 Figure 1: Model of the study structure Globalization Internationalization Cosmpolitanism GCE Critical Pedagogy Intercultural development models Mixed Methods Data Analysis 1.1.2. Research Questions This study seeks to explore intercultural and global learning within the academic contexts of higher education and to that end seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What is the difference between the perceived and actual intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? 2. Do student demographics influence perceived and actual scores? Demographic categories include:  student status (domestic or international)  academic discipline: (arts, academic profession, professional school or science)  age  gender  member of ethnic minority  time spent in another culture  institution 3. How do students perceive intercultural and global learning? 4. How do students regard curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning? 6 The first two questions were explored through quantitative analysis of scores from the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). Although the IDI has been used to gauge students’ intercultural development in numerous studies, the majority have employed the instrument to measure gains or losses as a result of study abroad experiences, as will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3. This study represents the first to use the IDI to measure the intercultural competencies of students in the final stages of undergraduate programs in culturally diverse, regional institutions in Canada. As such, it provides educators with a baseline for the level of intercultural development for students leaving our institutions who have not necessarily participated in mobility programs. Furthermore, this study is the first to specifically investigate whether the demographics of student status and academic discipline are influences of intercultural development. Questions three and four were investigated through qualitative analysis of facilitated focus group discussions. Both the quantitative analysis of development scores and the qualitative discussion data were considered together in order to better understand how intercultural and global learning may be facilitated in academic classrooms. 1.2. Situating the Study and the Researcher The province of British Columbia was chosen for this study due to researcher access and professional history in the province which allowed for familiarity with the context as well as provided some contacts that enhanced recruitment of participants. Moreover, there is scant empirical study regarding the learning outcomes for students in increasingly internationalized, culturally diverse Canadian institutions, and none that explore the British Columbian context specifically. British Columbia has traditionally had three main universities all located in the lower mainland cities of Vancouver and Victoria. Over the past two decades a number of changes have resulted in the establishment of several new universities both in the populous and culturally diverse lower mainland and in other provincial regions away from the large urban areas, such as on Vancouver Island, the provincial interior, and the North. Regional universities were selected for this study as the influence of internationalization on students’ intercultural development and perspectives may be more discernible than that of their counterparts in urban centers who may have experienced extensive cultural diversity in their daily lives. In addition, the researcher works in a regional institution and is interested in the impact of 7 internationalization for the student demographics and disciplines represented in regional institutions. The government of British Columbia has recently set high targets to increase international student recruitment (Ministry of Advanced Education, 2012) and internationalization is on the agenda of most post-secondary (and in many cases, secondary) institutions; therefore, moving forward it will be important to better understand the impacts of internationalization on the learning outcomes and competencies of students. If the divide in orientation to internationalization mentioned previously is to be addressed, it will be important for institutions to grapple with how to harness the economic benefits of internationalization initiatives with the outcomes in terms of student learning. As will be illustrated in Chapter 3, scholars in other countries studying the impacts of increased cultural diversity, internationalization, and globalization on student learning provide some initial warning signs that without intentional facilitation and articulation of rationales directing positive outcomes, it is possible students will leave internationalized institutions with increased bias or entrenched stereotypes regarding other ways of being in the world (Leask, 2010; Harrison & Peackock, 2010; Osmond & Roed, 2010). 1.2.1. Researcher Background My motivation to conduct this study is generated from both personal and professional interests. As an internationalization and intercultural consultant for higher education for close to ten years, I have long been interested in how, or if, students gain intercultural understanding as a result of increased diversity on our campuses. Many of my colleagues continue to believe that mere proximity to diversity will enhance intercultural learning and that the experiment higher education is presently engaged in — increasing diversity without always explicitly addressing it — will result in students embracing other cultures and global perspectives. Neither the literature to be explored in Chapter 3 nor my personal observations or conversations with students support this view. In fact, there is growing evidence suggesting that without concerted efforts on the part of educators, rapid increases in diversity without intentional learning opportunities to accompany them, may actually result in increased divisiveness and entrenchment of ethnocentric orientations (Dovidio et al., 2003; Pettigrew, 1998; Sidanius et al., 2008). 8 Although there is a general claim within international education that increased diversity results in global mindedness and creates global citizens, many anecdotal stories on Canadian campuses relate other outcomes. For example, stories of female domestic students avoiding Tim Horton’s due to the overwhelming presence of male Arab students congregated there; stories from residence staff of international students refusing to house with international students from other global regions; stories about domestic students who avoid working with their international counterparts on class projects; or tales of international students disappointed by their lack of Canadian friends. The last example is supported by research on other campuses (Beck, 2008; Gareis, 2012; Grayson, 2008). Observations on the part of staff and faculty that students group themselves, both in and out of class, in culturally isolated ways are frequent. Over the years, I have heard complaints from students about faculty members who have an accent, advisors who are culturally diverse, as well as concerns from new Canadian employees feeling discriminated against by their own colleagues. As an intercultural specialist, these incidences are relentlessly brought to my attention. This is the professional context that I bring to this inquiry. 1.2.2. Researcher Bias The personal background and attendant biases that inform my interest in this study are numerous. First, my academic interests have long been centered on learning about and from different perspectives. My undergraduate degree was in comparative religious studies, my master’s degree focused on how intercultural training presented transformative learning potential, and so the journey continues in this doctoral endeavour. In my private life, I have always engaged with cultural difference, partly out of curiosity and partly out of a deep commitment that honouring of diversity in cultures and perspectives is critical to understanding the complexity and incredible variations involved in being part of the human race. I have traveled extensively over the last 25 years, and not on “vacation” but living and sometimes working in nations far removed from the tourist trail, including: India, Nicaragua, Peru, Bolivia, Malaysia, Cuba, Ghana, Portugal, East Germany (before the wall came down), and the downtowns or east sides of many North American and European cities, to name a few influences. These experiences gave me rich insights into the triumph of the human spirit and human 9 ingenuity in the face of adversity. They also provided me with a very concrete understanding of my privilege in a world where everyone does not have the opportunities that I have had, and that have been relatively easy to achieve with a bit of work. I view myself as a critical researcher in that I see the role of my research as a form of social critique which views education as a socially structured system influenced by ideological assumptions that should be questioned to be fully understood Critical research should, as one purpose of its inquiry, endeavour to understand the complexities of current social institutions, and question their role as inherent protectors or transmitters of hegemonic ideals. Critical research is not neutral but rather aims to create knowledge that has the potential for a transformative outcome. As Stier (2004) reminds us, education has the capacity to reproduce existing structures; however, “though critical scrutiny and emancipatory measures, higher education has a potential to affect the course of society” (p.86). As a critical researcher, it is important to be transparent about my approach and to continually question myself and my assumptions throughout the research process (Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010b). Whether I label this approach transformative (Mertens, 2003; 2007; 2010) or critical (Merriam, 2000) or critical multicultural (May & Sleeter, 2010; Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010b), there should be no doubt that my agenda both as an educator and a researcher is to improve the quality of education and thereby the quality of interactions in multicultural contexts. I do agree with Blades and Richardson (2006) that educators are faced with a moral imperative to address the inequities and social injustices that continue to be the result of our hegemonic and uncritical frameworks. We owe it to those routinely or invisibly marginalized, we owe it to the environment, and we owe it to forthcoming generations. Research guided by explicitly emancipatory philosophical orientations must take care to remain objective. As a mixed methods study, subjective bias in both the process and the analysis was checked in slightly different ways for the quantitative and qualitative parts of the study. During the quantitative data collection and analysis it was easier to guard bias as the IDI scores and analysis generated numerical data that at times negated presumptions or did not bear significance in the relationship between variables under investigation. Furthermore, the analysis of the quantitative data was heavily guided by Bennett’s (1993) theoretical model of the Developmental Model of 10 Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and the outcomes interpreted through comparison with previous studies using the IDI where possible. Objectivity was more difficult to maintain for the qualitative processes of focus group data: collecting, coding, and analysing. Although guided by a semi-structured set of questions, participants were encouraged to speak freely and to generate discussion not only based on the questions but to respond to each other with additional comments or questions. In this way, the researcher did not control the content and was able to note agreement or dissent through verbal and non-verbal responses. In coding the data consideration was given to both what was said and not said. Themes were generated from the participants’ comments, guided by Deardorff's (2006; 2009) Process Model of Intercultural Competence and Bennett’s (1986; 1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), as well as other literature reviewed rather than merely from researcher interest. Nonetheless, researcher orientation likely had some influence on both the questions and the interpretation of the discussions in ways that did not affect the quantitative data. Moreover, sensitivity to non-verbal behaviours, silences and other communicative cadences may have yielded more subjective interpretation than the verbal data. As a researcher, scholar, and practitioner I believe our approach to intercultural and global learning should be enhanced. It is my hope that intercultural and global learning can prepare the next generations to embrace and collaborate with alternate ways of knowing and being, both inside and outside our borders. I also believe that a critical stance that questions the status quo and attendant Eurocentric foundations will be imperative in order for future generations to manage the issues that exclusionary, ethnocentric thinking has brought us to both globally and here at home. 1.2.3. Theoretical Lenses As an educator concerned with issues of diversity, equity, and social justice, I embrace critical pedagogy which offers a theoretical and practical guide to this study. Critical pedagogy involves both educators and learners in constructing more engaged and democratic forms of learning (Stevenson, 2010) that is necessarily inclusive and hopeful of change (Bates, 2005; Burbules & Berk, 1999; Nainby et al., 2010; Shu-xi, 11 2001). Furthermore, at its foundations critical pedagogy is dialogic and encourages praxis through interrogative and reflexive dialogue (Burbules & Berk, 1999; Freire, 2007; 1970). The application of critical pedagogy to this inquiry from design through analysis will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters. Two models of intercultural learning were also integral to design and analysis: Bennett's (1986; 1993; 2010) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and Deardorff's (2006; 2009) Process Model of Intercultural Competence. Both of these models are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. 1.3. Overview of Methodology This study employed a mixed methods design. A mixed method approach was chosen in order to “intentionally engage multiple perspectives, diverse ways of knowing and understanding, and varied ways of study and representing human phenomena” (Green & Caracelli, 2003, p. 91). Mixed methods allows for engaging with difference methodologically which "enhances not only the generative potential of mixed methods inquiry but also its potential to respect, appreciate, and accept variation and diversity in the substance of what is being studied" (Green, 2007, p. 28). A transformative framework (Creswell, 2008; Mertens, 2007, 2010; Sweetman, Badiee, & Creswell, 2010) was chosen as it purposefully engages culturally diverse groups with a focus on inclusion and social justice (Mertens, 2010). Furthermore it aligns with the theoretical lens of critical pedagogy in that it promotes democratic dialogue, critical reflection, and praxis. Although critical pedagogy can be viewed as a theoretical lens or commitment to educational practice, the transformative framework informing this study is a research orientation rather than one of pedagogical practice. This critical theoretical framework guided methodology from design through analysis. In particular, focus groups were intentionally conducted within a critical pedagogy frame that encouraged participants to engage in reflective, democratic dialogue. Finally, the intentional mixing of numeric and oral data allowed for reflective understanding of the discussions informed by an understanding of students' intercultural development as understood by Bennett's (1993; 2010) Developmental Model of 12 Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and perceptions of intercultural competence informed by Deardorff's (2006; 2009) Process Model of Intercultural Competence which are explained in more detail in Chapter 3. 1.3.1. Participants Students studying third and fourth year courses at two regional universities in British Columbia were invited to participate in either or both of the research processes: online survey and focus group discussion. Participant recruitment was achieved by visiting more than 40 classes, representing a variety of academic disciplines on two campuses. During these visits, the researcher explained the study and requested willing participants to provide email contacts. Over 300 students indicated interest and were sent emails containing passwords and usernames for the survey instrument and times and locations for focus groups, resulting in 195 completed surveys and 42 focus group participants. A detailed description of the instrument’s use, validity and reliability are provided in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 also provides detail and explanation of focus group questions and protocol. 1.3.2. Data Collection and Analytic Plan Quantitative data was collected through online completion of the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer, 1999). The IDI is an established psychometric tool that measures individual's and group's orientations towards cultural difference on a developmental scale from more ethnocentric mindsets to more ethnorelative mindsets based on Bennett's (1986; 1993; 2010) widely accepted Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The IDI provides scores in five developmental subscales which represent the first five of the six DMIS scales. These subscale scores provide cumulative scores for a perceived orientation (PO) and a developmental (actual) orientation (DO) of each respondent. The perceived score (PO) is an unweighted calculation of the subscale scores and represents where the individual or group perceive their development to be. The direct orientation (DO) score is a weighted calculation and represents where the instrument actually places an individual or group on the developmental continuum. The instrument also measures the orientation gap (OG) which represents the difference between perceived and actual scores. In addition, the 13 IDI measures cultural disengagement (CD) which is not part of the developmental continuum but measures respondents' detachment from a primary cultural group. Participant scores for perceived orientation (PO), developmental orientation (DO), and orientation gap (GO) were generated to provide descriptive statistics for which the significance was confirmed by a paired t-test. The relationships between demographic and IDI scores were explored through univariate, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for each of three test scores: perceived orientation, developmental orientation, and orientation gap as measured by the IDI. Finally, pairwise comparisons were made using the Tukey-Kramer procedure in order to confirm significance for significant variables with more than two levels. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, thematically coded, and analyzed for patterns revealing prevalent or absent perspectives of students based on a specific set of questions, as well as the free flowing discussions of each group. Guided by Bennett's (1993; 2010) DMIS and Deardorff's (2006) Process Model of Intercultural Competence, participant comments and behaviours generated themes that revealed convergences and divergences from the quantitative results; as well as synergies with other research reviewed for this dissertation. Although neither of these intercultural models directly apply to global learning outcomes, they indirectly relate to the mindsets and approaches toward difference necessary for global learning. Global learning was analyzed by positing the participant comments with the globalization, global citizenship education, and cosmopolitan understandings reviewed for this study. Finally critical pedagogy provided a lens through which to interpret participant perspectives of pedagogy and curriculum as influencers of intercultural and global learning in academic settings. During the data collection and analysis of both data sets efforts were made to allow each to inform the other. 1.4. Organization of the Dissertation This section provides an overview of the organization of the dissertation chapters. Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 will endeavour to further frame the study by providing an overarching context for the inquiry. Many of the concepts and 14 terms used throughout this thesis, such as globalization, internationalization, and global citizenship are variously interpreted and require discussion in order to understand the philosophical lens and pedagogical orientation of the researcher and therefore the analysis. These concepts will be reviewed in Chapter 2 setting the stage for the literature specific to the study. Chapter 3 reviews relevant and intersecting literature that addresses intercultural and global learning. This chapter discusses the theoretical frameworks underlying this study and also reviews educational studies which used the IDI. Chapter 4 moves to an overview of the study’s research methodology. Rationales for the mixed methods approach are addressed. Within Chapter 4, details of data collection and methods of analysis are also outlined, as well as any limitations and delimitations presented by choice of method, analysis, research sites, and participant groups. Chapters 5 and 6 present the data analysis, first presenting the quantitative results that answer the first and second research questions followed by the qualitative results that answer the third and fourth research questions. Chapter 6 concludes by considering the two data sets together. Chapter 7 summarizes the findings, discusses the implications, and makes recommendations for further research inquiries. 15 2. Framing the Context 2.1. Introduction A number of the concepts within this study involve contested terms that are even employed in contradictory tones depending on perspective. This chapter will clarify the researcher’s interpretation of terms and orientation to the broader context of globalization and internationalization, as well as situate this orientation within a critical pedagogy framework. Finally, the notion of cosmopolitanism will be considered as a schema to consolidate the intercultural and global learning outcomes necessary to inform democratic participation, locally, nationally, and globally in the present era. Chapter 3 will discuss intercultural learning and the intercultural frameworks used in this study in detail, as well as review the more specific literature informing the study. Therefore, Chapter 3 will provide clarity for the terms prevalent within that review. It is important to recognize that terms such as globalization and internationalization are not only contested within Western scholarship but that they are increasingly defined and understood through Western scholarship (Abdi, 2011; Bourdieu, 2003; Santos, 2006; Shultz, 2011). As Appadurai (2001) points out the uneven economic processes of globalization may inherently limit the possibility of a global view of globalization due the unequal access to educational resources needed to produce it. Perspectives on globalization and internationalization are not without critique in academic discourses but educators must remember that those who might most strongly oppose generalizing definitions may not have a voice in the predominant discourses. It is therefore even more important for scholars to interrogate quasi- accepted notions of such generalizing terms as the real world implications may be contrary for many who do not have access to education or even basic human rights and resources. 16 At the same time, scholars across a variety of disciplines have grappled with these concepts and it is useful to consider various positions for how they may inform this inquiry. Jones (2010) notes that a definition of globalization remains contentious as there are many, often divergent, views that have frequently been minimized to a polarization of globalization as either good or bad. Jones attempts to categorize the key thinkers into 12 categories ranging through systemic, conceptual, sociological, transformational, sceptical, spatial, positive, reformist, revolutionary, and cultural paradigms. The key thinker Jones associates with cultural thinking of globalization is Arjun Appadurai. Appadurai (1996) understands globalization as multiple manifestations and sees their workings as representing inherent disjunctures that need further theorizing. He proposes a framework of scapes to examine the relationship between global flows including “ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes" (p. 33); envisioned as scapes these concepts become fluid and allow understanding from multiple perspectives through the flows of people and ideas across borders and imaginaries. In this way Appadurai provides an inclusive framework for allowing multiple interpretations and experiences to be a part of the globalization discourse but falls short of really providing a tangible interpretation as it relates to a shared understanding particularly within the field of education. However, Jones (2010) notes that Appadurai`s thinking "destabilizes any simplistic conception of globalization as one kind of common process" (p.13). It is these one-dimensional understandings of globalization that have been embedded in popular use resulting in what Jones claims is an "overused, over-hyped concept" (p.1) whose meaning or importance few people question. Globalization has become a quasi-accepted paradigm influencing lives and interactions around the world. It has indeed become a common phrase popularized by the media and used by many to either praise the potential of free markets to flatten the world (Friedman, 2005) or to criticize the very same markets as creating inequities (Klein, 2000) or playing a part in current disasters (Klein, 2008). Yet, the framing of globalization continues to generate a variety of contested understandings often operating simultaneously (Burbules & Torres, 2000; Conversi, 2010; Gaudelli, 2009; Jones, 2010; Popkewitz & Rizvi, 2009; Santos, 2006). Conversi (2010) regards part of the lexical confusion as due to the “failure to distinguish globalization as an ideology and 17 globalization as a practice” (p.48). Popkewitz and Rizvi (2009) highlight the ideological aspects by describing the hegemonic infusion of a market orientation to all globalization rhetoric; a truth for which no one is accountable. Perhaps this is what Bourdieu (2003) refers to as the “fake universalism” (p.23) of the globalization rhetoric that he sees as serving the interests of the new transnational elite. Although many scholars critique both the concept and practice of globalization, many also believe that a prevailing inevitability pervades much of the discourse (Altbach & Teichler, 2001; Burbules & Torres, 2000). Despite the ongoing debate as to whether globalization is beneficial or detrimental or how it should be viewed or defined, this study seeks to place current movements in higher education within the context of globalization in order to understand student perceptions and learning. The questions posed by this study are situated within a complex environment and can only be determined by gaining an understanding of the learning and teaching experience through existing theoretical and empirical literature and through pursuing a comprehensive study of student perceptions and dispositions in the Canadian context. However, our understanding of the phenomenon must be informed by the broader context of globalizing forces and their effects on educational endeavours. Critical frameworks, in particular critical pedagogy, can provide a useful theoretical framework with which to interrogate the present intersection of globalizing forces with the learning outcomes of higher education as critical pedagogy calls for democratic discourse and critical reflection for both educators and learners to grapple with the complex and interconnected issues of our times. As such, critical pedagogy provides a framework for inclusive, democratic, dialogic teaching and learning that in the context of globalization is necessary to counter hegemonic, monocultural approaches to education that can subjugate or erase other histories and epistemologies. 2.2. Global Influences on Higher Education The most compelling reason for reforming our system is that the system is in no one's interest. It is a suicide machine... It may also be little more than a mix of inertia, greed, and foolishness encouraged by the shape of the social pyramid. The concentration of power at the top of large-scale societies gives the elite a vested interest in the status quo; they continue 18 to prosper in darkening times long after the environment and general populace begin to suffer. (Wright, 2004, p. 131) In his Massey Lecture and subsequent book The Short History of Progress, Ronald Wright (2004) reminds us of the dangers of progress at any cost. His warnings are relevant to the current neo-liberal milieu influencing higher education. Burbules and Torres (2000) situate their globalization discourse within education. In their outline of various accounts of globalization, they identify the prevalent neoliberal account as an inherently inequitable ideology. For Burbules and Torres globalization is not synonymous with neoliberalism nor is neoliberal ideology inherent in framing globalization. However, they conclude that whether or not the neoliberal philosophy prevails, “at least some manifestations of globalization as a historical process are here to stay” (Burbules & Torres, 2000, p.23) and that if education carries on without addressing globalization in tangible ways it runs serious risks. Santos (2006) asserts that the idea of globalization is both descriptive and prescriptive. More recently, Santos (2012) warns that the university is undergoing a “paradigmatic transition” under globalization that is summed up by the fact that “we face modern problems for which there are no modern solutions” (p.8). For Santos these modern problems are illustrated by our inability to reach the ideals of the French Revolution and realize liberté, egalité, and fraternité. Like Appadurai (1996), Santos (2006) proposes conceptualizing “globalizations” in the plural; what he believes is currently dangerous is the growing set of prescriptions that are framed by the hegemonic, monocultural, neoliberal consensus. It is this aspect of Santos’ interpretation that is the most chilling and calls upon educators and researchers to interrogate how intercultural and global learning run the real risk of being usurped by market driven ideologies (Santos, 2012). Apple (2000) positions the crisis in education as existing in an uncomfortable divide between neoconservative elements seeking traditional, standardized, ethnocentric orientations, and neoliberalism which subsumes democracy beneath economic rationality and individual choice. Increasingly, critical scholars are raising alarm bells in terms of how public education in general is being undermined by neoliberal globalization (Apple, 2000; Burbules & Torres, 2000; Kuokkanen, 2007; Giroux, 2002; McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2005; Nussbaum, 2009; Stevenson, 2010). Critical scholars stress the accountability of educators and institutions in framing the way forward with consideration 19 for social justice ideals (Abdi, 2011; Asgharzadeh, 2008; Banks, 2009; Kymlicka, 2003; Stromquist, 2008). Indeed, Marginson (2011) reminds us that “the global dimension of higher education is not a sphere of nature” (p.10) but rather rests on the decisions and actions of people within their institutions. Globalization “remains an inexact term” (Stromquist & Monkman, 2000, p. 3) that continues to evolve (Marginson, 2011), with varied interpretations across disciplines and dispositions. There are both optimists and naysayers, depending on perspective and perhaps geographic or demographic location. For the purposes of this dissertation, it is perhaps necessary to distinguish between globalization more generally as “geo-spatial processes of growing inter-dependence and convergence” (Marginson, 2007, p. 38) where broad phenomena encompassing economic, social, cultural, and political forces are at play; and neoliberal globalization in the context of educational institutions where economic rationality, profit maximization at any cost, and a consumer ethic are central tenets (Apple, 2000) — in other words “capitalism with the gloves off” (McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2005, p. 25). From the critical stance of this study, the definition of globalization must acknowledge both the broad phenomena outlined by Marginson (2007) while at the same time not losing sight of the market mechanisms that are also at the heart of the internationalization debate in higher education, as discussed in the following section. 2.3. Internationalization The most overt impact of globalization on higher education is internationalization in that the forces of globalization have broadly impacted institutional imperatives to internationalize whether through the flow of people and knowledge across borders or through the marketization of higher education, in part a result of the General Agreement on Trades and Services (Knight, 2007). Internationalization is another highly contested and variously interpreted term. Indeed, Brandenburg and de Witt (2011) ponder "the end of internationalization" (p. 27) and invite educators to reconsider and redefine internationalization as a means to a goal rather than the goal in and of itself. In their view "possibly we have even to leave the old concepts of internationalization and globalization and move to a fresh unbiased paradigm" (Brandenburg & de Witt, 2011, p. 20 28). Many scholars acknowledge the difficulty of definitions or use of terminology — internationalism, internationalization, globalization — that are often used interchangeably or mistakenly (Bond, 2006; de Witt, 2011; Enders, 2004; Harris, 2008; Knight, 2004; Oka, 2007; Stier, 2004; Stromquist, 2007). Indeed, Knight (2004) reminds us that the debate around terminology has been ongoing since the mid-1980s. Three decades later, Harris (2008) poses the question: “What does ‘international’ mean?” (p. 346). Altbach and Teichler (2001) use internationalization interchangeably, yet without providing definitions. and internationalism They differentiate between globalization and internationalization in stating that “Internationalization ... is an inevitable result of the globalized and knowledge-based economy” (Altbach & Teichler, 2001, p. 5). This is what Santos (2007) refers to as the “determinist fallacy” which, he suggests, “consists in transforming the causes of globalization into its effects, obscuring the fact that globalization results from a set of political decisions which are identifiable in time and space” (p. 395). Burbules and Torres (2000) also urge educators not to succumb to the rhetoric of inevitability and suggest that we frame going forward in a corrective manner that positions the global “in more equitable, and more just ways” (p. 61). The internationalization of education has been framed as a response to globalization, as a means for institutions to “cope with or exploit globalization” (Altbach, 2004, p.3). To cope with or to exploit; these positions are the foundation of the divide evident in the literature and goes to the heart of the question whether internationalization is seen as a mechanism for institutional revenue (Harris, 2008; Stromquist, 2007) framed by a competitive, neoliberal educational market, or as a means to adapt education to global contexts and embrace potential opportunities for real change in terms of curriculum and learning outcomes in the form of global citizenship education (GacelAvila, 2005; Pike, 2008; Shultz, 2011; Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011) or intercultural education (Bond, 2006; Deardorff, 2006; Leask, 2010; Paige & Mestenhauser, 1999). It is possible that both views can coexist but it will require real dialogue between the marketers and the academics as well as clear leadership in terms of the rationales for internationalization. According to Altbach and Knight (2007) "globalization may be unalterable, but internationalization includes many choices"(p. 291). 21 Bond (2006) recognizes that globalization is inherently founded in hierarchical power and privilege, where in her view, internationalization values diversity. In a further semantic split, Stromquist (2007) differentiates between internationalism and internationalization citing several scholars to support her claim that internationalism promotes cooperation, global learning, and global citizenship in contrast to internationalization which refers to “greater international presence by the dominant economic and political powers, usually guided by principles of marketing and competition” (p.82). The 1995 introduction of education as a tradable commodity in the General Agreement on Trades and Services (GATS) has exacerbated the situation in that many observable internationalization efforts, in particular the recruitment of international students and cross-border sale of programs, are viewed by some (Harris, 2008; Stromquist, 2007) as predominantly revenue generation strategies. Another related issue is that transnational partnerships have become increasingly suspect in that they are often established hierarchically in order to maximize both prestige and profit. Although international education pursued commercial cross-border arrangements prior to the inclusion of education in the GATS, many scholars see GATS as the inevitable move to the full marketization of education with numerous potentially difficult or dangerous implications (Abdi, 2011; Altbach, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Knight, 2007; Giroux, 2002; Harris, 2007; Stromquist, 2007). The North/West domination of internationalized higher education also raises more than one concern. Academics in other parts of the world have limited access to resources or publication resulting in the big North/West universities dominating research and funding (Altbach, 2004; Webber, 2011). For some scholars this does little more than perpetuate inequities in terms of access and opportunity. A larger issue in this apparent domination is not only the economic repercussions but the continued flavour of imperialism that follows within the provision of “superior” education being supplied by the North to the South or West to East (Andreotti, 2011). Abdi (2011) is perhaps the most outspoken on this account; outlining the complications of imperialist history, Abdi warns educators to be vigilant and not to complacently play into the colonialist attitudes of the past by overlooking the systemic and generational damages created by Eurocentric assumptions for peoples of the global South. He reminds us that imperialist mindsets, 22 including the post-colonial territorial assignments or support of “democratically” elected officials to rule newly created countries, have not only de-culturized and de-historized whole populations but have also been instrumental in de-citizenizing as well. For Abdi it is the ideological preferences and assumptions of European (North/West) superiority coupled with historical amnesia that are of the most danger. Here, populations that inherited, created, and continually modified their own (imperfect, as are all citizenship) contexts of primordial citizenship were reduced to subject populations whose historical and cultural formations were rendered to the scrap heap of historia humana. (Abdi, 2011, p. 37 italics in original) The question of epistemological superiority is not prevalent in the internationalization literature. The main focus around cognitive inequity seems to be on the flows of intellect either in the form of educational “product” or physically in the form of “brain drain.” Altbach (2004) counters the assertion that internationalization of higher education will inevitably level the playing field when he notes the potential for internationalization to result in “the loss of intellectual and cultural autonomy for those who are less powerful” (p. 9). Flows of students are typically South to North or East to West; whereas, the flows of educational products are typically North to South or West to East; Altbach and Knight (2007) concede that in both cases there is potential benefit to the South/East, but it is still the North/West that controls the content and benefits economically. Where we do find attention put to knowledge variations, or at least perspectives varied by cultural orientation, in international education is through the work of interculturalists or those who value intercultural frameworks beyond their usefulness for preparing students to negotiate in the global economy (Asgharzadeh, 2008; Deardorff, 2006; Knight, 2004; Shultz, 2011; Otten, 2003; 2009) or adapt to North American educational contexts. Although internationalization in higher education refers to a number of activities including the mobility of students, institutional partnerships and programs, and the transnational marketing and delivery of programs, the focus of this study is to explore and add to understandings about how the processes of globalization and internationalization impact learning and teaching on Canadian campuses. Therefore, Knight’s (2004) definition of internationalization as “the process of integrating an 23 international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (p.11) is used to guide this work. It is therefore important to recognize that both the research questions and present discussion centre on the impact of internationalization on home campuses in which the entire campus community is encouraged to engage in intercultural and global learning with or without mobility — a concept increasingly referred to as “Internationalization at Home” or I@H. 2.3.1. Internationalization at Home (I@H) Internationalization at home was first introduced in the 1990s in Sweden to address the competencies of the more than 90% of students that did not study abroad (Nilsson, 2003). Internationalization in higher education often centres on mobility— mobility of students, programs or providers; whereas, internationalization at home represents efforts to infuse the home campus with internationalized curricula, pedagogy, global perspectives, and intercultural learning. According to de Witt (2011), I@H arose as a "countermovement" to the European focus on mobility in an attempt to address the more complex issues of curricula, co-curricula, and organizational culture changes necessary to broaden international learning outcomes for students. The conceptualization of internationalization at home (I@H) may have developed as a challenge to the mobility focus; yet, it is further challenged by the position of internationalization within a market framework. As a local initiative intended to address teaching and learning on home campuses, internationalization at home is also fraught with obstacles introduced by other trends in education. For example, the attendant corporatization of education in the present model emphasizing competition and fiscal restraint as in all public spheres, has put pressures on administrators to be accountable to the bottom line (Dale & Robertson, 2009; Giroux, 2002; Nussbaum, 2009; Stromquist, 2007) rather than to global learning outcomes or issues of inclusivity. At the same time, neoliberal ideology is reproduced and reinforced through educational forces (Asgharzadeh, 2008; Giroux & Giroux, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2007) and students are increasingly framed, and framing themselves, as consumers (Apple, 2000; Asgharzadeh, 2008; Côté & Allahar, 2011; Kezar, 2004; Harris, 2007, Stromquist, 2007) as the following quote illustrates. 24 In the realm of commercialized education, students increasingly come to view education in the context of upward occupational and social mobility rather than as a means of developing the mind, enriching the intellect, and training conscientious, responsible, and socio-politically committed citizens. (Asgharzadeh, 2008, p. 335) Consequently, numerous scholars have noted with alarm the prevalent shift toward pragmatic disciplines that support corporate employability accompanied by a move away from the humanities (Altbach, 2004; Côté & Allahar, 2011; Giroux, 2002, Kezar, 2007; Stromquist, 2007; Tilak, 2009) where the intercultural and global learning focus of I@H along with the attendant skills might be emphasized. In the present atmosphere, the goal of education is to produce and reduce students to knowledge workers whose primary responsibility is to become “technically trained people who can hold onto ‘our’ share of the global market” (Nussbaum, 2009, p.6). Indeed, Teichler (2003), perhaps naively, comments that it is surprising that the current dialogue “focuses on marketisation, competition, and management in higher education; other terms such as knowledge society, global village, global understanding or global learning, are hardly taken into consideration” (p. 23). The framing of education, and Western education specifically, as predominantly oriented to the market is troublesome. Although the reasons international students chose to study in Canada or other Westernized countries are many and varied — including gaining proficiency in English, fast tracked access to immigration, lack of access to higher education in their home countries, increased employability, and enhanced social capital, it is probable that many international students chose to come to the West / North due to varying understandings of what could be perceived as the superiority of the system or the potential to gain traction in the global marketplace. However, there may also be many who chose to come for educational reasons that are tied to the needs of their home communities. How this dominant neoliberal ideology is filtered through the experiences of culturally diverse students who will either become the workers of our society or carry this questionable orientation to their home countries around the globe is also a serious question. Through this assumed educational superiority, it seems we may be missing opportunities for exchange of the rich cultural, epistemic, and social diversities within our student populations. 25 Given the diversity of student demographics on Canadian campuses, and indeed the population at large, educators should take pause to consider the way forward and also the consequences of previous exclusionary mindsets. Kuokkanen (2007) reminds us that in the face of destructive agendas, the time is nigh to consider Indigenous philosophies within and outside our borders. In addition, the projected increase and diversification of immigrant populations should also give us pause; we are living in times of unprecedented mobility of peoples of diverse cultural, religious, linguistic worldviews (Appadurai, 1996; Banks, 2009) many of whom will come to live permanently among us. Furthermore, the hundreds of thousands of international students who join us for shorter times, yet often immigrate, constitute another learning resource not to mention our domestic students who go abroad and return to us in their final years of study. All of these factors indicate the need to incorporate intentional internationalization at home initiatives, including considerations for curriculum and pedagogy, in order to educate for an interconnected future. Increasingly scholars across disciplines are advocating for the inclusion of alternate epistemologies within our institutions (Andreotti, 2011; Asgharzadeh, 2008; Banks, 2009; Bates, 2005; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Pidgeon, 2008; Santos, 2007; Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010). It seems time to examine the domination and subjugation of certain knowledges and begin to acknowledge the richness and potential of collaboration across world views and epistemologies. Furthermore, internationalization and particularly internationalization at home agendas may open doors for consideration of global citizenship frameworks that inherently support inclusion, social justice, and equality over market concerns. 2.4. Global Citizenship Education Where the internationalization literature barely acknowledges whose knowledge is at risk or being widely distributed, the Global Citizenship Education (GCE) literature is filled with warnings to consider other epistemological orientations in the quest for global citizenship frameworks. GCE is positioned to interrogate both concepts of the global and citizenship, particularly from scholars cognizant of the historical imposition of culture and norms, who argue that any substantial global education curriculum necessarily 26 requires more than a dominant perspective of what such citizenship looks like (Abdi, 2011; Andreotti, 2011; Pike, 2008; Swanson, 2011). Implicit in GCE’s calls for “epistemological pluralism” (Andreotti, 2011) is the inclusion of Indigenous world views and perspectives, without which hegemony will continue to prevail (Swanson, 2011). Many feel that not to consider alternate knowledge frameworks would be tantamount to a perpetuation of colonial subjugation. Again, Abdi (2011) frames his position within a historical context: The relationship between the West and the rest of the world has not been a mutual understanding of the certain commonalities of the global public good it was, undoubtedly, the mono-directional ideological stampede that believes in itself and cannot ascertain other intentions and possibilities of life. (p. 27) All of these considerations lead us back to how and what we teach and whether students are leaving our institutions with merely information or also with frameworks to understand others and the world. Similar to the internationalization literature, scholars of global citizenship education also face the challenge of providing a widely recognized definition of the field (Abdi, 2008; 2011, Davies, 2006; Dower, 2008; Pike, 2008; Shultz, 2011; Swanson, 2011). While Pike (2000) identifies the key elements of GCE as: developing awareness of interdependence, connectedness, and perspective; eight years later he admits that the concept of a global citizen has often been appropriated by neoliberal sentiments to convey global market competence or even, employment that involves numerous international flights (Pike, 2008). The sentiment that the concept of global citizenship may be increasingly used to promote market interests is also noted by Guimaraes-Iosif (2011), Shultz, Abdi, Richardson (2011), Swanson and Weber (2011). Most recent scholarship in GCE acknowledges the tensions and potential difficulties posed by lack of coherent definition, yet at the same time seems willing to accept the ambiguity in order to continue dialogue considered more important than choice of vocabulary or definitional clarity (Davies, 2006; Pike, 2008; Tarc, 2011). In an interesting semantic exercise, Tarc (2011) provides multiple combinations of the words global, citizenship, and education illustrating that by the simple elimination of one of the 27 triad, the meaning can be rendered radically different. For example, global education connotes something very different than citizenship education or global citizenship. Furthermore, Shultz (2008; 2011), as the co-editor of two volumes dedicated to global citizenship education readily admits that the “rich diversity of locations and discourses might suggest that the term ‘global citizenship’ has become emptied of its meaning” (Shultz, 2011, p. 14) and yet, she contends that it is exactly in this rich and contested scholarship that the concept may hold its greatest potential. The purpose of this dissertation is not to debate the meaning of such a contested term but to acknowledge in agreement with Shultz (2011) that: At its best, global citizenship education speaks to how humanity might organize itself to address the very critical issues of this time and how this can happen through just political, economic, and social relations with a consideration of the global/globalized context for such education. (p. 13) Davies (2006) asserts that concepts of global citizenship are fragmented and perhaps too abstract to be accepted and embedded. Weber (2011) simplifies the fragments to a binary opposition within higher education, where GCE is seen either as a libratory project with a social justice focus or an economic project in which institutions compete to prepare learners for the global market economy. This juxtaposition mirrors similar arguments in the internationalization literature (Knight, 2004; Stromquist, 2007). Swanson (2011) notes that the increase in institutional support for global citizenship initiatives rides on the competitive increase in all things international and often serves merely to legitimate mission statements and branding to indicate cutting edge education. 2.4.1. Global Citizenship and Internationalization In reviewing the literature of GCE and that of internationalization it is possible to identify common and related themes that either implicitly or explicitly raise ethical questions for higher education as a direct result of globalization processes. The main overlapping issues involve the increasing influence of neoliberal agendas on the conscience, capability, and content of higher education in dealing with global education. Many within the academy have critiqued internationalization for being aligned with revenue generation (Abdi & Shultz, 2008; Harris, 2008, Marginson, 2007; Shultz, 2011; 28 Stromquist, 2007) while at the same time individual or groups of faculty members manage to work innovatively within that structure to provide experiential and even transformative learning outcomes for students, globally or interculturally (Bond, 2006; Leask, 2010; Richardson, Fabrizio, & Ansu-Kyermeh, 2011; Swanson, 2011). The position taken by many GCE educators is similar, both in optimizing the opportunities provided and recognizing systemic barriers that block their larger efforts. Many GCE scholars see internationalization as a vehicle to move their agendas forward as do interculturalists and those interested in transformative, experiential, and to some extent service learning; yet as the majority of internationalization rhetoric and mission is immersed in economic frameworks (Abdi & Shultz, 2008; AUCC, 2007; Stromquist, 2007; Harris, 2008, Marginson, 2007; Shultz, 2011) which favour institutional and domestic stability over global sustainability (Webber, 2011), one has to wonder how these contrasting understandings of internationalization may continue to coexist. GCE has been on some Canadian educators’ agenda for over 20 years (Pike, 2000; 2008). However, the focus of most projects was aimed primarily at the K-12 system and was not systemic (Pike, 2000; Swanson, 2011). Recently, a revival of interest is being witnessed in higher education, seemingly influenced by opportunities surrounding internationalization (Asgharzadeh, 2008; Gacel–Avila, 2005; Shultz, 2011; Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011; Wright, 2011). A review of the GCE literature reveals a number of shifts from the internationalization literature. These shifts include 1) heightened emphasis on the ethical dilemmas presented by globalization and internationalization; (Abdi, 2011; Asgharzadeh, 2008; Swanson, 2011) 2) wider disciplinary distribution of interest in global citizenship in relation to fields beyond social studies; (Krogman and Foote, 2011; Shultz, 2011; Webber) 3) a focus on pedagogy and curriculum development and the learning outcomes potentially associated with global education (Andreotti, 2011; Shultz, 2011; Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011). These considerations are important to the questions posed in the present study. How students understand intercultural and global learning will undoubtedly be influenced by the perspective of educators in terms of the inevitability of neoliberal globalization or the possibility of alternative frameworks acknowledging human agency in navigating the impacts of rapid change and interdependence. Educators must take care to encourage critical thinking by presenting alternative frameworks for consideration in order for 29 students to both interrogate and understand the complex issues of our times. Internationalization seems to have fallen short of a substantial focus on intercultural and global learning outcomes; in part this may be because international education professionals are often housed in service units and not engaged daily with curriculum and pedagogy. GCE on the other hand may not have a broad enough reach to influence a wide range of disciplines. In the Canadian context, the impact of increased domestic diversity has rendered discussions of international or global as inadequate to the reality in our classrooms and communities. Indeed, Kymlicka (2003) has warned that the focus on global or "cosmopolitan intercutluralism" may put at risk the need for "local intercutluralism" (p.159). For some, cosmopolitanism offers a way to bridge local, national, and global interests in that it embraces notions of citizenship that go beyond borders, yet maintains inclusion and ethical democratic principles at all levels of community. The global citizenship scholarship reveals tensions around who qualifies as global citizens (Dower, 2011; Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011) and also just what citizenship means on a global scale (Abdi, 2011; Shultz, 2011). This idea of responsible citizenship across borders also complicates ideas of cosmopolitanism as illustrated in the following section. 2.5. Cosmopolitanism Cosmopolitanism presents a related concept that may ultimately encompass global citizenship education agendas and is complementary to intercultural learning models as illustrated in the next chapter. Indeed, several scholars tend to use the concepts global citizenship and cosmopolitanism interchangeably (Appiah, 2006; Matthews & Sidhu, 2005; Nussbaum, 2009; Prior McCarty, 2011), and all acknowledge the centrality of intercultural effectiveness within a cosmopolitan orientation. Both Appiah (2006) and Nussbaum (1994) discuss the antiquity of the concept of cosmopolitanism and its etymological origins in ancient Greek from kosmou (world) and polites (citizen). However, as Appiah (2008) notes the Stoic or Cynic orientations could not have really had the meaning ascribed today as surely the Greeks of the day did not share our present reality. In particular, Appiah identifies two conditions for making citizenship real that were absent during Greek time and important for today’s context. 30 Namely, one must have “knowledge about the lives of other citizens, on the one hand, and the power to affect them, on the other” (Appiah, 2008, p. 87, italics in original). Clearly, Appadurai’s (1996) idea of scapes illustrates the potential for both this knowledge and affect. Albeit this capacity for knowledge and affect may be a privilege, and therefore responsibility, of those who live in circumstances that allow them access to knowledge and the option to affect situations (Karlberg, 2010). One of the main debates around cosmopolitanism stems from political assumptions and orientations of what citizenship should entail and how national allegiance and a global orientation can or cannot be reconciled. Cosmopolitans seem to refute an either or solution to citizenship and maintain that cosmopolitanism allows for a “versatile discourse through which we can accommodate different demands for solidarity and commonality, some that are particular and operate at the level of state and others that are universalistic and encompass all of human kind” (Camicia & Franklin, 2010, p. 101). It is precisely in the language and Stoic roots of cosmopolitanism that multiple notions of community can be shaped (Appiah, 2006, Banks, 2004; Benhabib, 2006; Camicia & Franklin, 2010; Nussbaum, 1994). Based in Stoic tradition, Nussbaum (1994) imagines this as a nested grouping of concentric circles in which self forms the centre, surrounded by other affiliations and identities including family, community, state, and globe. It is then the mission of education to bring these circles together in a way that allows us to “initiate multiple processes of democratic iteration” (Benhabib, 2006, p.70). Democratic cosmopolitanism necessitates an ethical and moral component. Matthews and Sidhu (2005) argue that both international education and conceptualizations of cosmopolitanism will do little to advance social justice and egalitarian subjectivities without moral and ethical engagement. Cosmopolitanism goes beyond truth and tolerance through a commitment to pluralism and an acceptance of different truths and values, but not necessarily through an uncritical stance. According to Appiah (2006), cosmopolitans admit that human knowledge is fallible and subject to revision. This notion of fallibalism necessitates learning and listening across difference, of dialogue in diversity, respect for alternate ways of being and doing, and an ethnorelative orientation that does not follow the “golden rule” of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but rather the “platinum rule” of do unto others as they would like to have done (Bennett, 1998). 31 We understand others both in their terms as well as ours, a way of comprehending how both representations are socially constituted. This relationality denies that our cultures are fixed and essentially distinct, and suggests the possibilities of continuous self-examination, learning and transformation. It underscores an ethic that urges people to engage differences and explore possibilities of learning as a basis for imagining cosmopolitan futures essential for the survival and moral growth of the human species. (Rizvi, 2011, p. 234) At the centre of democratic cosmopolitanism is a commitment to critical reflection and dialogue as a means to fuller understanding. understanding others but understanding ourselves This commitment to not only is central to intercultural development, concepts of citizenship, and ultimately provides a foundation for learning outcomes relevant to our multicultural contexts and globalized times. 2.5.1. The Role of Critical Pedagogy As has been demonstrated in the preceding sections, the context in which the research questions of this study are posed is fraught with oppositional ideologies, contested definitions, and a variety of perspectives. In order to understand if, and how, students are being prepared to function effectively in a global and intercultural environment it is crucial to understand this complex context. As a study interested in understanding the teaching and learning environment, in particular curricular and disciplinary orientations to intercultural and global learning, critical pedagogy can provide a framework for action. Critical pedagogy and intercultural learning have both been associated with some forms of multicultural education; therefore, a discussion of how these terms are related and different is warranted. Multicultural and Intercultural Education There are a number of intersections between critical pedagogy, intercultural pedagogy, and multicultural education (May & Sleeter, 2010). As editors of a volume attempting to map the use of multicultural and intercultural education worldwide, Palaiologou and Dietz (2012) discuss the general perception that the term multicultural education is used in North American contexts, where the term intercultural education is more common in European contexts. Palaiologou (2012) associates these preferences with national contexts where in countries dealing with immigration, "multicultural" is 32 preferred to reflect official recognition of government policy, where in the Europe "intercultural" is preferred to reflect reciprocal integration and accommodation in postnational contexts. In choosing to title their volume they consider that: “'multicultural' should be seen as an umbrella term that includes various forms of different ‘cultures’ and groups of people, while the term "intercultural education" places emphasis on the interaction and communication amongst socially diverse groups (Palaiologou, 2012). Kymlicka (2003) goes further by discriminating between the use of multicultural to reflect the policies of the state and intercultural to reflect the dispositions of individuals. Where multiculturalism forms the basis of recognition, interculturalism forms the basis of interaction. However, for Kymlicka (2003) "the sort of multicultural reforms we seek at the level of the state should help nurture and reinforce the desired forms of intercultural skills and knowledge at the level of individual citizens. Conversely, the intercultural dispositions we encourage within individual citizens should help support and reinforce the institutions of a multicultural state" (p. 148). However, he concedes that there are tensions in the two levels being able to support each other in reality. In the North American context the majority of multicultural education literature addresses the K-12 system rather than higher education; yet, it clearly endeavours to foster intercultural respect and understanding by "recognizing, respecting, and including cultural differences as the basis for teaching and learning" (May & Sleeter, 2010, p. 1). While multicultural pedagogy developed out of race struggles, critical pedagogy arose to address class struggles. May and Sleeter (2010) use the term "critical multiculturalism" to combine these approaches. In their view critical multiculturalism attempts to address both race and class by assuring analysis of the power relationships and institutional inequities that traditional liberal multiculturalism tended to ignore in favour of static culture learning through cultural artefacts. This idea of critical multiculturalism is relevant to the current study in that Canadian education has long promoted multiculturalism (in the form of static culture learning) to align with national policy. In higher education, particularly international education, intercultural has become the new buzz word but often merely indicates the presence of many cultures on campus and intercultural learning is facilitated by potlucks or cultural performances. Multicultural and intercultural education therefore present similar opportunities and challenges and depending on context the terms are used differently in different 33 contexts. Multicultural and intercultural education can both serve as foundations to cosmopolitan and global citizenship orientations; yet, both run the risk of failing to move beyond surface culture and tokenism if not positioned within a critical framework. Critical pedagogy provides a framework for both educators and learners to confront differences and similarities through dialogic, democratic inquiry. The theory and practice of critical pedagogy is useful to the dilemmas facing higher education in a globalizing environment for three principle reasons. First, critical pedagogy offers students and educators a means by which to interrogate their positions and identities within globalizing processes through critical reflection and dialogue ultimately leading toward praxis (Abdi, 2011; Bates, 2005; Burbules & Berk, 1999). Praxis, in this sense refers to the action or non-action that is taken as a result of learning through reflection and dialogue in which the learning results in application of ideas. Second, critical pedagogy is inherently democratic and emancipatory (Asgharzadeh, 2008; Bates, 2005; Burbules & Berk, 1999; Freire, 2007; 1970), and as such lends itself as a natural counter to the hegemony of neoliberal trends (Giroux, 2003; Stevenson, 2010), as well as providing a lens through which to examine the historical and political contexts of subjugated populations and knowledges (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008). Finally, critical pedagogy is a call to action and promotes commitment on the part of intellectuals and academics to engage with the elimination of domination in real and tangible ways (Banks, 2005; May & Sleeter, 2010). Critical pedagogy shifts the traditional role of educator as depositor of knowledge and student as receiver to a participatory exchange in which all students and teacher engage in dialogic exploration of identity, hierarchy, and democracy. More than forty years ago, Freire (2009; 1970) claimed that education was “suffering from narration sickness” (1970, p. 71); which echoes claims that the current system focuses on occupational outputs to the detriment of broader understanding. “Critical pedagogy necessarily resists neoliberal attempts to convert education into forms of technical training and instead emphasizes critical thinking, dialogic forms of engagement, and the autonomy of the learner” (Stevenson, 2010, p.77). The promotion of critical thinking and problem-posing is central to critical pedagogy where people “develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in 34 the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation” (Freire, 2009, p.83). Critical pedagogues view dialogue as essential to these shifts in perception. Critical pedagogy supports intercultural and global learning outcomes in that it denies assimilationist notions and seeks to “create a habitus where ideas are expressed unconditionally, without restrains of restrictions, and where the necessity of freedom of expression and intercultural communications is acknowledged as a cornerstone of any inclusive and democratic school environment” (Asgharzadeh, 2008, p. 345). Furthermore, it is through these inclusive, dialogic exchanges that the potential for praxis arises (Asgharzadeh, 2008; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2002; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Stevenson, 2008). For these reasons critical pedagogy is a suitable framework through which to explore how the current increased diversity of student demographics is influencing or being influenced by the curriculum within academic disciplines. At the same time, incorporating problem-posing dialogue within a framework of consumerism may be problematic (Nainby et al., 2010) and we should be cognizant that students may frame the need for intercultural skills as an employability bonus. Critical pedagogy and critical multiculturalism both directly oppose the neoliberal advances on education. While more radical theorists advocate for a “contraband” or “revolutionary” pedagogy (McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2005), the foundation of critical pedagogy remains an emancipatory attempt to address oppression (Freire, 2009). During an era in which democracy is increasingly interpreted through market rhetoric, the ultimate effect “is a continued failure to interrupt the growing inequalities in resources and power that so deeply characterize this society” (Apple, 2000, p. 64). Critical pedagogy seeks to resist neoliberal hegemony by raising questions about who benefits and whether or not neoliberalism actually intensifies inequality and oppression (Apple, 2000; Giroux, 2002; McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2005; Shi-Xu, 2001). Critical pedagogy and critical multiculturalism provide a framework that does not ignore power relations but brings them to the forefront of deliberations — both historically and currently, for in any examination of power the roots are deep. Therefore, we cannot discuss intercultural or global learning without acknowledging the embedded power structures that have brought us to the present juncture. To address intercultural and global learning without 35 interrogating the broader historical legacies and current political contexts could constitute collusion with the existing order (Shi-xu, 2001). However, critical theory and pedagogy is not suitable for all educators or all topics. Perhaps due to its political underpinnings, critical pedagogy has been criticized for crossing the line between teaching and indoctrination (Burbules & Berk, 1999), to which it is likely that critical pedagogues would respond that it is exactly benign indoctrination that they aim to expose. Another criticism is that critical pedagogy has the potential to perpetuate the very relations of domination it seeks to limit; indeed the challenge can be "what diversity do we silence?" (Ellsworth, 1989, p. 305). Ellsworth raises two points worth considering. First that facilitating truly democratic dialogue in a multicultural setting may not be in the skill set of every university professor and second that much of the critical pedagogy literature is theoretical rather than applied to real classroom practice. Nonetheless, as a theoretical lens applied to a study seeking to interrogate the role of higher education in addressing rapid change through globalization, critical pedagogy forces us to ask the ultimate question: who benefits? As an emancipatory pedagogy, critical pedagogy seeks to uncover inequality, undemocratic institutions and to work toward social justice. This is achieved in part through dialogue, problem-posing, and encouraging praxis (Burbules & Berk, 1999). Seeking to liberate all, one of its central tenets is reconciliation (Freire, 2009). Therefore, critical pedagogy has the potential to liberate even the staunchest of neoliberal educators and urge them toward self-reflection and praxis. This concept of praxis is central to critical pedagogy, not only in its potential to motivate students toward positive, democratic, and just change, but also in its call to educators. Critical pedagogy demands that educators join the struggle to criticize the status quo. Giroux (2003) claims that intellectuals have a responsibility to bridge academia and politics. For Giroux the traditional social contract in which higher education played a role in socializing subsequent generations as responsible citizens has been eroded in the present political climate; “the exchange of capital takes precedence over social justice, the making of socially responsible citizens, and the building of democratic societies” (p. 178). ChanTiberghien (2004) concurs that the political element cannot be avoided by educators; “a cosmopolitan model of citizenship requires much more than educators’ insurgent acts of critical pedagogy, but a political recognition of cognitive justice/diversity as well as the 36 availability of previously subjugated knowledges through alternative methodologies” (p. 197). There is no shortage of academics writing about the need for intercultural and global competencies but within a framework of critical pedagogy they are invited to act. According to Kuokkanen (2007), we need to begin to practice what we preach; “we have to find the will and the courage to participate in an ongoing, unfinished business” (p. 158). Ukpokodu (2003) also believes the stakes are high and that we cannot afford to minimize critical multicultural issues whatever the professional costs “although teaching from a critical multicultural perspective is laden with risks, it is not only good teaching, it is the only responsible way” (p. 23). Bates (2005) invites educators to consider what a curriculum that served other interests would look like, to ask ourselves if subjugated knowledges might well serve our current dilemmas if we allowed them into the dialogue. In Asgharzadeh’s (2008) view, the current situation demands a shift. Instead of seeking to hide behind notions of value-neutrality and objectivity, education should interrogate the construction of values, ideologies, and politics more vigorously and in such a way that a firm commitment to human rights, peace, and diversity is brought to the forefront of all educational struggles. (p. 358) The previous sections have introduced related areas of scholarship for educators to consider as we adapt to the increased diversity in our classrooms, as well as the increased interconnectivity of globalizing factors beyond the classroom. Internationalization, globalization, global citizenship education, and cosmopolitan concepts can inform critically engaged teaching and learning in multicultural contexts. This chapter has illustrated the complexity of the context as well as how the terms may be understood. However, varied perspectives and definitions should not dissuade researchers and scholars from interrogating these frameworks as potentially transformative means to create the culturally relevant teaching and learning environments required by our complex times. The next chapter will review the literature specific to intercultural and global learning in order to illustrate how this study both builds upon previous scholarship as well as contributes to our understanding of how students' learning may, or may not, be impacted by internationalization, global citizenship, and cosmopolitan frameworks. 37 3. Review of the Literature 3.1. Introduction The previous chapter situated globalization as an influence on higher education by reviewing recent scholarship on internationalization, global citizenship education, and cosmopolitanism in order to consider the broader context in which this study is situated. This chapter will commence by briefly considering the Canadian context and move to review scholarship that discusses intercultural learning within higher education more broadly, as well as the intercultural models that specifically influence this study. This is followed by a discussion of empirical studies that have endeavoured to understand intercultural and global learning outcomes. Finally, in order to situate the quantitative methodology of this study, a review of studies using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is presented. 3.2. The Canadian Context Although many “mainstream” European-descended Canadians (many of whom work in education) have a tendency to think of themselves, as “polite”, “tolerant”, and “multicultural” by nature, there is also evidence that as members of the dominant culture, they may not be fully aware of the inherent inequities that structure our social institutions (Apple, 2000; Bannerji, 2000; Kuuokkanen, 2007; Pidgeon, 2008). There is also increasing demonstration from the United States and Australia that even well-meaning educators have a limited, if not desultory framework for diversity (Abdi, 2011; Bennett, 2011; Davies, 2006; Deardorff, 2009; Pigozzi, 2006; Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010; Stohl, 2007; Tarc, 2011; Teekens, 2003; Ukpokodu, 2003), as will be illustrated later in this chapter. Intercultural and cosmopolitan frameworks are interesting in the Canadian context where multiculturalism has been an official policy since 1971 and was enshrined in law through the Multiculturalism Act in 1985, yet remains somewhat superficial in 38 educational contexts as the promotion of tolerance rather than deep valuing of and engagement with difference. If we consider the powerful accounts of marginalized groups and individuals struggling within Canadian institutions (Bannerji, 2000; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Kuokkanen, 2007; Pidgeon, 2008), it becomes clear that Canadian educators must begin to examine their own positions in privileging certain ways of knowing and learning over all others. Pidgeon (2008) illustrates how Indigenous students’ difficulties in persistence through higher education are inextricably linked to an institutional disregard for Indigenous cultural capital and ways of knowing. Abada and Tenkorang (2009) also link social capital to the pursuit of higher education by children of immigrants. Bannerji (2000) relates the immigrant experience in Canada as one riddled with racism and subjugation. In Suderman’s (personal communication, May 26, 2010) doctoral study, focus groups with international and domestic students at University of British Columbia revealed that although international students believed diverse interactions were important, they admitted to having few friendships outside of their own culture group. Grayson (2008) found that domestic students reported only 11% of their friends were international students, while at the same time over 50% of international students reported having difficulty making friends. Beck's (2008) study also revealed international student dissatisfaction with making Canadian friends. Similar findings were recently reported in a US study that found that 40% of international students surveyed claimed they had no significant friendships with American students (Gareis, 2012). These accounts raise serious questions about hospitality and diversity within our institutions and should cause educators to consider how increased diversity may or may not be resulting in intercultural learning outcomes. 3.3. Intercultural Learning The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you; they are unique manifestations of the human spirit. (Davis, 2009, p. 12) Wade Davis reminds us of our inherent tendencies toward ethnocentrism with this statement. Internationalization has perhaps exacerbated this situation in that there 39 is a predominant perception that international students, whether on our campuses or in transnational programs, choose to study North American curriculum primarily due to its perceived superior quality. While this is certainly the case for many international students we should not ignore the lack of higher education infrastructure and access in many source countries or the emergence of English as the lingua franca of higher education (Altbach & Knight, 2007). These realities may speak to inherent power and inequity rather than quality and should not necessarily lead to academic arrogance or generalized understandings of all international students coming to us for the same reasons. This monocultural lens permeates much of the efforts of internationalization which focus on helping international students adapt — by which we may mean begin to think and act just like us. This unfortunate positioning of culturally diverse students as deficient (Leask, 2010) requiring additional development to contribute effectively to higher education cannot be lost in the observations of all students and may serve to confirm some domestic students' lack of motivation for intercultural interaction. Intercultural learning has gained recognition in both the scholarship and practice of higher education in the last few years. According to Bok (2009) the need for intercultural competence is felt nowhere as much as at educational institutions and moreover that internationalization has created “a more urgent need than ever before for [Americans] to develop intercultural understanding and an ability to live and work productively and harmoniously with people having very different values, backgrounds and habits” (p. xi). King and Baxter Magolda (2005) also highlight the critical need for the development of intercultural skills as "an urgent educational priority" (p. 571). Interestingly, much of the intercultural literature related to education stems from the scholarship of international education professionals (Bennett, 1993, 2011; Crichton & Scarino, 2007; Deardorff, 2006, 2009; Garson, 2009; Leask, 2011; Olson & Kroeger, 2001; Otten, 2009; Teekens, 2003) rather than academics in related fields such as communication and cultural studies. Perhaps this emphasis in international education is in part due to the influence of the term intercultural in Knight’s (2004) widely cited definition in the international education literature which reads "internationalization is the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education" (p. 11). Knight (2004) explains the intentionality in forming a triad between “international, intercultural or global dimension” 40 (p. 11). She stresses the need for the term intercultural because “we know that internationalization is also about relating to the diversity of cultures that exists within countries, communities, and institutions, and so intercultural is used to address the aspects of internationalization at home” (Knight, 2004, p. 11, italics in original). Once again, we encounter a somewhat nebulous concept in that intercultural competence may be interpreted in a variety of ways. Although the field is not entirely new, interculturality continues to suffer from lack of an overarching theory or methodology (Garson, 2009), a plethora of models (Spitzberg & Changon, 2009; Stone, 2006), from a variety of disciplines (Bhagat & Landis, 1996; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009) and numerous tools and recommendations on assessment of learning (Fantini, 2009). Deardorff’s (2004) doctoral study utilized a Delphi process in which a panel of experts anonymously reply to two or more rounds of survey questions which are summarized at intervals by the facilitator in order to invite revisions based on others' replies. Deardorff invited one panel each of intercultural experts and university administrator to uncover common understandings and accepted features of intercultural competence. The study found that definitional variations were abundant within both groups. Nonetheless, the lack of a cohesive framework or definition should not impede education from this “ambitious vision for negotiating interculturality as an act of intellectual growth in modern academia” (Otten, 2009, p. 407). Several scholars have provided definitions of intercultural competence, most referring to effective communication and interaction. Intercultural learning is widely associated with three domains: affective, cognitive, and behavioural (Paige, 1993) or attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Deardorff, 2009). As this study is specifically interested in intercultural competence, it has been guided by Bennett’s (2009) definition “acquiring increased awareness of subjective cultural contexts (worldviews), including one’s own, and developing a greater ability to interact sensitively and competently across cultural contexts” (p. 1). Contemporary students and instructors require these competencies not only to function effectively in diverse classrooms but also to apply their academic knowledge to working with increasingly diverse populations and interconnected global issues. Educators must seriously consider if and how this is being addressed. Perhaps the lack of emphasis is in part due to the misconception that intercultural learning will transpire through mere proximity to cultural difference and that by having a culturally 41 diverse student body representing numerous nations, students will simply become competent. 3.3.1. Cross-cultural Contact vs. Intercultural Learning Contrary to the rhetoric of internationalization, intercultural learning is not likely to just happen due to increased diversity on campus (Bennett, 2012; Knight, 2011; Leask, 2010; Lee et al., 2012; Pike, 2000; Teekens, 2003). To the contrary, there is ample empirical evidence framed by intergroup contact theory, indicating that without guidance and the proper conditions, imposed diversity can lead to entrenched stereotypes and increased divisiveness (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Sidanius, 2008). The intercultural literature reveals a variety of strategies and frameworks for educators to incorporate intercultural learning (Deardorff, 2009; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Leask, 2010; Olsen & Kroeger, 2001; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009; Stone, 2006; Volet & Ang, 1998) as well as models and tools for assessment (Bennett, 1993; Deardorff, 2009; Fantini, 2009; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). 3.3.2. Intercultural Learning Models Two particular models of intercultural development influenced this study: Bennett's (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and Deardorff's (2006; 2009) Process Model of Intercultural Competence. Both models can complement a critical pedagogy framework in that they encourage reflection and the questioning of one's values and culturally influenced assumptions. The two models are similar in that they begin with a developing awareness at an individual level and move through deepened reflection to developing appropriate behaviours; although this is not necessarily a linear or explicit process, both models encourage affective, cognitive, and behavioural development (Paige, 1993). As constructivist models they are suited to critical pedagogy frameworks in that constructivism views knowledge construction as a social, active process based on the experience of the learners that necessarily includes a critically reflective and dialogic approach. 42 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Bennett's (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) has been widely used for two decades as a framework to understand how intercultural mindsets develop. As illustrated in Figure 1, Bennett's (1993) constructivist model involves six developmental stages in which the first three represent successive phases of diminishing ethnocentric worldviews and the last three phases represent the development of increasingly ethnorelative worldviews. Figure 2: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Denial Defence Minimization Acceptance Ethnocentric Stages Note. Adaptation Integration Ethnorelative Stages Adapted from Bennett (1986; 1993; 2010). Although there has been surprisingly little formal criticism of Bennett's model, two issues seem relatively obvious: the linear nature of the model implies the development is unidirectional with an ultimate end goal, and the conceptualization of development is culturally bound within Western, constructivist understandings. Bennett (2010) himself defends the linear progression as part of a developmental process. Although he concedes that the model is unidirectional and that individuals do not usually retreat to less complex intercultural worldviews, he also stresses that the developmental progress is connected to the resolution of issues in previous phases and "since issues may not be totally resolved, movement may be incomplete and one's experience of difference diffused across more than one worldview" (Bennett, 2010, p. 74). In regard to the DMIS being conceived through Western developmental paradigms it is clear that the majority of scholarship and models of intercultural competence have been influenced by Western scholarship. Although the prominent models reviewed by Spitzberg and Chagon (2009) were provided by scholars from a variety of cultural backgrounds, the majority of scholarship has been influenced by Western thinking. As the editor of the Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, Deardorff (2009) acknowledges this limitation 43 and includes several chapters with perspectives from scholars in other parts of the world; however, it is clear that the field and the prominent models require more consideration of non-western conceptualizations of intercultural competence. Some scholars of English as a Second or Foreign Language have found Byram's (1997) Model of Intercultural Communication Competence to be more useful in qualitative analysis of student statements (Garrett-Ruck, 2012), which is logical as Byram's model is widely used in terms of language and culture acquisition and provides a useful framework for understanding identity negotiation between bi-cultural and intercultural orientations (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Spitzberg and Changon (2009) provide a description of over 20 models of intercultural development with varying foci from communication or conflict resolution to identity formation and adaptation. For the purposes of this study, developmental models were selected in order to investigate the phases where students may be represented. The six stages of the DMIS are described next. In the first stage "Denial" people are disinterested in cultural difference as they experience their own culture as the only real one. Cultural difference is either not experienced at all or is vaguely construed as "other" but irrelevant to one's own existence. People in this stage may not have experienced much cultural difference and therefore do not regard it as important. The next stage "Defense" moves from a denial of the existence of other cultures, or at the very least attaching no importance to culture as an influence, to a recognition of other cultures; however they may be viewed as threatening or problematic. People in defense move from thinking their own culture is the only real one (denial) to thinking that their own culture is superior or more evolved than other cultures. This polarized worldview results in an "us and them" orientation where "you are either with us or against us". Defense can take both aggressive and benign forms, in the former case people in defence might feel threatened by immigrants; whereas, in the latter they may take on a role of "helping" others become more civilized (Bennett, 2004). A variation of defense is "Reversal" where one experiences a culture other than their own as somehow better. Where in defence one is overly critical of other cultures and elevates one's own, in reversal one is overly critical toward one's own culture and elevates another culture. 44 This can be experienced as being a champion of another culture while finding fault with one's culture of origin; while this can seem to entail being/becoming interculturally competent it nonetheless still maintains a polarized worldview of "us and them". The third and final ethnocentric phase is "Minimization" in which people tend to minimize cultural difference into their own familiar frameworks. In minimization people are generally open and often curious about cultural difference, yet tend to understand difference through their own lens. In this phase two lenses are prominent: similarity and universalism. Those in minimization tend towards concepts of a common humanity in which values and needs are understood as universal to all humanity. The issue being that those in minimization run the risk of assuming their values are inherent to humanity and that everyone wants to "be like us". Although minimization can be a very well intentioned phase of intercultural development, the insistence on similarity can mask differences including institutional privilege (Bennett, 2004; Hammer, 2009). For those in the dominant culture minimization is a comfortable place that lacks cultural selfawareness to contextualize one's own culture as one of many. For those in the nondominant culture minimization can function as a strategy for adaptation or a means toward fitting into the dominant culture. The final three phases of Bennett's (1993) DMIS are considered ethnorelative orientations. Following minimization is "Acceptance" in which one begins to understand one's own culture and other cultures as simply alternative responses. People in acceptance are able to imagine cultural frames of reference different to their own, they may not fully understand their complexity or agree with their resultant behaviours but they are able to accept their own culture and other cultures as equally viable responses to the human condition. Acceptance is characterised by the use of culture-general frameworks to understand a wide variety of cultural orientations, including one's own which should not be confused with culture-specific knowledge which can be present in ethnocentric phases as well. Following acceptance is "Adaptation." Where in acceptance one begins to be able to shift perspective or be aware of alternate perspectives, people in adaptation begin to both shift perspective and behaviour in culturally relevant ways. Bennett (2004) stresses the difference between assimilation and adaptation in that adaptation is an 45 extension rather than a substitution of cultural repertoire and in no way necessitates the loss of primary cultural identity. Rather, those in adaptation seek to include relevant constructs from other worldviews in their endeavours to be mutually adaptive. The final DMIS phase does not necessarily involve an improvement to intercultural competence but involves a profound shift in one's sense of cultural identity. In "Integration" one moves in and out of different cultural worldviews and is representative of individuals who live within the margins of more than one cultural identity. So, although it is not exactly part of the developmental structure of the DMIS, it is included to recognize the reality of multicultural or hybridized identities. Although integration is a complex and interesting aspect of the DMIS model, it does not represent a significant part of this study as it is not measurable by the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer et al., 2003). 3.3.3. The DMIS and the IDI The DMIS provides the theoretical basis for the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) used to collect the quantitative data in this study and therefore forms the basis of both how to conceptualize intercultural learning and how to measure it. Although the DMIS provides the theoretical foundation for the IDI, the instrument was only found able to reliably measure the first five phases of the DMIS and places minimization as a transitional phase between ethnocentric and ethnorelative worldviews (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). Recent research and enhancement of IDI version 3 has renamed the IDI model the Intercultural Development Continuum, also relabelling the defence and reversal phases as "Polarization" (Hammer, 2009) as illustrated in Figure 2. The figure illustrates Bennett's (1993) model from which the IDI instrument was developed, as well as Hammer's (2009) Intercultural Development Continuum which is adapted to what the IDI was found to reliably measure. Thus the instrument measures only the first five phases of Bennett's original conceptualization. 46 Figure 3: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and Intercultural Development Continuum Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivitya Defence Denial Minimization Acceptance Adaptation Integration Intercultural Development Continuumb Denial Polarization Minimization Ethnocentric Stages Note. a Acceptance Adaptation Ethnorelative Stages b Adapted from Bennett (1993) and Hammer (2009) The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), as informed by Bennett's (1986; 1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, was employed to address the and second questions of this study: 1. What is the level of intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? 2. How do student demographics influence the level of intercultural development? Furthermore, Bennett's (1993) model influenced the research questions and informed the qualitative analysis by providing a framework through which to understand participant comments as did Deardorff's (2006; 2009) model discussed next. Process Model of Intercultural Competence As illustrated in Figure 3 below, Deardorff's (2006; 2009) model presents intercultural competence development as a cyclical and reflective process which begins with attitudes (specifically openness, respect, and curiosity) where individuals can begin to question their own attitudes toward cultural differences and then move toward honing knowledge and skills. Knowledge and skills development then moves through internal 47 and external outcomes that relate to the individual and interactive aspects of intercultural competence. Figure 4: Process Model of Intercultural Competence Individual Attitudes: Knowledge & Comprension: Cultural Self-awarenss, deep cultural knowlege, socio-linguistic awareness Respect (valuing other cultures); Openness (witholding judgement); ------------------------------Skills: To listen, observe and evaluate; To analyze, interprete & relate Curiosity (tolerating ambiguity) Desired External Outcomes: Effective and appropriate communication and behaviour in an intercultural situation Note. Desired Internal Outcomes: Interaction Informed frame of reference shift (adaptability, flexibility, ethnorelative view, empathy) Adapted from Deardorff (2006). Interestingly Deardorff (2006; 2009) considers cultural self-awareness part of the knowledge component of intercultural competence development rather than an aspect of attitude, which implies that it can be taught. Other aspects of knowledge acquisition include culture-general (including communication) and culture-specific learning, histories, worldviews. Skills development involves listening, observation, evaluation, analyzing, and interpreting in order to develop an informed frame of reference with which to understand cultural differences. The attitudes and knowledge together can then result in internal outcomes (perspective shifting) and external outcomes (effective behavioural adjustments). In this way, Deardorff's model (2006; 2009) moves intercultural competence development from an individual level to an interactive level and 48 encompasses the affective, cognitive, and behavioural aspects of development. Deardorff's (2006; 2009) model informed the study questions and qualitative analysis by allowing the analysis of students' perceptions of intercultural learning in academic environments to include both knowledge and skills and to differentiate between internal and external learning outcomes. Although there are other models of intercultural learning, Deardorff's (2006) model and Hammer's (2009) model based on Bennett's (1993) model inform this study as they provide two complementary yet distinct frameworks for understanding intercultural learning. Where Deardorff's (2006) process model explicitly includes knowledge, attitudes, and skills, Bennett (2004) is careful to note that the DMIS is not a model of knowledge, attitudes, or skills specifically but that a central DMIS assumption is that one's experience of cultural differences leads one to construe cultural differences and similarities from a particular mindset that can develop as one's experience moves from avoiding cultural difference (ethnocentric) to seeking to understand and value cultural difference (ethnorelative). Both of these models can be helpful in exploring students' orientations toward intercultural and global learning in academic settings. 3.3.4. Teaching and Learning As illustrated in Chapter 2 the challenges for higher education to adapt to contemporary, rapid changes are many. We are living in exponential times and institutions of higher education are notoriously slow to change. Although many innovative pedagogical and curricular revisions have tried to address the new multicultural, globalized context in which learning takes place, many classes, programs, and institutions continue to teach with the same content and delivery as in decades past. The focus on pragmatic curricular content may have been exacerbated by the development of a consumer ethos in higher education (Apple, 2000; Asgharzadeh, 2008; Côté & Allahar, 2011; Kezar, 2004) but numerous scholars have also identified faculty and staff attitudes and orientations as contributors to the status quo in terms of both pedagogy and curriculum, as discussed in the following section. 49 3.3.5. The Role of Faculty and Staff Facilitating and assessing intercultural learning has presented challenges, in part due to the fact that educators may not themselves have developed the appropriate competence levels (Bennett, 2010; Deardorff, 2009; Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007; Stohl, 2007; Teekens, 2003). As influencers of campus culture, learning and teaching, curriculum and research, the role of faculty in the culturally diverse, globalized environment cannot be understated (Bond, 2003; Dewey & Duff, 2009; Lee et al., 2012; Schweitz, 2006; Stohl, 2007). More than 30 years ago, Harari (1981) identified faculty competence as critical to internationalization. Yet, scholars still claim that “scant attention has been paid to the experiences of …teachers and their roles and responsibilities” (Sanderson, 2008, p. 301). If intercultural and global learning is to be nurtured on our campuses, then faculty and staff will need to develop and model these competencies (Bennett, 2011). Olsen and Kroeger (2001) surveyed campus personnel in terms of global competency and intercultural sensitivity and concluded that ongoing and substantial professional development for staff and faculty is critical. Other scholars have also endorsed professional development in terms of intercultural competencies for faculty (Bond, 2006; Leask, 2006; Lee et al., 2012; Odgers & Giroux, 2006; Stone, 2006; Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007, Teekens, 2003; Otten, 2009) not only to deal with the needs of diverse students but also to address the imbalance in learning for domestic students who never leave campus, yet who also require enhanced intercultural and global competencies. Most universities are not focusing on the majority of students who stay home but leave any action to individual faculty who are scattered across campus and who are attempting to engage the concepts and modify their courses. These small reforms are, for the most part, being carried out in isolation from peers and without any recognition or support from the university. (Bond, 2006, pp.3-4) Similar to intercultural learning, the challenges of global citizenship education include faculty engagement but highlight the potential unpreparedness of many educators to incorporate content they are not well grounded in (Abdi, 2011; Davies, 2006; Pigozzi, 2006; Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010; Tarc, 2011; Ukpokodu, 2003). Tarc (2011) suggests that the required thinking is not “teaching for global mindedness [but] 50 teaching to learn to teach for global mindedness” (p. 72), which he believes will move a GCE praxis towards a more reflective, collaborative, inquiry based trajectory. Although not focused on higher education, Davies (2006) discusses numerous studies revealing that teachers displayed apolitical tendencies and were selective in regard to the global content they included; “they were comfortable teaching about the environment and other cultures but tended to ignore more complex global issues” (p.14). Similarly, studies by both Schoorman and Bogotch (2010) and Ukpokodu (2003) indicate that even when preservice teachers’ studies included intercultural content, this did not always translate into classroom practice, either due to curricular constraints or deeply held biases from positions of privilege. Therefore, the challenges are inherent in both the content and the delivery of intercultural and global learning. 3.3.6. Pedagogy GCE scholars put their attention to pedagogy in ways that international education literature has not. GCE scholars have highlighted the numerous difficulties of teaching global citizenship in the face of complicated and misunderstood histories that often confound the present (Guimaraes-Iosif, 2011; Krogman & Foote, 2011; Pigozzi, 2006; Swanson, 2011). Krogman and Foote (2011) call for a reconceptualization of time, arguing that if we could see the present situation — in particular the environmental crisis — across physiological, generational, evolutionary, epochal, and even cosmic time, it may give us perspective. Shultz (2011) conducted an analysis of programs and courses across disciplines with aspects or claims of global citizenship education and premised a model of competing discourses in four quadrants. Shultz (2011) acknowledges the breadth of approaches to global citizenship education, ranging from weak to strong across axes dealing with structural issues (sociopolitical, economic, inclusion, and oppression) and those related to the interaction of cultural differences in a globalized world. Figure 5 below presents Shultz's model in which the lower quadrants are characterized by weak structural analysis and upper quadrants by strong structural analysis; those on the left are characterized by weak intercultural focus and on the right by strong intercultural focus. Quadrant 1 represents approaches with both weak structural and intercultural analysis that tend to highlight mobility, competition, and entrepreneurism. 51 Difference is subsumed by liberal, universalist frameworks that imply neutrality. Quadrant 2 is again weak in structural analysis but strong in intercultural analysis representing approaches that focus on the development of intercultural skills yet ignoring the globalized context and legacies of colonialism. Quadrant 3 displays strong structural yet weak intercultural analysis with a focus on teaching students to resist globalization and neoliberal frameworks that can risk treating culture as static. In Quadrant 4 both the structural and intercultural analysis is strong. Although Shultz’s (2011) work found pockets of educational approaches in all four quadrants, the least represented was Quadrant 4. Although Shultz’s study included courses across disciplines, she does not explicitly state which disciplines were stronger or weaker in intercultural focus; however, the reader may infer from some of her comments which quadrants may have had more representation from the humanities or more professionally based programs. Figure 5: Competing Discourses in Four Quadrants Strong Structural Analysis Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4 Weak Intercultural Strong Intercultural Focus Focus Quadrant 2 Quadrant 1 Weak Structural Analysis Note. Adapted from Shultz (2011, p. 16). 52 An unsettling example of a Quadrant 1 approach is evident in Tarc’s (2011) discussion of the prevalent “making a difference” ethos that underlies many global education initiatives aimed at engaging students. Indeed, in the social imaginary of the privileged West, there is a heightened demand to ‘do good’ and ‘be empowered’ as circumscribed by an individualist ‘making a difference’ paradigm. Many ‘transformative’ acts of empowerment seem situated within a kind of market-oriented, individualist, consumer, charity mix. (Tarc, 2011, p.69) For Tarc (2011) and Andreotti (2011) this ethos has a number of effects including drawing attention away from the real issues, providing the illusion that corporate structures can be both profitable and philanthropic, and moving responsibility from public to individual. Ultimately, it begins to frame social action as an exercise in gaining social capital. For example Andreotti found through a case study of a Make Poverty History campaign a disturbing message to recruit student volunteers. The website began with a set of “provocative” questions: “Are you amazing? Do you want to be part of making poverty history? If so, [NGO A] wants to hear from you!” (p. 149) Andreotti’s (2011) analysis of the case is that it “suggests a narcissistic approach to activism” (p. 151) illustrated by additional recruiting materials that indicate the motivation to participate in the campaign were increased respect and self-worth. Andreotti also notes the trappings of capital associated with participation in the organization’s promises to the volunteers that read more like resume boosting than activism. However, ChanTiberghien (2004) argues effectively that it is within the transnational anti-globalization movements where real global citizenship and critical emancipatory methodologies and mindsets are being nurtured. Dower (2008) insists that those who have the privilege to consider themselves global citizens represent the global elite and in this, may ultimately reflect the imbalances and inequities they claim to challenge. For these reasons educators need to provide students with historical and global contexts in order that they can come to terms with their complicity in the present state of affairs. The concept of acknowledging complicity is consistent in the GCE literature 53 (Abdi & Schultz, 2008; Abdi, 2011; Krogman & Foote, 2011; Shultz, 2011; Swanson, 2011; Wright, 2009), either as historical fact or call for change. Swanson (2011) describes an international online forum on global citizenship perspectives in which the participants moved to consider their own positions ...in their own geopolitical and situated context, to acknowledge their complicity and implicatedness in the interconnected global injustices faced today, while ‘moving them’ beyond mere acknowledgement to enabling ethical judgement and responsible action in response to political/moral culpability and structural privilege. (p.130) Yet, she acknowledges the complexity of such an approach in bringing reflexive, potentially transformative, learning and praxis through pedagogy (Swanson, 2011). The pedagogical challenges of GCE are acknowledged throughout the literature, either in the framing of its complexity (Abdi, 2011; Shultz; 2011), the necessity of interdisciplinary engagement (Guimaraes-Iosif, 2011; Pigozzi, 2006,) the difficulty of questioning the status quo (Guimaraes-Iosif, 2011), the risks of GCE essentializing human differences (Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011) or reinforcing binaries and stereotypes if the structural foundations are not deeply interrogated (Swanson, 2011). Due to these potential pitfalls and the complexity of incorporating intercultural and global learning across the disciplines, a critical pedagogy approach may be particularly useful in allowing culturally diverse students and faculty to explore complicated issues in an inclusive and democratic fashion. The majority of GCE scholarship reviewed here advocates for critical pedagogy to inform global learning processes and outcomes (Abdi, 2011; Abdi & Shultz, 2008; Davies, 2006; Guimaraes-Iosif, 2011; Tarc, 2011; Wright, 2009), many explicitly referring to the work of Paulo Freire. Guimaraes-Iosif (2011) emphasizes the importance of critical pedagogy to higher education, not only in terms of global citizenship education but also as an appropriate interdisciplinary pedagogy promoting student learning across disciplines that may empower attitudinal shifts and participation. She also notes the importance of Freire’s (1970; 2007) concept of “conscientization” as a continual process of engaging in deconstruction and reconstruction essential for the formation of concepts of identity and citizenship. The following sections will discuss additional recent studies 54 that have specifically explored intercultural and global learning in the context of higher education, including studies employing the IDI, in order to situate the analysis and interpretation of data in this study within the context of related scholarship. 3.3.7. Students' global and intercultural learning Several influential doctoral studies investigating intercultural and global learning have employed a purely qualitative approach. Both Hunter (2004) and Deardorff (2006) used Delphi techniques in an attempt to bring clarity to the contested definitions of global competency and intercultural competency respectively. Participants in Deardorff's study included both intercultural experts and university administrators and this was the first study to have intercultural experts reach consensus on what key factors constituted intercultural competence. The results of the study formed the basis of Deardorff’s Process Model of Intercultural Competence illustrated earlier in this chapter. Hunter’s research lead to the development of a tool to measure global competency, The Global Competency Index. The survey includes both intercultural competencies of a culturegeneral nature, as well as culture-specific, geographic, and historical knowledge. Oka (2008) explored what she refers to as “the pedagogy of the global” through a comprehensive qualitative analysis of faculty interviews and institutional documents. Oka’s study sought to reveal the complexities and tensions between global learning and globalizing forces in terms of how faculty and institutions frame internationalization in the global present. The study examined 21 course syllabi for concepts relating to the global finding that economics featured in 86% of instances where global concepts were included; whereas, inequality or social change occurred in a mere 14% (Oka, 2008). The study illustrates that global learning may be framed within a neoliberal context more frequently than as an emancipatory program. As noted in Chapter 1, the majority of studies exploring undergraduate students' intercultural learning focus on student learning as a result of mobility programs such as study abroad. Less common are empirical studies investigating intercultural learning for students who stay on campus; however, a few exceptions are worth noting. In terms of global learning, scholarship from global citizenship education provides diverse views and approaches. Andreotti (2011) used three case studies analyzed through a post-colonial 55 lens to reveal that some global citizenship initiatives may actually serve to perpetuate hegemony through patronizing dominant ideologies of “helping” others, that can result in students engaging as a means of personal gain. Winn's (2005) study reveals demographic and institutional predictors of dispositions toward global citizenship in a graduate student population. Winn surveyed 217 graduate students to measure three facets of global citizenship: environmentalism, social justice, and civic responsibility on a 60 point scale. Although the results ranged broadly on the scale, further analysis revealed age, bilingualism, and attending a multicultural campus to be significant predictors of global citizenship orientations (Winn, 2005). Swanson (2011) illustrates the critical role of intentional curriculum design by recounting the process of designing and delivering an international online global citizenship course that intentionally engaged different perspectives, troubled existing or imagined paradigms through interdisciplinary involvement, and continually created space for critical reflection and dialogue aimed at “glonacal” praxis for all participants (students and faculty). Scholars interested in international education have also contributed to our understanding of students' intercultural learning. Gu, Schweisfurth, and Day (2009) studied the intercultural experiences of first year international students studying in the United Kingdom. Their mixed methods study used quantitative survey data to design case studies for the second qualitative stage of the study. They used semi-structured interviews, narrative interviews, diaries, email, and one focus group to consolidate their findings that the majority of international students experienced transformative intercultural learning through a complex and shifting set of associations and experiences. Grayson (2008) conducted an extensive study that explicitly set out to study both international and domestic students at four Canadian universities in terms of social and academic experiences. Grayson gathered survey data from domestic and international students at more than one institution and used that data to compare learning outcomes and college impact between demographic groups through regression analysis. Grayson's results of a large sample of students at Canadian universities (n=1415) are informative for this study in illustrating that the on-campus experiences of international students are generally positive and not significantly different than that of domestic students in perception of the learning environment or involvement in student life. However, Grayson did find that the interaction of domestic students with 56 international students was limited. Several other studies highlight how interaction affects student learning, these are discussed in the following section. Intercultural Interaction Seifert, Goodman, King, and Baxter Magolda (2010) conducted a large longitudinal study to understand which teaching practices, programs, or institutional structures supported seven liberal arts learning outcomes, one of which was intercultural effectiveness. In their mixed methods study Seifert et al. identified three sets of influencing practices in the quantitative data that supported themes that emerged from the qualitative data; one of the practices was diversity experiences. The study involved over 4500 first year students at 19 American institutions and concluded that diversity experiences were important to student development and that intercultural interaction positively challenged the development of students who had not yet considered multiple perspectives. Leask (2010) and her colleagues at University of South Australia (UniSA) have been involved in comprehensive longitudinal evaluation of various social and pedagogical interventions introduced to influence the quality of contact between international and domestic students. In 1996 UniSA introduced a set of seven Graduate Qualities as benchmarks for student learning, Quality #7 relates to the development of international perspectives (Absalom & Vadura, 2010; Leask, 2010). For her contribution to the larger study Leask conducted focus groups and individual interviews in order to uncover both international and domestic students' subjective views on the experience of internationalization in the classroom and found that although students "saw the exposure to a range of cultural and national perspectives as an important part of their university education" (p.7), they were dissatisfied with the interactions they had with each other. However, the dissatisfaction was generated by different experiences for domestic and international students. Domestic students identified barriers including their perception of language proficiency presenting not only communication difficulties but real risks in terms of the quality of group projects or the additional time required to manage communication and understanding. The international student participants acknowledged the Australian students' reticence to engage yet saw beyond language to cultural values that influence what they perceived to be Aussie students' preference to work alone, work 57 quickly and efficiently, be competitive about grades, and not want to be bothered with small problems of communication and difference that might sideline their academic goals. These findings are consistent with Australian research from more than a decade earlier as illustrated by the seminal work of Volet and Ang (1998) who identified four reasons why students preferred to work with their “own people”: cultural – emotional connectedness, shared language, pragmatism, and ethnocentric stereotypes. Another set of researchers at UniSA, Absalom and Vadura (2006) also measured student perceptions of internationalization using an online questionnaire. Their findings were that students generally displayed a complex, transformative understanding of developing international perspectives (UniSA's Graduate Quality #7) that involved both local and global perspectives, yet their views were more simplistic when related to the curriculum specifically. When responding to questions related to classroom experiences they narrowed their focus to learning tasks that illustrated learning about other cultures in isolated ways, as information rather than interaction or reflection. They concluded that "students bring an integrating, complex view of internationalization to their study which clashes with the disintegrating, more simplistic view transmitted by the task based orientation of the curriculum" (Absalom & Vadura, 2006, p. 329). Similar findings are supported by British scholarship. In a small, qualitative study Osmond and Roed (2010) found that although both domestic and culturally diverse students in a British university generally found working together on academic tasks positive, there were prevalent negative feelings on the part of domestic students feeling that collaborating across cultures created more work. Like the participants in Leask's (2010) study, domestic students expressed frustration with language and communication challenges, commenting that translation time took away valuable learning time and often resulting in increased workload. British students also perceived negative effects on their grades if they worked with international students. An additional finding from Osmond and Roed's (2010) study was that domestic students were highly conscious of causing offence in intercultural interactions which resulted in them avoiding those interactions. This finding is similar to what Harrison and Peacock (2010) term the "passive xenophobia" (p. 135) of home students where ethnocentricity may be reinforced through non-engagement. Harrison and Peacock (2010) also used focus groups along with semi-structured one-on-one interviews to gain a better understanding of the home 58 student experience finding that a number of real or perceived barriers influenced domestic students' attitudes toward culturally different students including differences in work orientation, language and communication issues, fears of causing offence or being seen as interculturally incompetent, and concerns over grades being affected by team work with international students—although Harrison and Peacock (2010) found this last point to be less of a reality than a well-established myth. The evidence provided by these studies, coupled with the previous scholarship cited in Chapter 1 regarding immigrant (Bannerji, 2000), and Aboriginal student experiences (Pidgeon, 2008), as well as the lack of interaction between domestic and international students (Grayson, 2008; Garies, 2012) necessitates this critical investigation of student perceptions of their intercultural and global learning within the formal setting of Canadian higher education (HE). Therefore, the present study both builds on previous scholarship and addresses the gap in Canadian, and more specifically British Columbian, research on the impacts of internationalization on student learning. The studies cited in the previous sections also suggest the need to incorporate not only qualitative data but to substantiate qualitative findings by measuring outcomes through the use a quantitative instrument that has demonstrated usefulness measuring intercultural learning in educational contexts. 3.3.8. The IDI in Educational Studies Numerous studies and dissertations have used the IDI in a variety of organizational and educational contexts. As previously noted, the IDI has been most extensively used with students to evaluate outcomes of study abroad programs. However, there are a few notable studies that have used the IDI to measure the intercultural development of campus personnel and non-mobile students as discussed later in this section. The IDI and student mobility Several researchers have used the IDI in a pre-post-test design to understand the influence of study abroad on students' intercultural development. In fact, the IDI is used extensively by the Council for International Education Exchange (CIEE) in both training educators and assessing student learning (Vande Berg, 2010). 59 The Georgetown consortium studied over 1,200 students in 61 mobility programs using the IDI in pre-, post-, and post/post-tests finding gender, program duration, and pedagogical interventions / mentoring to be significant predictors of intercultural development (Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009). Nichols' (2011) quantitative study also used the IDI to examine various student and program characteristics as predictors of intercultural development. As part of the Georgetown University Consortium her findings were similar to Vande Berg et al (2009). Nichols’ (2011) gender based study sought to examine to what extent the relationship between a large number of demographic and program related variables influenced changes in IDI scores pre and post study abroad. Nichols found that being female was a positive predictor of gains to IDI scores following study abroad but she also notes that other positive indicators such as studying in the target language, and participating in group mentoring programs, as well as choice of major were all more frequent with female participants. In another mobility study Pederson (2009) does not comment on the significance of gender but her study makes very clear that pedagogical interventions are critical to developing intercultural competencies through study abroad. The IDI and non-mobile populations Brown’s (2008) study influenced the present study in that it employed mixed methods using the IDI as the quantitative research instrument in conjunction with qualitative data obtained from interviews in order to confirm inferences in both data sets. Brown chose regression analysis to determine the statistically significant characteristics that might predict intercultural development and how students' IDI scores might relate to potential quality of citizenship in diverse society. Brown (2008) used a variety of demographic, college impact, and pre-higher education experiences as independent variables. Brown's statistical analysis involved a variety of correlation tests and four block regressions that in themselves had mixed results. Correlation tests found that gender, community service, having an uncomfortable emotional response to diversity, and attending diversity related courses were related to intercultural development; however, further analysis showed that these factors did not independently promote intercultural development. Block regressions found that gender remained significant in all regressions as did high school GPA; being female was a predictor of higher IDI scores where higher high school GPA influenced scores negatively. Interestingly, when 60 the data sets were analyzed separately according to race (white or students of colour) similar predictors were found to be insignificant. Jon (2009) also used the IDI in an exhaustive analysis of Korean students’ intercultural development in the context of an internationalized campus in Korea. Not only did Jon conduct over 30 interviews for qualitative analysis using Deardorff's (2006) model but also analyzed IDI scores through correlation, multiple regression, and path analysis in order to understand which variables of an intervention program, as well as personal variables were associated with increased intercultural development. However, Jon did not find gender to be a significant variable in the subscales scores she examined; rather that intercultural interaction and participation in intervention programs aimed at interaction were positive and significant factors. Prior international experience was a positive indicator for the Acceptance and Adaptation scales where it was not for the Minimization scale. Carter (2006) examined background characteristics, pre-college experiences, and demographics to explain variance in pre and post IDI scores over program duration, as well as conducting extensive one-on-one interviews with 23 students who experienced the largest gains. Through analysis of covariance and four regression models Carter found that having attended a predominantly white high school, belonging to a sorority or fraternity, and majoring in engineering or theatre were negative factors in changes to developmental scores. Positive factors in changes to scores were: study abroad, attending a diversity conference, questioning one's own religion, and interacting with students from other cultures. Gender was not found to be significant. Westrick (2004) used the IDI to understand service learning and international baccalaureate high school students' intercultural development. Westrick studied how IDI scores correlated with a variety of demographic and program related variables. This study used the overall score (Direct Orientation, DO) and each of the subscale scores to determine associations among variables and found gender to be significant in the DO scores but not in all of the subscales, in fact being female was negatively correlated for the Acceptance and Adaptation scales. 61 Finally, Davis' (2008) study was also influential to design and analysis choices; although the participant group under study was international student advisors, the quantitative analysis tested both the perceived and direct orientation IDI scores as dependent variables using multiple regression. As Davis was not studying students, many of the predictor variables were employment related; however, neither gender, age, nor time spent abroad were found to be significant predictors of intercultural development scores. As illustrated by the above discussion, demographics as predictors of IDI scores present a variety of contradictory findings. These discrepancies may be in part due to differences in study design, the use of additional instruments, participants, or definitions. Table 1 summarizes the findings discussed. Table 1: Study Student demographic variables associated with intercultural development Dependent Variables Carter (2006) IDI Developmental Orientation (DO) Quantitative multi-instrument Pre-Post Gains Over 4 year degree program Significant (+ or - association) + Non-Christian Religion - Predominantly White high school + Study Abroad + Diversity conference + Interaction with Internationals +Question one's own religion - Fraternity / Sorority - Academic Major (Theatre & Engineering) Brown (2008) IDI Developmental + Female (Brown, 2008) Orientation (DO) Score Mixed Methods - Higher high school GPA Jon (2009) Two v.2 IDI subscales Mixed Methods - Minimization - Acceptance / Adaptation Not Significant Gender Community Service Attending diversity related courses Racial composition of high school Institutional structural diversity + Participation in intervention program Gender + Intercultural interactions + Prior international experience (for A/A Prior international scales) experience (Minimization scale) 62 Study Significant (+ or - association) Dependent Variables Not Significant Nichols (2011) Pre- Post Gains to + Female Developmental Mixed Methods Orientation (DO) Study +Studying in target language Abroad +/- Academic field of study Pederson (2009) Pre- Post Gains to Quantitative IDI Developmental Orientation (DO), Orientation Gap (GO) and Cultural Disengagement (CD) Study Abroad + Intercultural content in curriculum + Multiple perspectives pedagogy + Guided reflection + Duration of Study Abroad Westrick (2004) Gender + Female Quantitative Years living outside + Years living outside own culture own culture +Participation in service learning Participation in service 3.3.9. Variables of Interest As illustrated by the previous discussion, a number of the variables of interest to this study have been previously studied using the IDI. These variables are of interest in that findings of their influence on intercultural development have been varied and sometimes contradictory. The present study sought to understand if these variables were of influence for the population of upper level students in B.C.'s regional institutions. Table 2 summarizes the findings of other IDI studies. Further discussion of each demographic variable follows. Table 2: Study Variables – Findings summarized Variable Significant (+/-) Not Significant Gender (Brown, 2008) + (Nichols, 2011) + (Westrick, 2004) + DO / - AA (Vande Berg et al., 2009) + (Carter, 2006) Davis, 2008) (Jon, 2009) (Pederson, 2011) Age (Brown, 2008) + year of study (Hammer et al., 2003) (Paige et al., 2003) Ethnic Minority (Brown, 2008) + students of colour (Davis, 2008) 63 Variable Significant (+/-) Not Significant Time Spent Abroad (Jon, 2008) + AA / - Minimization (Westrick, 2004) **IB students (Davis, 2008) Academic Discipline (Carter, 2006) – Theatre, Engineering (Vande Berg et al., 2009) +Social Science / Humanities, Foreign Language (Nichols, 2009) – Non International Business Pedagogical Intervention (Jon, 2008) + facilitated intergroup contact (Pederson, 2008) + intercultural coaching, + multiple perspectives pedagogy Gender Several studies have found gender to be significantly associated with IDI overall or subscale scores (Brown, 2008; Nichols, 2011; Westrick, 2004; Vande Berg, ConnorLinton, & Paige, 2009); whereas, Carter (2006), Davis (2008), Jon (2009), and Pederson (2009) did not find gender to be significant. In all cases where gender was significant being female was positively associated with increased intercultural development with the exception of Westrick's (2004) study where being female was positively correlated with the direct orientation (DO score), yet in the sub score analysis for Acceptance / Adaptation being female had a negative effect. As a gender based study, Nichol's (2011) findings may have been influenced by other associated predictors, in particular that female participants routinely made choices that were also positive predictors of higher IDI scores (studying in the target language, participating in mentorship programs, humanities based majors). Brown (2008) discusses the gender findings in terms of developmental theory, suggesting that female socialization may include more interpersonal and communicative skill building which would lend itself to intercultural development. The original studies performed on the IDI included confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis, and construct validity in which no systemic gender differences were found (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). These claims, as well as the cited studies that found no significance, suggest that the gender alone should not be considered a determining factor of intercultural competence. 64 Age Hammer et al. (2003) and Paige et al. (2003) IDI validity tests did not find age to be significant nor did the studies cited in this dissertation. This is in keeping with Bennett's (1993) theoretical assumption that it is one's experience of cultural difference that results in development rather than educational level (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003) or general life experience. Although Brown (2008) did find that year of study was a predictor of higher IDI scores, none of the other studies reviewed found age to be significant. Ethnicity and student demographic The standard IDI includes a question asking respondents if they are members of an ethnic minority in their own country. Of the IDI studies reviewed only Davis (2008) makes explicit mention of using this as an independent variable and did not find it significant in the regression models he used. Brown (2008) investigated race as a factor by running separate regression models for white students and students of colour and found that some of the significant predictors of higher IDI scores for white students were not significant in for students of colour; however, this may have been in part due to the very small sample (N=12) in the sub group. Of particular interest in this study is student status as domestic or international. Although none of the IDI studies reviewed sought to examine this as an influence on IDI scores, Jon's (2009) study makes an interesting contribution as the participants in her study are all Korean nationals that are the "home" students. Jon (2009) found that participant scores (N=244) were most represented in the Denial and Defence scale and the Minimization scale indicating that the great majority of participants were operating in ethnocentric mindsets. The mean score for Jon's (2009) participants was 85.14 where Westrick's (2004) overall mean for students at an international school was 92.24 and Brown's (2008) mean for white American students was 89.97 and 95.19 for students of colour. Although there are quantitative differences, all of these scores represent the lower level of minimization. 65 Time spent abroad Although there is a prevailing presumption that experiences abroad increase intercultural development, there are also growing concerns that simply sending students on planes may not necessarily result in intercultural or global learning (Vande Berg et al., 2012). Some IDI research using pre- and post-tests indicates small gains (Nichols, 2009; Vande Berg et al., 2009) that are not significantly different than gains illustrated by collegiate experiences (Brown, 2008) or pedagogical interventions (Jon, 2009; Pederson, 2009). Of the studies reviewed, the influence of time spent abroad considered alone is limited. Although Westrick's (2006) study demonstrated that time living abroad was significant, her participants were International Baccalaureate high school students many of whom had lived an expatriate lifestyle for most of their young lives. Carter (2006) found that study abroad was a significant predictor in combination with a host of other educational experiences that may have pre-disposed subjects to participate in other diversity experiences. Jon (2009) found that prior international experience was a positive predictor of Acceptance / Adaptation subscales but was not for Minimization scales. Jon (2009) also notes that students with these experiences were more likely to participate in the intervention programs and to voluntarily interact with culturally diverse students. Although not studying students, Davis (2008) also found time spent abroad was not a significant predictor in his study and also notes that this finding calls into question claims that student mobility increases intercultural development. Academic major Very few studies of intercultural development have investigated academic focus as a factor of influence. Of the studies reviewed some looked at specific programs both curricular (Pederson, 2009; Westrick, 2006) or co-curricular (Jon, 2009) but regular academic programs have received less attention. Carter (2006) did include academic majors as variables and found that both Theatre and Engineering were negative indicators of overall IDI scores. As part of the Georgetown Consortium investigating the intercultural outcomes of study abroad which found students majoring in social science / humanities or foreign language experienced the greatest pre/post gains (Vande Berg et al. (2009), Nichols' (2009) further investigation identified a non-International Business major to be a negative predictor of change to IDI scores. 66 Pedagogical Intervention Although the present study did not quantitatively analyze the effects of pedagogical interventions with IDI test scores, the qualitative focus groups sought to understand students' perceptions of teaching and learning and asked students to discuss how intercultural and global learning was, or was not, being facilitated in their classrooms. Two IDI studies that included quantitative measures for pedagogical interventions found that significant gains were made pre and post such endeavours. Jon (2008) found that students who participated in intervention programs designed to increase positive intergroup contact had higher IDI scores than those that did not participate. Pederson (2009) studied four groups of students: two who remained at home and two that participated in mobility programs of varying duration and intervention. Both groups that were intentionally presented with multiple perspective pedagogy or intercultural coaching experienced significant gains in direct orientation and orientation gap scores over those that did not. In addition, the same two groups gained significantly in resolution of cultural disengagement, where the two groups that did not experience any intervention revealed cultural disengagement scores that receded between pre- and post-tests. This foregoing discussion illustrates the use of the IDI in educational studies seeking to understand influences on intercultural learning. However, because the majority of studies sought to investigate specific programs or mobility programs and few took place in the Canadian context, the present study will contribute to understanding of Canadian students' learning in regular, on campus degree programs. Furthermore, as a mixed methods study the quantitative results only present a part of the story. To more fully understand students' experiences, qualitative approaches can provide us with nuanced insight into how students in twenty-first century learning environments are gaining skills critical to their participation as both professionals and citizens. 3.4. Twenty-First Century Learning Outcomes The highest education is that which does not merely give us information but makes our life in harmony with all existence. (Tagore, 1917, p. 116) 67 Writing nearly one hundred years ago Rabindranath Tagore was an early thinker in education as a vehicle to understanding difference. Although his educational philosophy was not in the context of globalization, it was conceived of in early 20th century India — a multicultural, multilingual microcosm of power and imbalance that foreshadows the complexity of our own times. The questions posed for this study attempt to address a part of that complexity and are important in the context of higher education’s response to globalization. Increasing diversity requires increased understanding in order to navigate and collaborate our way toward a brighter future. Students’ awareness and competencies can be addressed within formal learning environments and should not be left to chance or the idea that mere proximity will result in overcoming ethnocentric orientations. Gaining an understanding of students’ perceptions of their intercultural and global learning has the potential to inform educators how best to proceed. The data provided by these questions should yield clearer understanding of the relationships between demographics, academic discipline, curriculum and pedagogy, and students’ perceptions of their intercultural and global learning within the context of their educational experience. Informed by critical frameworks, the data analysis provides a deeper understanding of whether the present trajectory of increased cultural diversity requires additional attention in order that the approach does not continue to subjugate, marginalize or otherwise disadvantage certain demographic groups or students choosing to study certain disciplines. It is clear that in the present era all students can benefit from a broader understanding of global interconnectedness, privilege and oppression, and perhaps naïve complicity in the social injustices that have come to characterize the neoliberal race toward accumulation at all cost. Therefore, gaining insight into student perceptions contributes to scholarship that has studied both student and faculty attitudes toward internationalization, global citizenship education, and cosmopolitanism. The findings can inform educators interested in assuring that our diverse student populations are ready to participate as thoughtful and informed citizenry in the twenty-first century. They can also inform our approach to diversity on our campuses. To critically consider these issues is timely and necessary. 68 The process of researching this topic presented a number of choices particularly in relation to methodology. This study sought both to explore upper level students' intercultural development and their perceptions of intercultural learning and global learning in order to not only understand if students are developing competencies but also their perspectives of how that may be facilitated through their academic experiences. Therefore, in order to satisfy both queries within the inquiry context, the logical approach was to mix methods. The rationales for this choice are provided in the following chapter. 69 4. Research Methodology 4.1. Introduction This chapter will discuss the research methodology beginning with an overview of mixed methods research in order to situate this approach as the most viable option for this educational study. This discussion also includes the transformative framework and rationales for its use in terms of the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of the study. Next the study procedures are outlined in two sections pertaining to quantitative and qualitative approaches in terms of participants, sample size, and analytic plan. Finally, limitations and delimitations of the study are addressed. 4.2. Mixed Methods The use of mixed methods in social science research has not been without controversy; consequently, much of the mixed methods literature tends to defend or elevate the approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Green & Caracelli, 2003; Maxwell & Loomis, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Although there is often reference to mixed methods as the third methodological option (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2009), Creswell (2008) continues to urge students using mixed methods to explain mixed methods to readers who may be unaware of the approach. As a formal research approach, mixed methods emerged as an alternative to purely quantitative or qualitative study in the 1960s and was relatively common by the 1980s (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003; Symonds & Gorard, 2010). Contrary to the idea that mixed methods research is obscure and needs to be explained (Creswell, 2008), a recent study by Alise and Teddlie (2010) measured prevalence rates of methodological approaches in the social sciences and found that even in the elite, peer reviewed 70 journals across disciplines in both social and hard sciences they scanned, mixed methods were well represented. In education, mixed methods accounted for 24% of all studies; whereas, more generally in applied disciplines mixed methods comprised 16% and in pure disciplines 6% (Alise & Teddlie, 2010) of studies. Furthermore, Symonds and Goddard (2010) suggest that mixed methods could become the predominant approach in education, even inclining funding bodies to prefer this approach as it becomes more common and accepted as a legitimate and useful methodology. 4.2.1. The Paradigm Question In the mixed methods literature, “paradigm” is used in its broadest form to connote both philosophical and theoretical frameworks. Green (2007) makes a distinction that philosophical paradigms should be labeled appropriately as constructivist or post-positivist since using quantitative and qualitative labels limits one to technical thinking and does not position each inquiry in ways that necessarily encompass the researcher’s approach. Nonetheless, much of the mixed methods literature stems from the so called “paradigm wars” of the later part of the last century which pitted quantitative methodology against emerging qualitative approaches. According to Feilzer (2010) these arguments were largely circular and unproductive; furthermore: Notwithstanding important advances made by feminist, postmodernist, poststructuralist, and critical researchers, and many more nuanced positions within these broad frameworks, these two paradigms are still dominating methodological textbooks and epistemological debates in social sciences. (p. 6) The debate arose as a consequence of the rise of qualitative methods employed by applied researchers hoping to get a better idea of the lived experiences of the populations under study. According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (2009), the division between research paradigms began in the late 20th century with the idea of separate scientific communities. At this time some researchers immersed in the quantitative tradition, that had hitherto been dominant and relatively unquestioned, began to shift from purely positivist and value free to post-positivist acknowledging some values. In particular, 71 qualitative research began to critique positivism and the supremacy of numerical understandings over narrative ones. Qualitative frameworks tended toward constructivism rather than positivism which led some scholars to conclude that the two paradigms were incompatible and could not be mixed (Alise & Teddlie, 2010; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2009). This resulted in the “incompatibility thesis” which held that the two approaches were paradigmatically opposed and could therefore not be combined. Many mixed methodologists responded with the pragmatic argument that mixing the two approaches allows researchers to use the strengths of both methods in order to understand phenomena more accurately; therefore, offering a more comprehensive analysis than either method alone (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Feilzer, 2010; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2009). For Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) the chosen paradigm informs the methodological framework of the research and the researcher. They use the term worldview synonymously with paradigm. According to Creswell (2008) the main issue was one of worldview and whether using a specific method necessitated the use of a parallel worldview or philosophical orientation or whether more than one worldview could be present in the same study. Green and Caracelli (1997) maintain that an underlying premise of mixed methods is the value that differing paradigms can bring to our understanding of a phenomenon; they insist that methods themselves cannot be explicitly linked to any particular paradigm, but that it is advantageous for researchers to draw on the richness of different paradigms to gain depth and breadth in their understanding. Some researchers argued that the paradigm debate created a false dichotomy (Creswell, 2009) or that categorizing worldviews was unrealistic (Symonds & Gorard, 2010). Indeed, Symonds and Gorard (2010) critique the whole concept of paradigms related to research processes; they point out that in their categorical insistence many mixed methods scholars are limited by definitions. Furthermore, they question the use of overarching typologies and the assumptions of mixed methodologists in aligning data collection tools, types of data, and analytic techniques as belonging to a “paradigm.” For Greene (2007) mixed methods research inherently engages with multiple ways of knowing and should respect the generative potential of epistemological contradictions. This position is perhaps pioneering in the traditional research community, much in the same way as including alternate ways of knowing in 72 the curriculum of higher education may be considered either timely or impossible depending on perspective. The paradigm debate within the broader research community may have subsided, particularly in applied fields (Alise & Teddlie, 2010) with mixed methods being relatively accepted as the “third research community” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2009, p. 4). However, within the mixed methods community there is still ambiguity over which mixed methods paradigm drives the rationale for doing mixed methods research. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2009) assert that where qualitative approaches presented a constructivist paradigm that challenged positivist positions, mixed methods is pragmatically oriented and that the choice of mixing methods is relevant in that a researcher’s approach should be to adopt the methods that will best answer the question. Yet not all mixed methods researchers share Tashakkori and Teddlie’s (2009) view that mixed methods is inherently pragmatic. Challenging the pragmatic approach is the dialectical orientation (Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, Perez-Prado, Alacaci, Dwyer, Fine & Pappamihiel, 2003). Where pragmatists propose a purpose driven model and highlight the ability of mixed methods to serve both exploratory and confirmatory purposes, proponents of a dialectical stance emphasize the mixing of multiple perspectives as a more effective way of reflecting social realities (Greene & Caracelli, 2003; Rocco et. al, 2003). Green and Caracelli (2003) argue that “the complexity and pluralism of our contemporary world demand such a commitment” (p. 95). Yet, even within the dialectical camp we find differing interpretations and models (Rocco et. al, 2003). Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2003) present a framework for mixed methods analysis which they claim is a “cyclical research process involving data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and legitimation” (p. 373); yet, their seven stage model of analysis is decidedly linear. In contrast, Maxwell and Loomis (2003) advocate for an interactive model in which five components—purposes, conceptual framework, research questions, methods, and validity— all connect and influence each other within a network. They contend that “the possible legitimate ways of putting together these components are multiple rather than singular and, to a substantial extent, need to be discovered empirically rather than logically deduced” (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003, p. 251). 73 This network web of components is assumed to be valuable in integrating the quantitative and qualitative elements throughout phases of the study. In addition to the pragmatic and dialectical positions is the emergence of a transformative paradigm for mixed methods research (Alise & Teddlie, 2010; Mertens, 2003; 2010; Sweetman, Badiee & Creswell, 2010; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2009). Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) identify four research paradigms: post-postitivist, constructivist, advocacy/participatory, and pragmatism, claiming that their advocacy/participatory is equivalent to what other scholars define as transformative. Mertens (2003) posits a transformative – emancipatory perspective for mixed methods in which “the researcher consciously analyzes asymmetric power relationships, seeks ways to link the results of social inquiry to action, and links the results of the inquiry to wider questions of social inequity and social justice” (p. 140). The ontological assumption for the transformative perspective is that in order to understand the basis for the diversity of perspectives and social realities, phenomena must be understood in relation to power and viewed in terms of cultural, historical, economic, and political systems (Mertens, 2003). Mertens (2007; 2010) advocates for a critical analysis that positions the researcher as a contributor in the resolution of social problems in which the researcher also critically reflects on their own position within the study and interrogates issues such as unearned privileges and giving voice to the participants, not only in terms of data collection but also the conceptualization or design phases particularly when the participant group is culturally complex or traditionally marginalized. Mertens (2003; 2007) explicitly acknowledges the assumptions inherent in the transformative perspective as ontological, epistemological, and methodological admitting that these assumptions present challenges and require a reframing of the approach and analysis. These epistemological and methodological assumptions are most commonly found in transformative mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) and are also most appropriate for a critical study of students’ intercultural and global learning. For Mertens (2007) the issues go beyond the paradigm debate; “I have choices to make that go beyond quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, to how I collect data about the reality of human experiences in such a way that I can feel confident that I have indeed captured that reality” (p. 215). To be sure, all researchers make choices and even the choice to conduct mixed methods research and engage in what Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) 74 refer to as “methodological eclecticism” (p. 5) inevitably involves considerations for design. 4.2.2. Mixed Method Design and Process Perhaps because of the rich variety of designs and conceptualizations of mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) there are several typologies for design, as well as models for the research process. Greene and Caracelli (1997) provide a distinction between two types of designs: component or integrated. Component designs are those in which quantitative and qualitative methods are kept discrete and distinct throughout the study and are used for interpretation and analysis at the end, these include: triangulation, complementarity, and expansion designs. Integrated designs are those in which methods influence each other throughout the design, they include: iterative, embedded, holistic, and transformative. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) and Creswell (2008) provide four commonly used mixed method designs. The first is triangulation, where quantitative and qualitative data are collected separately but concurrently and then merged to interpret findings, the triangulation of data sets thereby strengthening the inferences by offsetting the weaknesses inherent in either method. Second is an embedded design which also collects quantitative and qualitative data sets concurrently, but where one data set merely supports the other primary set. Third is an explanatory design in which the quantitative data informs the development of subsequent qualitative data in a two phase collection and analysis. Fourth is an exploratory design in which qualitative data is collected first and used to build a framework to collect quantitative data that can help explain the initial findings. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) also present four design choices in a celled matrix; however, in two of the cells, they distinguish between designs where the quantitative component or qualitative component is dominant. In this way they subsume Creswell’s exploratory and explanatory into one design format simply inverted by the dominant methodology and also offer sequential designs in which both components are equally weighted. 75 Tashakkori and Teddlie (2009) present a dozen different designs including multistrand, concurrent or sequential, and conversion designs that aim to qualitize quantitative data or quantitize qualitative data. For Tashakkori and Teddlie it is inappropriate to call a function of a study, for example, triangulation or complementarity, a design issue because “the outcomes of a mixed method study come after its design and may differ from the purpose” (p.140, italics in original). Similarly, they also take issue with theoretical or ideological frameworks being included as a design component (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2009). As illustrated by the preceding discussion, there are numerous perspectives within mixed methods scholarship regarding not only ideology but the technical aspects of designing and articulating a study. Although there are a variety of typologies for mixed methods design, most tend to emphasize the sequencing, weighting, and integrating elements of various design choices. These elements related to the present study will be discussed later in this chapter. First a review of the purpose, particulars, and philosophical orientation of this study will be presented in order to situate the design within its specific context. 4.3. Purpose of the Study 4.3.1. Research Questions This study seeks to explore intercultural and global learning within the academic contexts of higher education, and to that end seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What is the difference between the perceived and actual intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? 2. Do student demographics influence perceived and actual scores? Demographic categories include:  student status (domestic or international)  academic discipline: (arts, academic profession, professional school or science)  age  gender  member of ethnic minority  time spent in another culture  institution 76 3. How do students perceive intercultural and global learning? 4. How do students regard curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning? 4.4. Research sites Two regional institutions in different parts of the province were selected in order to determine comparability and therefore generalizability. Both institutions serve predominantly undergraduate populations and have a similar balance of Aboriginal (16 and 12% respectively), international (16 and 13% respectively), and domestic students (AUCC, 2009). In addition, both institutions are situated in smaller cities of between 80,000 to 90,000 residents that have traditionally served predominantly blue collar, culturally dominant populations. These regional institutions are both relatively new as universities, transitioning to full university status within four years of one another; as such both maintain an open admission policy which is not very competitive; therefore allowing students with low academic standing entrance into most programs. Moreover, they offer many of the same degree programs such as Business, Nursing, Social work, Tourism, as well as traditional Arts and Sciences, thus allowing for data between institutions to be compared and combined. 4.5. Design Although Creswell (2008) makes clear that mixed methods inevitably involve more work, the present study nonetheless employed mixed methods for both pragmatic and ideological reasons. This study used a mixed method approach to data collection and analysis in order to “intentionally engage multiple perspectives, diverse ways of knowing and understanding, and varied ways of study and representing human phenomenon” (Greene & Caracelli, 2003, p. 91). Tashakkori and Teddlie (2009) claim that there are three areas where mixed methods are superior to a single approach. First, mixed methods can address a range of exploratory and confirmatory questions, both of which are inherent in the present study. Second, mixed methods can provide stronger inferences through the use of both quantitative and qualitative data. Third, mixed methods provide opportunities for greater variety of divergent views. Given the 77 complexity of the phenomenon under study, it seems reasonable to expect the data sets to both complement and contradict one another, thus generating rich perspectives with which to understand how students perceive their intercultural and global learning, where the IDI instrument places their intercultural development and how the developmental model can be used to interpret their perspectives and comments. A transformative framework (Creswell, 2008; Mertens, 2007, 2010; Sweetman, Badiee, & Creswell, 2010; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) informs this study as it is a goal of this research to promote inclusion, social justice, and democratic principles (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Furthermore, it aligns with transformative research criteria in that it has relevance to diverse communities (Mertens, 2003), openly declares a theoretical lens (critical), and the literature review includes notions of diversity and power (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). This framework is complemented by the theoretical lens of critical pedagogy which promotes democratic dialogue, critical reflection, and praxis since transformative research also supports the involvement of participants during the process, as well as acting upon the results following the analysis (Mertens, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Furthermore, since mixed methods intentionally engages with different epistemologies and ways of knowing (Greene, 2007), the choice to design a transformative mixed methods study complements the critical lens engaged to investigate intercultural and global learning. Since a fundamental principle in selecting mixed methods is to mix the methods in ways that complement each other (Johnson & Turner, 2003) and to integrate the methods in ways that are mutually influential (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003), the research design followed what Greene (2007) has called a blended integrated design. In this design the use of different methods is “to assess varied facets of the same complex phenomenon, representing the mixed methods purpose of complementarity” (p.126). In a blended design methods are implemented concurrently and the integration is intentional at various stages of the study, so that the methods, “samples, instruments, data sets, and analyses may ‘interact’ or ‘have a conversation’ with one another during the conduct of a study” (Greene, 2007, p. 125). As an exploratory mixed method study, the quantitative data was not intended to confirm theory but to be informed by the literature review in order to gather data in regards to the relationships between variables. 78 The design therefore allowed data sets to be collected concurrently and to allow initial impressions and observations from each data set to inform ways of interpreting and thinking about either the quantitative scores and demographic data in relation to the focus group discussion or to observe what was unfolding in the focus groups in light of the numerical data and the DMIS framework which it measured. These reflections were recorded in the researcher’s journal at intervals as surveys were submitted and focus groups were conducted. In this way the data sets did not influence each other directly in the collection of data but influenced the interpretation of the data throughout the analysis and collection phases. 4.5.1. Participants and Sample Size Recruitment of participants involved the researcher gaining permission from third and fourth year instructors to visit classes (See Appendix B: Request to Assist in Recruiting Participants), describe the study to students, and distribute the Invitation to Participate (Appendix A). More than 40 classes were invited between the two campuses; 356 students provided emails and were sent usernames and passwords for the online inventory. A total of 195 participants completed the IDI and seven 50 minute focus groups involving 42 student participants were recorded. Focus Group Consent forms, Protocol, and Questions can be found in Appendices C, D, and F respectively. Although 195 students completed the online survey, two of the four demographic categories of interest were underrepresented by respondents. Only six participants identified as Aboriginal (First Nations, Métis, or Inuit) and only seven participants identified as New Canadian. Nor did any focus group participants choose to identify as either Aboriginal or New Canadian. Although this study sought to explore the impact of intercultural and global learning for these student populations, the data sets were simply not sufficiently large enough to draw any conclusions. Therefore, the data from these two demographics was excluded from the analysis resulting in the data from 178 instruments being included in the final quantitative analysis. Although there are no indicators of percentage of New Canadians at large in either campus' student population, both campuses serve Aboriginal students as close to ten percent of their populations. The small number of respondents may speak to a problem in design—that these student groups were simply not well represented in the academic areas or classes invited. Or 79 the low levels of participation may have to do with more significant cultural preferences. Efforts were made to invite third and fourth year Aboriginal students via Aboriginal Student Services offices without result. It is hoped that future study will consider design and recruitment methods to include these students' perceptions. Unfortunately this dissertation will be unable to make any statements regarding the IDI scores or perceptions of Aboriginal students or New Canadian students. The response rates for submitted surveys were relatively stable across disciplines with the largest proportion representing Academic Professions (Business, Economics, and Tourism) at 33% of total respondents, Arts students representing 21%, Professional Schools (Education, Nursing, and Social Work) 24%, and Science 22% which accurately reflected the proportion of classes invited to participate. This relatively even distribution across the disciplinary categories allowed for an exploration of variability in perceived and direct scores by discipline and by demographic of domestic or international student. A total of 42 participants joined seven 50-minute focus groups. These students represented a variety of academic areas and represented the four disciplinary categories within the study in the following way: Arts, 12 participants; Academic Professions, eight; Professional Schools, 15; Science, seven as illustrated in Table 3. Seven participants (17%) were international students, representing slightly more than either campuses' international student demographic. International students included students from seven different countries including China, France, India, Kenya, Korea, Nigeria, and Sweden. Collectively the participants represented all of the four disciplinary categories identified for this study. All but one focus group had the recommended minimum of six participants (Stewart, Shamdasani & Rook, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2009) and none exceeded eight. 80 Table 3: Breakdown of Focus Group Participant Demographics International (N=7) Domestic (N=35) Male (n=19) 2 17 Female (n=23) 5 17 Arts (n=12) 2 10 Academic Profession (n=8) 3 5 Professional School (n=15) 2 14 Science (n=7) 0 7 4.5.2. Survey Instrument The quantitative data was collected through online completion of the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer, 1999). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is a 50-item online survey that measures intercultural sensitivity. The IDI instructs respondents to answer 50 questions in Likert-style from Disagree, Disagree somewhat more than agree, Disagree some and agree some, Agree more than disagree, and Agree. Prior to beginning the survey, respondents are encouraged to understand “my culture” or “our culture” as the culture group(s) they feel they belong to and “other cultures” or “different cultures” as those to which they feel they do not belong. The instrument is based on Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) which positions orientations moving through ethnocentric to ethnorelative mindsets. The instrument was rigorously developed through a series of interviews and pilots involving hundreds of participants from a variety of cultures (Hammer, 2011; Hammer et al., 2003). At the time of this study, the third version, IDI v.3 is administered by 2400 Qualified Administrators, in twelve languages around the world (IDI, 2012) and is a popular research instrument in the field (Fantini, 2009) as illustrated by the discussion of similar studies earlier in Chapter 2. Several versions of the IDI were refined and tested for reliability and validity; tests included confirmatory factor analysis for reliability of scale results and multiple tests for content and construct validity (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). Version 2 of the instrument was peer reviewed by Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, and DeJaeghere (2003) who conducted a psychometric analysis of the IDI using factor analysis to evaluate whether individual items loaded in a consistent manner with the 81 DMIS stages and found that the first three stages of Denial, Defence (called Polarization in the IDI v.3), Minimization loaded with Cronbach internal reliability coefficients of .80 and above. The remaining two stages measured by the IDI, Acceptance and Adaptation, presented coefficients of .80, thus determining the reliability of the IDI to reasonably measure the first five stages of the DMIS. The IDI measures the five subscales and calculates two final scores: a perceived orientation (PO) where respondents believe their development to be and a direct orientation (DO) where the instrument actually places them. The PO is calculated from all subscale scores using an unweighted formula, where the DO calculation employs a weighted formula. The difference between these scores is called the orientation gap (OG) and indicates the over or underestimation of respondents in their intercultural development. Both PO and DO scores range from 55 to 145 as illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6: Note. IDI scales of measurement Reproduced with permission from Hammer Consulting. In addition to the subscales and overall orientation scores the IDI also measures respondents' level of cultural disengagement from their primary culture group presented as a score between 0 and 5 with scores of 4 or more considered resolved. Along with this continuous data, the IDI also collects categorical data for gender, age, time lived outside of one's own culture, and whether respondents are members of an ethnic minority in their own country. The IDI allows qualified administrators to incorporate additional questions. Two additional questions were included to gain information regarding student demographic and program of study. One question asked participants to identify themselves in one of four categories of student demographic: 1) Aboriginal Student (First Nations, Inuit, or Métis); 2) Domestic Student; 3) New Canadian Student (either born in another country or have at least one parent born in another country); 4) International Student. 82 These demographic categories were chosen as they are common terms used within university settings to differentiate between student groups and institutional services. In particular, teaching and support efforts often differentiate between the needs of international, Aboriginal and domestic students; increasingly new Canadian student needs are being considered. This study sought, in part, to determine whether the intercultural development of students across these demographic populations is equivalent or not. The second question asked participants to identify their academic discipline 1) Arts; 2) Academic Profession (Economics, Business Management, and Tourism); 3) Professional School (Nursing, Education, and Social Work); 4) Science. categories were selected for three reasons. These First, to include as broad a range of program areas as possible and secondly, to represent disciplinary foci common to the two institutions under study and finally, to account for third and fourth year courses being offered at both institutions during the semester in which data was collected. 4.5.3. IDI Data The IDI provides raw scores for each of the Intercultural Continuum's five developmental phases: Denial, Polarization, Minimization, Acceptance, and Adaptation. The IDI also collects information on demographic variables including gender, age, time spent outside of country of origin, and whether respondents represent an ethnic minority. The customized questions included in this study also provided data regarding students' status (international or domestic) and academic discipline. Quantitative data from the IDI was accessed from the IDI website which allowed for the generation of demographic categories and profiles. The raw data was exported to Excel spreadsheets to prepare for statistical analysis in Minitab 4.5.4. Focus groups The qualitative data for this study was provided by upper level students representing a variety of academic disciplines at both research sites. Focus groups were 50 minutes in order to accommodate class schedules and allow ten minutes for students to get to their next class. The data collected comprises both the verbal and written responses of students as well as the researcher's observations of participant 83 interaction (Wilkinson, 2005). The design of this phase of the study was influenced by critical pedagogy and focus group discussions were structured to encourage democratic discussion by allowing each participant to share views, express consensus or dissent, and bring their personal experience and perspective to the process. The design of the qualitative phase was also informed by Denzin and Lincoln's (2005) ideas of the qualitative researcher as bricoleur or quilt maker allowing the process to unfold and the researcher to make choices not only before but during the process of interviewing and analysis. "If the researcher needs to invent, or piece together, new tools or techniques, he or she will do so. Choices regarding which interpretive practices to employ are not necessarily made in advance" (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 4). Focus group discussions were rich and prompted reflexivity on the part of both participants and researcher. Emergent themes were sometimes prompted by other participants' comments or reactions and at other times by additional probes introduced by the researcher. Following each discussion additional notes and researcher reflections were recorded allowing for the subsequent analysis to include an interpretive aspect in which the researcher recognizes their interpretation as part of the process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Mertons, 2007). Each 50 minute session allowed for a minimum of five of the above questions to be addressed in detail and in some groups responses to one topic overlapped and provided answers to questions not yet asked. The focus group design was well suited to the study purpose and was complemented by a critical pedagogy framework that allowed for a variety of perspectives and experiences to enter a dialogue about how students perceive their learning environment. It was within this flexible and democratic milieu that rich data emerged, data both important independently as well as in conjunction with the IDI data. 4.6. Data Collection Two data sets were collected concurrently between the months of March and May 2012. Focus groups were recorded on two campuses and supplemented by researcher notes. Survey data was collected through the use of an established research instrument (Paige et. al, 1993), the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). 84 4.6.1. IDI Data Participants were personally invited by the researcher during five minute introductions to the study conducted during regular class time with permission of their instructor. Participants self-selected by providing their email address as willingness to participate in two separate places on a provided form: once for interest in completing the IDI online and a second time for interest in a focus group. Participants were able to decline, select one or both forms of participation. The course instructor collected the completed pages in an envelope and later returned it to the researcher. Participants that provided email contacts to complete the IDI were individually emailed passwords and usernames to anonymously access the online survey. The email script indicated that by submitting their answers at the end of the survey they agreed to the use of the data. The email script is provided in Appendix G, Email Script. Emails containing usernames and passwords were deleted once surveys were submitted. The IDI data is housed on an American website and discussion with the provider concluded that in order to use the instrument, the data would need to be temporarily housed in the US and therefore subject to the Patriot Act. Although the survey data was temporarily stored in the United States, no personal identifiers were included; therefore mitigating any confidentiality risk to individual participants should the data be accessed in any way not permitted in Canada. Participants were informed of this risk in the Invitation to Participate (Appendix A). 4.6.2. Focus Group Data Participants who provided email contacts to join in a focus group were sent a schedule for their campus and invited to select a time that best suited their schedule. Participants signed consent forms at the start of each session and were read a protocol to set the ground rules for anonymity and inclusion, see Appendices E and F respectively. In addition to providing protocol prior to the beginning of each focus group discussion, participants were also advised that the structure of the discussion was meant to be fluid and that they did not need to answer each question in turn but should feel free to comment on or question other participant's comments. They were told that the researcher had some guiding questions to begin the discussion or bring it back on track 85 in terms of the research but that their interpretations and perspectives on the topic were valued above all. Focus group discussions all followed a design involving both written and verbal responses. Each session began with introductions in which participants were asked to provide a name for the session, their major and what they hoped to do when they graduate. This was followed by the collection of written responses to the following queries: • Write the numbers one to five and then write the first five words or phrases that come to your mind when I say the word "culture". • Write words or phrases that describe what "intercultural learning" means to you. • Write words or phrases that describe what "global learning" means to you. These written responses were then collected and I explained that from the perspective of the research, and the forthcoming questions, intercultural learning entailed learning from one another across cultures and learning about cultures, including our own; and that global learning might include intercultural learning but was broader in the sense that it could include histories and systems including, but not exclusively, things like economics, politics, and power. Although the direction of focus group discussion was intentionally flexible and allowed for participants to share personal experiences or comment on other participants' comments or stories, the discussion of each focus group was guided by six core questions: 1. Why is intercultural and global learning important - or not - for today's students? 2. In what ways has your program provided you with intercultural and global learning opportunities? 3. Are there opportunities in your program to you to learn from each other? (In classes where a variety of cultural perspectives or practices are represented within the student composition) 4. How do your instructors influence intercultural and global learning? 5. Do you think your program has prepared you to effectively participate in a multicultural and global environment? 86 6. How could universities improve intercultural and global learning opportunities? Or is it all good now? The questions were used as a framework to keep discussions similar to one another, as well as to reign in discussions that had gone too far afield of the researcher's interests. The questions provided a way to keep on track, yet were supplemented by participants being encouraged to respond to others' comments or in numerous cases when comments necessitated further probing questions from the researcher. Some of these probes were the result of what Greene (2007) discusses as the interaction between methodologies and paradigms. At times the probes were influenced by a critical lens and at other times by preliminary scans of the quantitative data. Initial reviews of the IDI data, as well as professional and scholarly experience with the DMIS model, allowed for some probing questions to illuminate participants' developmental orientation which in turn created avenues to observe reactions to comments by other participants with potentially similar or different orientations. Data collected from the IDI provided quantitative scores that allowed for both descriptive data regarding intercultural development for domestic and international students as well as by academic discipline. This data could also be explored for potential predictors of scores. Data collected through focus groups provided more depth to score results and possible predictors and also allowed exploration of students' perceptions. Both the quantitative and qualitative data provided rich data sets that could be analyzed in a variety of ways. Choices and procedures regarding analysis are discussed in the next sections. 4.7. Analytic Plan 4.7.1. Quantitative Descriptive statistics provided an overall profile of test scores including range and distribution. Seemingly large differences in PO and DO scores were subsequently run in a paired t-test to determine statistical significance. In order to explore variances in IDI scores across the various demographics involved in this study, as well as potential influences of interactions between demographic factors, univariate analyses of variance 87 using the General Linear Model (GLM) were conducted. P levels were set for 95% confidence. An ANOVA design allowed for testing of variance both within groups and between groups to determine if differences between groups were significant. Main effects for seven factors on each dependent variable (IDI test scores) were determined by F-ratios. Interactions were included in subsequent models to test for how variables in combination influenced variance in group means. Unfortunately, the model was unable to test for interactions due to unequal cell sizes across the seven independent variables. Data analysis was carried out in Mintab using the GLM to perform univariate analyses of variance for each of the three dependent variables with the independent variables entered successively. In Minitab these calculations are done using a regression approach in which Mintab creates a design matrix of all factors and each response variable is regressed on the columns of the matrix (Minitab, 2000). Factors were effect coded across levels with the control or contrast level coded as -1, the level under consideration coded as +1, and all other levels coded as 0. With effect coding the intercept is equal to the grand mean and is therefore more effective for analysis of variance than dummy coding to 0 or 1 where the intercept is equal to the mean of the comparison group (Abdi, 2010). Running a factorial ANOVA would not have been possible due to uneven cell sizes exacerbated by the number of variables. However, running ANOVA in the GLM can accommodate unbalanced designs (Grafen & Hails, 2008; Minitab, 2000). Testing procedures were carried out in Minitab which offers GLM and a variety of tests where means can be compared using multiple comparisons. The Tukey-Kramer test was selected for pariwise comparisons. Of the eight independent variables, seven were categorical in nature as shown in Table 4 below, which explains the use of each variable and scale of measurement. One continuous independent variable was provided by the IDI scores for Cultural Disengagement (CD) measured on an interval scale of 1-5. The seven categorical variables were numerically coded and entered successively into the model with the CD scores entered as covariate. Finally, Tukey-Kramer procedures with p < .05 were carried out for pairwise comparisons of variables with more than one factor to both correct for potential Type 1 errors as a result of multiple comparisons and to identify patterns between subgroups not directly tested through ANOVA. 88 Table 4: Quantitative Variables Variables Explanation Response Variables Independent Variables Scale PO: Perceived Score Ratio 55.0-145.0 DO: Direct Score Ratio 55.0-145.0 OG: Orientation Gap Ratio 0.0 - 90.0 Student Status (Domestic / International) Nominal - 2 levels Discipline (Arts/Academic Profession/Professional School/Science) Nominal - 4 levels Institution (University A or B) Nominal - 2 levels Gender (Male or Female) Nominal - 2 levels Age (<22/ 22-30/>30) Nominal - 3 levels Time spent abroad (Never/ <1 year/ 1-5 years/ > 5 years) Nominal - 4 levels Ethnic minority (yes or majority) Nominal - 2 levels ANOVA model Covariate CD: Cultural Disengagement Interval - 5 levels Procedures: Descriptive • Descriptive statistics summarized the sample population in terms of overall size, mean scores, distribution, and frequency of scores.  Calculate means for each dependent variables (PO, DO, and OG scores) for each of the demographic variables  Calculate range and distribution for dependent variables (PO, DO, and OG scores) for demographic, disciplinary, and institutional groups  Run paired T-test to determine significance of OG scores Procedures: Inferential • Run paired, one tailed t-test on PO and DO scores • Run univariate ANOVAs in GLM • Run pairwise comparisons using Tukey-Kramer Inferential statistical analysis through the GLM allowed for a better understanding of which variables were related to mean IDI scores and pairwise comparisons further confirmed the degree and direction of influence. Thus the quantitative data analysis satisfied the first two research questions: 1. What is the difference between the perceived and actual intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? 89 2. Do student demographics influence perceived and actual scores? The qualitative analysis attempted to bring clarity to the third and fourth questions: 3. How do students perceive intercultural and global learning? 4. How do students regard curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning? These questions were addressed through focus group discussions which yielded a rich data set. The analytic procedures for the qualitative data are detailed next. 4.7.2. Qualitative Although focus groups have long been part of both market and social science research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech & Zoran, 2011; Reed & Payton, 1997), the literature provides much more about how to conduct focus groups than how to analyze the data (Onwuegbuzie et. al, 2011). The analysis in this study included both classical analysis and interpretive (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) and transformative (Mertons, 2007; 2010) lenses influenced by a critical and reflective stance (Shoorman & Bogtoch, 2010). All focus group recordings were transcribed and analyzed using classical content analysis in which content was coded into units and grouped according to categories in order to make valid inferences from the text in context (Krippendorf, 2004). The written responses collected at the start of each session were analyzed using key words-incontext (Onwuegbuzie et. al, 2011) in order to analyze the culture of the use of the word amongst participants. Key words were analyzed using Nvivo software according to both frequency across participants, as well as grouped thematically to assess commonalities or differences in participants’ understandings of the terms “culture,” “intercultural learning,” and “global learning”. The analysis of focus group data involved both textual analysis of transcripts and written interpretations from each participant but was not limited to thematic coding. In addition to classic content analysis and key words-in-context (Onwuegbuzie et. al, 2011), analysis also employed dialectical inquiry that paid close attention not only to the content of what was said, but the tone in which it was said and the reaction and 90 interaction of other participants (Wilkinson, 2005). In the view of Onwuegbuzie et al. (2005) although transcript or text based analysis may be the most rigorous analysis, analyzing the degree of consensus and dissent can increase validity. Analysis of the focus group data generated themes related to the globalization, global citizenship, and cosmopolitanism literature reviewed in Chapter 2; as well as the findings from intercultural and global learning studies reviewed in Chapter 3. Bennett's (1986; 1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and Deardorff's (2006; 2009) Process Model were also influential in the final analysis. How participant comments reflected DMIS mindsets representing the developmental stages was explored looking for commonalities and divergences within each focus group and the data set as a whole; particularly keeping in mind the reality that participants had selfselected and may perceive themselves as interculturally developed. Deardorff's model aided interpretation of the qualitative data in terms of students' comments as perceiving intercultural learning as involving attitudes or knowledge and whether they discussed or demonstrated internal or external intercultural learning outcomes. The written responses and the first discussion question were intended to provide data regarding student perceptions of intercultural and global learning. Questions 2 to 5 were posed to explore students’ perceptions of how pedagogy and curriculum may or may not influence intercultural and global learning and Question 6 asked for participants' opinions on how universities might improve opportunities for intercultural and global learning. The discussions resulted in the emergence of both expected and unexpected themes. Table 5 illustrates emergent themes coded in NVivo. 91 Table 5: Qualitative Themes Emergent Themes Sub-Themes Focus Group Question Q1: Why, or why not, is intercultural and global learning important for today's students? Q5: Do you think you've been prepared to thrive in a multicultural and global environment? Written responses to: What does global learning mean to you? Global Learning Confusion Resignation Competition Global Citizenship Q1: Why, or why not, is intercultural and global learning important for today's Intercultural Learning students? Segregation Written responses to word "culture" and What does intercultural learning mean to Tensions you? Avoidance Q2: In what ways has your program provided you with intercultural and global learning opportunities? Q 3: Are there opportunities for you to learn from each other? Q 4: How do your instructors influence intercultural and global learning? Q5: Do you think you've been prepared to thrive in a multicultural and global environment? Q6: How could universities improve intercultural and global learning opportunities? Or is it all good now? Curriculum & Pedagogy Surface Capacity Multiculturalism Finally, the results of the quantitative and qualitative data sets were examined in conjunction to explore how what was said, how it was said, and what was not said might relate to the intercultural development scores of upper level students and their preparedness to live and work in a multicultural and globalized environment. The results of the analysis are presented in the following two chapters: Chapter 5 will discuss the results of the quantitative analysis and Chapter 6 will discuss the results of the qualitative analysis and conclude by linking the two data sets. Chapter 7 will discuss the educational implications of the quantitative and qualitative findings together and make recommendations for further research. 4.8. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study The most obvious limitation of this study is that while it may measure the intercultural development of students studying upper level courses and students’ 92 perceptions of intercultural and global learning in academic settings, it does not ensure that their development or perceptions are the result of academic experiences. It is possible that participants’ development and/or perceptions were influenced by previously held predispositions or experiences. A longitudinal study ranging from first year to fourth year may remedy this limitation, yet it was not within the scope of this inquiry to conduct a study over the course of several years. An additional limitation is that the study only addresses the intercultural development and perceptions of intercultural and global learning of students studying at two regional universities, while this may provide data generalizable to similar populations; it will not be generalizable across populations in urban centres or other demographic contexts. Another critical limitation, which may also be viewed as delimitation, was the lack of access or ability to recruit certain populations of students to participate in the study. As a limitation this was the result of funding both to purchase additional instruments at $11.00 US each as well as to continue data collection over an additional two semesters, ultimately setting the completion of the program back significantly. As delimitation, perhaps enhanced pre-planning and intentional targeting of specific populations could have remedied the respondent imbalance to some degree. An additional limitation was inadvertently created by the complexity of the statistical design. A simpler design with fewer independent variables may have allowed for an understanding of how the interaction effects may or may not have been related to the IDI scores. Due to the unbalanced cell sizes obtained in this sample, it was not possible to gain deeper understanding of how interactions between variables may influence intercultural development scores. An obvious delimitation is that the approach to recruiting participants was entirely through self-selection and therefore the participants under study may have been inclined toward an interest in intercultural or global learning. Therefore, the results represent what may be the higher end of the larger student populations’ developmental orientations and perceptions of intercultural and global learning in academic settings. It is also possible that the philosophical and theoretical position of the study posed delimitations in terms of researcher bias. Although efforts were made to interrogate these biases (Shoorman & Bogotch, 2010) and to reflect on position and power in both conducting the study and analyzing the results (Mertens, 2007), as well as transparently 93 presenting the critical lens and transformative framework, it is possible that the results of the study may be viewed by some readers as biased regardless of efforts to maintain objectivity. The following chapters detailing the analysis procedures and process may help to mitigate this impression. 94 5. Influences on Level of Intercultural Development This chapter will present the analysis and findings of the quantitative data collected through the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) in order to answer the first and second research questions: 1. What is the difference between the perceived and actual intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? 2. Do student demographics influence perceived and actual scores? Research Question 1 was answered through descriptive statistics of overall perceived and actual scores of the sample as measured by the IDI, and statistical significance was confirmed through a paired t-test. Research Question 2 was answered through inferential statistics by running univariate analyses of variance. One hundred and seventy nine IDI instruments provided the data for the full profile of upper level students at two regional institutions in British Columbia. Three intercultural development scores were measured by the IDI: perceived orientation (PO), developmental orientation (DO), and orientation gap (OG). First the descriptive statistics are presented along with t-test results that confirm statistical significance; next each demographic variable will be presented in detail, including the results of the ANOVA run in the GLM and appropriate descriptive statistics. Variables with statistically significant results at a 95% confidence rate and more than two factors were also analyzed using Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparisons to confirm the direction of the significance found in ANOVA. Finally a short summary of the findings will set the stage for Chapter 6 where the qualitative focus group data will enhance understanding of what the statistical findings tell us. 95 5.1. Full Sample 5.1.1. Descriptive Statistics Figure 6 illustrates the range and percentages of DO scores. This distribution is both unbalanced and slightly skewed toward the lower developmental stages of the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC). In this sample 59.2% place in Minimization or the cusp of Minimization, 15.2% place in Acceptance or on the cusp of Acceptance, and 25.7% place within the ethnocentric stages of either Denial or Polarization. Figure 7: Note. Percentage of Full Sample DO Reproduced with permission from Hammer Consulting. To analyze the difference between the actual (DO) scores and the perceived (PO) scores, a comparison of the two was calculated through the orientation gap (OG). The PO and DO scores represent respondents’ positions within the five developmental stages on the IDC, where the OG scores indicate the degree of under or overestimation by measuring the difference between the perceived and actual scores. Table 6 provides a summary of the full sample scores. Table 6: Full Sample Summary Scores, N=178 Min Max Mean sd PO (55.0-145.0) 107.87 133.45 120.36 5.61701 DO (55.0-145.0) 52.2 125.36 91.77 14.70331 OG 6.66 56.74 28.59 9.620673 96 The difference between perceived and actual intercultural development for this sample was 28.59 points on the IDC. A difference of seven points is considered an overestimation by the instruments' developers (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). Each developmental phase comprises 15 points; therefore the difference in this sample is close to two full developmental phases. The range of OG scores indicates that almost all respondents overestimated their intercultural development and some overestimated by almost four developmental phases at 56.74 points. 5.1.2. T-test Results In order to confirm the statistical significance of differences in PO and DO means, a paired, one tailed t-test was conducted, confidence was set to p<0.05. The results were significant: t(177)= 39.57, p=<.01 5.2. ANOVA Results 5.2.1. Demographic Variables Standard to the IDI Gender Tables 7a, 7b, and 7c show the relevant descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for gender for the dependent variables PO, DO, and OG respectively. Table 7a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Gender PO Descriptive Min Max Mean sd PO (55.0-145.0) Female (n=127) 109.99 133.42 121.11 5.346313 Male (n=51) 107.87 133.45 118.48 6.006201 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Gender PO 1 89.14 3.28 0.072 97 Table 7b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Gender DO Descriptive Min Max Mean sd DO (55.0-145.0) Female (n=127) 57.32 125.36 93.44 14.04524 Male (n=51) 52.2 116.82 87.16068 15.03943 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Gender DO 1 676.7 3.65 0.058 Table 7c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Gender OG Descriptive Min Max Mean sd OG Female (n=127) 6.66 52.67 27.38 9.21814 OG Male (n=51) 16.01 56.74 31.87 9.911577 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Gender OG 1 274.63 3.48 0.064 ANOVA results do not meet the 95% confidence level. Only the DO scores are close to, but do not meet, the set confidence level of p<0.05. This study did not find gender to be a statistically significant factor associated with intercultural development. Age Tables 8a, 8b, and 8c show the relevant descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for age for the dependent variables PO, DO, and OG respectively. Table 8a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Age PO Descriptive PO Mean sd 18-21 (n=109) 120.57 5.71 22-30 (n=59) 120.09 5.709 30+ (n=19) 121.42 4.90 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Age PO 2 52.56 0.97 0.383 98 Table 8b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Age DO Descriptive DO Mean sd 18-21 (n=109) 93.35 14.139 22-30 (n=59) 90.75 15.041 30+ (n=19) 93.46 14.440 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Age DO 2 173.3 0.47 0.628 Table 8c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Age OG Descriptive OG Mean sd 18-21 (n=109) 27.21 8.867 22-30 (n=59) 29.34 9.910 30+ (n=19) 27.96 9.918 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Age OG 2 173.3 0.47 0.628 ANOVA results do not meet the 95% confidence level of p<0.05. This study did not find age to be a statistically significant factor influencing intercultural development. Time Spent Abroad Tables 9a, 9b, and 9c show the relevant descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for time spent abroad. Table 9a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Time Spent Abroad PO Descriptive PO Mean sd Never (n=71) 120.08 5.638 Less than 1 year (n=63) 120.68 6.063 1-5 years (n=34) 120.27 5.102 6 or more years (n=9) 120.80 4.487 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Time PO 3 98.49 1.21 0.309 99 Table 9b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Time Spent Abroad DO Descriptive DO Mean sd Never (n=71) 92.72 14.379 Less than 1 year (n=63) 91.85 14.792 1-5 years (n=34) 90.50 15.682 6 or more years (n=9) 88.90 14.315 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Time DO 3 142.2 0.26 0.857 Table 9c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Time Spent Abroad OG Descriptive OG Mean sd Never (n=71) 27.36 9.155 Less than 1 year (n=63) 28.83 9.219 1-5 years (n=34) 29.76 10.965 6 or more years (n=9) 31.90 10.422 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Time OG 3 5.06 0.02 0.996 Therefore, along with age and gender, time spent abroad was not found to be a significant influence on intercultural development. Ethnic Minority Tables 10a, 10b, and 10c show the relevant descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for ethnic minority. Table 10a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Ethnic Minority PO Descriptive PO Mean sd Ethnic Minority (n=18) 122.64 6.034 Non-Minority (n=160) 120.12 5.537 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value EM PO 1 38.37 1.41 0.237 100 Table 10b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Ethnic Minority DO Descriptive DO Mean sd Ethnic Minority (n=18) 93.93 15.987 Non-Minority (n=160) 91.55 14.597 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value EM DO 1 20.3 0.11 0.741 Table 10c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Ethnic Minority OG Descriptive OG Mean sd Ethnic Minority (n=18) 28.70 10.258 Non-Minority (n=160) 28.58 9.584 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value EM OG 1 2.85 0.04 0.850 Being a member of an ethnic minority was not found to be a significant influence on intercultural development scores. In conclusion, none of the demographic variables standard to the IDI was found to be statistically significant through Analysis of Variance tests. The next section will similarly describe the results of the demographic variables unique to this study: institution, student status, and academic discipline. 5.2.2. Demographic Variables Unique to this Study Institution Tables11a, 11b, and 11c show the relevant descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for institution for the dependent variables PO, DO, and OG respectively. Table 11a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Institution PO Descriptive PO Min Max Mean sd Institution A (n=147) 107.87 133.45 120.48 5.709455 Institution B (n=41) 109.29 130.19 119.26 5.332378 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Institution PO 1 2.11 0.08 0.781 101 Table 11b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Institution DO Descriptive DO Min Max Mean sd Institution A (n=147) 52.2 125.36 92.19 14.72334 Institution B (n=41) 57.32 116.02 90.3335 14.72718 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Institution DO 1 0.0 0.00 1.000 Table 11c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Institution OG Descriptive OG Min Max Mean sd Institution A (n=147) 6.66 56.74 28.29 9.567577 Institution B (n=41) 12.38 52.67 29.6245 9.854918 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Institution OG 1 2.09 0.03 0.871 The ANOVA results found no significant differences between institutions; therefore, the institution respondents attended was not influential in their intercultural development scores. Academic Discipline Tables12a, 12b, and 12c show the relevant descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for academic discipline for the dependent variables PO, DO and OG respectively. Table 12a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Academic Discipline PO Descriptive PO Arts (n=37) Min Max sd 133.42 Mean 119.92 108.88 Academic Prof (n=61) 107.7 133.5 120.20 6.186 Prof. Schools (n=37) 111.28 133.42 122.76 0.804 Science (n=43) 108.88 130.1 118.07 4.692 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Discipline PO 3 360.54 4.42 0.005 102 4.716 Table 12b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Academic Discipline DO Descriptive DO Min Max Mean sd Arts (n=37) 64.2 125.36 91.50 12.189 52.2 116.82 89.03 16.44 66.51 125.6 98.60 14.345 Science (n=43) 64.2 113.04 87.95 14.37 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Discipline DO 3 1886.4 3.39 0.019 Academic Prof (n=61) Prof. Schools (n=37) Table 12c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Academic Discipline OG Descriptive OG Min Max Mean sd Arts (n=37) 11.17 52.67 28.41 8.661 Academic Prof (n=61) 7.62 56.74 31.18 10.69 Prof. Schools (n=37) 6.66 47.47 24.16 9.431 Science (n=43) 16.44 45.09 30.18 7.775 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Discipline OG 3 658.67 2.78 0.043 Analysis of Variance tests found academic discipline to be a statistically significant influence on intercultural development scores as measured by the IDI. For all three dependent variables p values were less than 0.05 as illustrated in Tables 12a, 12b, and 12c. Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparisons run at a 95% confidence level confirmed the ANOVA results and found two disciplines; Professional Schools and Science had significantly different PO, DO, and OG means. Being a student in a Professional School influenced an increase in both perceived and developmental scores and decreased the overestimation (OG scores). Being a Science student influenced a decrease in both perceived and developmental scores and increased the overestimation (OG scores). No other factors tested as significant in the Tukey tests for academic discipline. Student Status Tables13a, 13b, and 13c show the relevant descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for academic discipline for the dependent variables PO, DO, and OG respectively. 103 Table 13a: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Student Status PO Descriptive PO Min Max Mean sd International PO (n=41) 107.87 133.85 118.16 6.043597 Domestic PO (n=137) 108.88 133.42 120.76 5.462981 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Status PO 1 178.19 6.55 0.011 Table 13b: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Student Status DO Descriptive DO Min Max Mean sd International DO (n=41) 52.2 116.82 85.51 15.91759 Domestic DO (n=137) 64.2 125.36 93.43 13.82425 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Status DO 1 1933.9 10.43 0.001 Table 13c: Statistics and ANOVA Results for Student Status OG Descriptive OG Min Max Mean sd International OG (n=41) 16.63 56.74 35.65 1.847894 Domestic OG (n=137) 6.66 46.15 27.38 .072855 ANOVA df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Status OG 1 937.99 11.89 0.001 ANOVA test results confirm that the differences in scores are due to between groups differences in all three dependent variables. Being a domestic student significantly increased PO and DO scores and decreased the overestimation (OG scores); whereas, being an international student significantly decreased PO and DO scores and increased the overestimation (OG scores). 5.3. Summary of Analyses Participants significantly overestimated their level of intercultural development. The results of the paired t-test confirmed significance at p=<.01. Multiple univariate ANOVAs found statistically significant variation of means for all three response variables 104 by two demographic variables unique to this study: student status and academic discipline. Domestic student scores were significantly higher for both PO and DO showing that domestic students both perceived their development to be higher on the IDC and that their development actually was higher on the IDC. International students had higher OG scores indicating that they overestimate their development to a higher degree than do domestic students. The ANOVA results also indicated that academic discipline was statistically significant. Being a student in a Professional School influenced an increase in both perceived and developmental orientation scores. Posthoc pairwise comparisons confirmed this also indicating that being a Science student influenced a decrease in the same scores. OG scores were also significant for these two disciplines with Science displaying the largest overestimation of development and Professional Schools the smallest. Neither Academic Profession nor Arts were found to be statistically significant influences on any of the response variables. Descriptive statistics provided mean DO scores indicating that the population under study was primarily in the transition stage of Minimization; yet broad score sets indicated a range across all developmental phases. The high OG scores confirmed that the majority of the population overestimated their development; the significance of this overestimation was confirmed by a paired t-test. Understanding the overall scores of the population and the significant demographic factors allowed for a more nuanced analysis of the focus group discussions. The focus group data illuminates a number of themes that taken together with the quantitative scores may help guide educators toward enhancing intercultural and global learning. The qualitative findings are discussed next in Chapter 6. 105 6. Perceptions of Intercultural and Global Learning A total of seven focus group discussions involving 42 students were held on the campuses of two regional universities in British Columbia during the spring semester of 2012, with three sessions at university A and four at university B. As illustrated in Chapter 4 Table 3, participants represented a mix of international and domestic students, males and females, as well as the four academic disciplines identified for this study. Of course, the specific makeup of each focus group influenced the direction of each discussion; however, consistency across groups was maintained by the use of six semi-structured questions: Why is intercultural and global learning important - or not - for today's students? 1. In what ways has your program provided you with intercultural and global learning opportunities? 2. Are there opportunities in your program to you to learn from each other? (In classes where a variety of cultural perspectives or practices are represented within the student composition) 3. How do your instructors influence intercultural and global learning? 4. Do you think your program has prepared you to effectively participate in a multicultural and global environment? 5. How could universities improve intercultural and global learning opportunities? Or is it all good now? As discussed in Chapter 4, the analysis of focus group data involved both written and spoken responses. The analysis involved both content and thematic analysis. 3. How do students perceive intercultural and global learning? 4. How do students regard curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning? 106 Analysis of participants' discussion across all seven groups revealed a number of themes which emerged across two or more groups. These themes were divided into three overarching themes: Global Learning, Intercultural Learning, and the Influence of Curriculum and Pedagogy. Under each of these main areas several specific themes were identified. Participant quotes are followed by the focus group number in order to illustrate the synergies between all seven focus groups. The next section will illustrate participant perceptions of the importance of intercultural and global learning, followed by three sections which will address each overarching theme through analysis of the specific themes. 6.1. Global Learning The first question posed to all focus group participants asked them to express their perceptions of the importance of intercultural and global learning for today's students. As this entire section will demonstrate, participants continually related global learning to the processes of globalization. In considering the importance of this learning, participants linked the need to living in a global environment whether for professional, personal, or social reasons. The first set of comments illustrates the need as linked to globalization: The world is a lot smaller now so you are going to come into contact with other cultures a lot more than you would have 20 years ago. (FG3) We live in a globalized world and although there's always been intercultural exchange, there is more today... more in that we are coming face to face with other cultures but also we're seeing more cultures in our daily existence. (FG5) The world is shrinking. You are coming into contact with other people and other cultures. Like the internet and things like that make it really easy to be in contact with people from other cultural expectations. (FG6) Others felt that intercultural and global learning was critical to their professional development as the following comments demonstrate: For future employment, nowadays students and future workers must be more flexible more versatile. Well it depends on the career but I think we have less opportunity to work with the same career, the 107 same company for all your life. You have to be adaptable, with crisis and new technologies things adapt very so fast people are obliged to adapt. It is good to learn and know many different languages, to be in contact with different cultures. (FG6) When you are teaching students who are coming from another culture it is really important that the other students in the class know maybe a little bit about their culture. (FG2) I think it's inevitable that we are going to work with people from other cultures, other countries no matter what. You can't go anywhere without meeting someone who was not raised the same way as you were. (FG4) Some participants underlined the personal growth that comes with intercultural and global learning: In learning about culture, we learn about ourselves and by understanding ourselves better we can understand other people better and so it's a big circle. (FG3) I think it's very healthy for people to realize that there are other ways of thinking; I think it expands what you know and how you are able to think. (FG2) I want to know what is going on in the world. isolated and have blinders on. (FG1) I don't want to be Finally one student made it clear that in his opinion universities need to position students to succeed in the global context: Globalization is an imperative topic that has to be taught. Nowadays we seem to be trained to be workers rather than movers or owners. If we want to have that social capital that universities used to bring to us, that's an easy way to do that to give us a competitive advantage. (FG3) This section has illustrated participants’ perceptions of the value of intercultural and global learning for personal, professional, and social development. It also begins to demonstrate the prominent perception of globalization as a key factor in the importance of global learning, as the next section will detail. 108 6.2. Global Learning and Globalization Both the focus group questions, as well as participants' written responses to what "global learning" meant to them, revealed four specific themes: Confusion regarding global learning with globalization in general, passive resignation in the face of globalization, competition as a necessary strategy to cope with global realities, and a sense of the impact of globalization coupled with a naive understanding of global citizenship. Some participants claimed to have academic backgrounds that would allow for a complex understanding of global issues, as illustrated in the following comments: We've beat globalization to death... over and over. (FG5) We are inundated by a global mindset. (FG2) However, in the majority of the discussions there was a lack of clearly articulated understanding about global issues as the following sections will illustrate. 6.2.1. Confusion Confusion in conceptualizing global learning was evident in each of the focus groups. First, participants' written responses revealed what global learning meant to them. Several participants did not differentiate between intercultural and global learning. Although global learning clearly may involve intercultural learning, participants submitted understandings of global learning that were limited to intercultural experiences. For example, "not being ethnocentric," "coming to understand each other," "learning about the world's many cultures," "new perspectives" were typical of many of the responses submitted for global learning that were replicated in typical responses for intercultural learning. One response was "similar to intercultural learning but through a larger lens." The main theme that surfaced through both the written responses and the actual discussions was the conceptualization of global learning as linked to globalization. This was viewed from both negative and positive perspectives. For some participants global learning was akin to "corporatization" or "homogenization"; whereas, others illustrated a somewhat naive understanding of a unified global order without acknowledgement of inherent structures of power and privilege with responses such as: "learning about all cultures as one unit," "knowledge about people as a global community," "stuff that is 109 globally taught or shared across the world," or "knowledge that applies globally, things that all cultures know." This perfunctory understanding was further evidenced in the discussions where participants grappled with conceptualizing global learning in relation to the discussion questions. Numerous times phrases such as "the world is shrinking" or "the world is smaller nowadays" were used and generally accepted or agreed upon by other participants as if these statements were simply facts. Moreover, when the discussion went deeper into what globalization represented, some participants were unable to articulate their views as the faltering statement below illustrates: Just the idea that globalization is so... people are traveling more, business is more and more international. (FG7) In some cases, participants questioned the process of globalization and the role of the West. For the most part, these discussions framed the West as patronizing; yet, did not interrogate this understanding from other perspectives, as the following quotes indicate: Is globalization more the process of our understanding of the world being pushed upon the world? Or is it a formation of an integrated understanding of the world? Is it just us vomiting out our own thoughts or are we integrating are we adapting? (FG2) I'd have to say that the Western idea of integration is just westernizing the rest of the planet. (FG2) Although there was some degree of acknowledgement of power differentials on a global scale, none of the discussions evidenced deep academic investigation of global inequities or imbalances. One participant discussed how her program had contributed to her confusion: The first two years of the program is really about minimizing our culture and we learn about how much destruction there is in the world. And every class everyone leaves feeling depressed and ashamed and guilty of who we are. (FG3) Several participants expressed concerns regarding the effects of globalization, reflected in statements such as the following: 110 I keep thinking about homogenization — homogenization of culture. How international trade and the corporate force has transformed everyone's lives. (FG1) It's related to corporatization at a basic level. I believe that is the core behind it. (FG2) We are moving so fast almost like an exponential curve, that a lot of civilizations around the world haven't seen this type of corporatocracy that's being pushed on the world and are rebelling with terrorism etc. (FG2) Other participants discussed whether globalization resulted in a "flat" or "spiky" world with some disagreement about the process being beneficial or not; however, these discussions rarely articulated in-depth reasoning. As captured in these comments: We are contacting people from all over the world on social media. In politics - countries are getting more and more involved in each other’s' affairs, whether that's a good or bad thing. (FG 3) I would actually disagree with you and say that the state of globalization is going toward complete collapse. (FG 6) An underlying tone to most of the globalization discussions that may have influenced the general lack of cultivated global understanding was the inevitability factor which will be discussed next. 6.2.2. Resigned Passivity The resigned attitudes of participants to globalization were evident in most of the discussions. The "shrinking world" rhetoric was coupled with a consistent sense of inevitability, illustrated in the following comments: We live in a globalized world. (FG4) I think that globalization is part of our reality like it or not. (FG5) I mean it is a globalized world and we are connected in so many ways to different countries. (FG2) I definitely think the way the world is today if you don't have knowledge on a global level you are going to get stuck and confined to what you do know about...everything is global now, The way you communicate, how you communicate, business - everything is global now. (FG5) 111 Some participants tied the inevitability of globalization to the dizzying pace of technological advances and the cyber connectedness of people around the globe. Other comments addressed the pace of change more generally with some participants suggesting a lack of agency on the part of young people to be actors in the process. The sense of globalization as a destined truth was captured nicely by one participant who referred to himself and his peers as the "globalization generation" which none of the other participants questioned or even reacted to. The globalization generation has challenges to face. Their perception is that they are confronted with both global issues and global competition as their reality, as the next two sections will demonstrate. 6.2.3. Global Competition In all but one discussion the notion of global competition arose. Some participants framed globalization in terms of global flows of resources or products; whereas, others discussed the competitive aspect as more of a personal challenge in terms of their own futures. Most participants framed the competitive aspects in market terms as the following quotes illustrate: We need each other’s natural resources. What they have on the other side of the world, we don't have here and vice-versa. (FG2) The economics of it mean we are really not able to compete, so we need to realize that and find the place where we can specialize and not just do the same old same old. It's a smaller world and it's not necessarily going to work anymore. (FG7) The problem is that in the global market we have an infinite number of other cultures and other shared assumptions that we are going to be dealing with so how do we decide what we are going to invest in? It is a difficult assessment. (FG3) Other participants pragmatically framed the need to understand the "competition," as though understanding "them" might give "us" an edge in the global labour market. We have to be able to compete in a global economy and to know who we are competing with 'cause bottom line it's not just the grad class at UVIC and UBC anymore - it's people from the other side of the world who are working twice as hard as us and want the job twice as badly as we do and we have to be able to compete with that. (FG2) 112 I think that it should be because we have to know where they are coming from, what they are learning, what their learning frameworks are, they are our competitors. (FG3) While the idea of competition was prevalent, an opposing theme was also highly featured. Most discussions came around to the interconnectedness of the global and the shared impacts around the globe. Some participants acknowledged complicity in the impacts of globalization and some suggested responsibility framed by notions of global citizenship. The following section will discuss this final global learning theme. 6.2.4. Global Citizenship? The term "global citizen" featured in most of the discussions; several participants referred to themselves as such. There was much discussion of interconnectedness as an aspect of global learning both in terms of impacts and responsibility. A number of participants made references to global interconnectedness in their written responses to how they understood "global learning" including statements like: "learning about one's relationship to the globe as a global citizen," or "learning on a big scale what all the people on earth have to do together." In the discussions some participants demonstrated an awareness of interconnectedness and complicity as the following comments demonstrate: Anything that we do definitely affects other parts of the world, I mean it is a globalized world and we are connected in so many ways to different countries and our actions do affect others. (FG6) Everything we do is interdependent on everywhere else and everyone else. To understand holistically how our actions have reverberations around the world is really important to not just ourselves but to everyone else. To act as a global citizen and to understand our sense of place beyond what we can see. (FG3) It is interesting to note that the above comments put "we" on the active end of the interaction rather than any global events or activities impacting us. Other participants removed themselves from the situation but clearly drew on the interconnectedness of the global population in order to critique the power dynamics involved in economic globalization, as the following comment indicates: 113 More developed countries occasionally have higher standards in place but then they'll go to developing countries and do what they can't do in their own country, so they're not really recognizing the global implications they're just using that country. They're not really recognizing the unity. If they were really acting like global citizens they would see the land as their own. (FG3) The idea of impact was a prevalent aspect of this theme in which participants perceived global learning as "the capacity to understand the process of global levels of impact," "learning about the global impact of humanity as a whole," or "learning about global events and how they affect populations." Although some participants demonstrated an awareness of how actions in one part of the world might affect another part of the world, and some indicated that conceptions of global citizenship could be a helpful framework, only one participant discussed how global learning had changed his behaviour, he stated: We were taught that Canada has 5% of the population but uses 30% of the water. That changed my water use. (FG2) Participants tended to use the term global citizen with a philanthropic tone without ever interrogating the meaning. At times concepts of power and privilege were on the periphery of discussions yet none of the discussions focused on globalization in terms of inequities or imbalances. One example of how many participants accepted globalization as a one way process occurred during a discussion of globalization where the following comment was not at all challenged: I think what we are moving to is a place of unified competition that we haven't seen before. As soon as we get to that place one world government or currency could have auspicious opportunities for the human race. (FG2) Although neither the survey, nor the focus group questions directly sought to understand participants' perceptions of globalization, it nonetheless emerged consistently as a prominent topic. This section has illustrated that students' conceptual understanding of global learning is associated with globalization and fraught with confusion wherein the majority of participants displayed a relatively unsophisticated understanding of globalization and global citizenship. Furthermore, the majority of participants were 114 resigned to the inevitability of globalization as an influential force on their lived reality. For many, this represented interconnectedness conceived in somewhat naive terms. This section has demonstrated that participant understandings of the concept of global learning range from superficial to thoughtful. This range is of particular interest in that participants in the study self-selected to attend focus group discussions. Presumably participants came into the focus groups with confidence that they were representative of interculturally and globally competent students. Some claimed to have had plenty of course work in this area; however, the perfunctory nature of many comments indicates that many participants overestimated their level of global understanding. The IDI data presented in Chapter 5 indicated an overestimation of intercultural development as well. Specific incidences of this inflation will be illustrated in the next section which develops themes under the second overarching theme: Intercultural Learning. 6.3. Intercultural Learning Analysis of the IDI data presented in Chapter 5 revealed a wide gap between perceived intercultural development scores and actual scores. The full profile showed that respondents perceived themselves to be solidly in Acceptance with a mean Perceived Orientation (PO) score of 120.37, yet were actually measured by the instrument to be in low Minimization at a mean of 91.89, which is a significant Orientation Gap (OG) of 28.48 points. A gap of 7 is considered an overestimation, so a gap of more than 28 points is a strong indication of the population's inflated perception of their level of development. The focus group data corroborates the quantitative evidence; in more than one case participants made grand statements about the importance of intercultural learning only to make a cultural faux pas or ethnocentric comment a few moments later. Several themes emerged as participants' perceptions of intercultural learning. Although the written responses for what "culture" and "intercultural learning" meant to each participant revealed, for the most part, positive associations, the themes that emerged across focus group discussions tell a more complicated story in terms of how 115 participants both experience and perceive intercultural interactions in academic environments. Emergent themes that will be explored in this section include the existence of two solitudes or an implicit separation of demographic groups on campuses, negotiating tensions in class, avoidance of interaction as a strategy, and the influence of Canadian multiculturalism on perceptions of tolerance and intercultural development. This section will proceed by first analyzing participant perceptions of the terms "culture" and then proceed to analyze the emergent discussion themes for Intercultural Learning. 6.3.1. Conceptualizing Culture Prior to starting the discussion questions for each focus group, participants were asked to write down words that they associated with the term culture. Content analysis of these written responses according to range and frequency were conducted in order to examine consensus of understanding or divergence. Participants each provided five words that they associated with the word culture. Although a wide variety of interpretations were generated (a total of 210 words from 42 participants) 18 words were repeated by more than one participant. Figure 13 illustrates through a tag cloud concepts with shared meaning among participants. The tag cloud was set to include synonyms for the 30 most frequent concepts; the size of the word indicates the frequency of use. We see that “tradition,” “language,” and “people” were the three most frequently used terms. Across all participants, the word “tradition” was written 14 times and “language” 12 times; whereas, words like “awareness” or “norms” were featured only twice across participants. If one considers these word choices in relation to the commonly used cultural iceberg metaphor in which a partially submerged iceberg represents surface culture above the waterline (concepts like food, music, dress, arts) and deep culture below the waterline (concepts like beliefs and values), it is interesting to note that participants included both surface and deep culture concepts. This variety, along with the inclusion of related concepts like “diversity,” “difference,” and “ethnicity,” illustrates a broad range of understandings amongst participants. 116 Figure 8: NVivo Tag Cloud for Most Frequent Words Associated with Culture Other words of note were only featured once, and therefore not included in the tag cloud but can be grouped thematically: “boggling,” “astonishing,” “unusual,” “barrier,” and “shock;” indicating that some participants recognized the challenges of intercultural interactions; or, the words “patience,” “understanding,” “acceptance,” “respect and “support” which illustrate acknowledgement that successful intercultural interaction can require intention. The next sections will explore perceptions of interaction in academic settings. 6.3.2. Two Solitudes Although participants' written responses to what "intercultural learning" meant to them included responses such as "learning shared between cultures," "learning from each other," "learning about other cultures and sharing yours," or "reciprocal exchange between and amongst cultures;" their lived reality on campus may not capture these opportunities. None of the focus group questions directly asked participants to comment on interactions between domestic and international students; yet, all focus group discussions arrived at commentary about the separate realities of the two groups; described by participants as divided for a variety of reasons Some participants perceived the division as physical in that they were separated on campus, others saw the division as a result of language use where student classification created separation, 117 and others viewed the issue as procedural in how services for student groups created the division. On both campuses participants discussed how international students and domestic students were physically separated as the following comments illustrate: There is no connection. It is like they go to a separate university except that we are on the same campus but there is no meshing of the two. (FG1) I feel that some of them self-exclude. (FG3) There is also some exclusion. There are pods. (FG7) Well there is just this segregation that I don't think is going to change no matter what they do. (FG5) Other participants explained how use of the term "international" led them to feel that events or opportunities only applied to international students. The comments below illustrate this sentiment: I see the international booth; I see that oh they are going tubing. It's at the international place and it's for people there, it's not for everyone. They have all these really cool events and I would like to go but it seems like it's unattainable for me just being a normal student. (FG7) I think there is a general assumption that something says international it is for international students. (FG6) Yeah like they do all these programs for international students but they don't really have anything to mix international and Canadian. (FG6) Also of interest was how participants referred to themselves and each other as "domestic" or "international." Several times Canadian students referred to themselves as "domestic" and in many cases participants pluralized the term saying "domestics" or "internationals" as in the comment below: Like they have a separate orientation for internationals; they should make a general orientation because when you come in, that's when you make your friends. From day one, the next week or so that's when you make your friends. So if you segregate us we stick just to it. (FG5) 118 The above comment also illustrates that participants perceived institutional procedures, such as orientation, as the root cause of the ongoing division. Furthermore, some participants were also critical of their institution's approach to international student recruitment and saw it as either profiling or revenue generating with less concern about students' experiences. The comments below reflect these sentiments: The school in general really wants to have an international population here and are very proud of how far they've come to date. But I think now what they need to focus on is not how to get them here but what's happening once they are here and that interaction and not being so segregated. So I think a lot more focus needs to happen on campus now that they are here. (FG5) All they [international department] talk about is how to get more internationals in and that's it. They don't really bother about how the international students are going to settle or to make sure whether the internationals are really getting along with the domestics. (FG6) Although both campuses in this study host large numbers of students from many countries around the world, the comments in this section reveal a reality that is not entirely inclusive. Whether the division is created by the students, the labels used to categorize, or the services provided, it is clear that many students experience a divided campus. The next sections will address how the perceived divisions are exacerbated by classroom experiences. 6.3.3. Negotiating Tensions Although for the most part discussions were courteous and allowed for participants to comfortably share, topics arose in which opposing perspectives surfaced. These were either from differing opinions, as in the cases when the value of globalization was being discussed, or when different opinions regarding the role of universities in promoting intercultural and global learning arose; which will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. In other cases it was different experiences or perspectives that gave rise to tensions in the discussion. For example, there were cases where international students were expressing how they felt unacknowledged or underappreciated and some Canadian participants became defensive or tried to avoid the topic. This tension developed in three separate focus groups. In the first example, an international student shares her experience in having her culture valued: 119 [the instructor] encouraged me to talk about my cultural practices. I found it really encouraging to speak about that because sometimes when they are talking about Canadian culture I don't know, I didn't grow up here - everything is new here. If I don't say something it's because I don't know and this is a different culture and maybe people think she is dumb or something. I just have a different cultural practice than you do, I don't know about yours and you probably don't know about mine but that doesn't make me dumb. I had a difficult first year because everything was so new but nobody asked me "how is it done in your place?" or "how do you practice this where you come from?" They just assumed I should know and it isn't possible when this is not my culture, it takes time to learn about culture. I just didn't feel acknowledged. (FG4) None of the other participants verbally recognized her disclosure and after some awkward silence one Canadian student rationalized: I think it has to do with what kind of knowledge. specific to national or cultural context. (FG4) Some content is In another focus group, participants were discussing how group work can present challenges. An international student talked about how he usually ended up in a group with other international students. His impression was that Canadian students preferred not to "risk" working with international students. A Canadian student from a different discipline asked: So you are saying that when they get to pick, Canadians want other Canadians in the group? (FG6) To which the international student replied: Yes, most of the time. (FG6) This was followed by several Canadian students trying to justify this behaviour without acknowledging the international student's experience: That happens a lot in Science because obviously there's a huge barrier in Science where it becomes really difficult sometimes to work with the international students that don't speak your language, they don't understand what you are talking about. (FG6) When we get to do a group project I'm not picking international students out of Canadians. I'm picking from the subset who I think will do the best job. It's not like you're being...You're not not choosing 120 because they are international - you're choosing what you know and it's a safe bet. (FG6) You know, we have known these people [Canadian classmates] for most of our lives. (FG6) In another more heated exchange, participants were discussing multicultural group work when an international student shared her experience: The people in [town] are very helpful like when I go shopping or something like that, they are very kind and helpful. In fact they are extremely helpful. But in class the domestic students they are not nice to us at all. They don't talk to us. (FG5) To this, a Canadian student cut her off and proclaimed in a loud voice as she leaned forward onto the table: To be honest, as a domestic student, I didn't come to school to make friends. I don't have to do group activities to make friends. I have enough friends. (FG5) The international student was undaunted and replied: Yes but even during projects they ignore us. You are supposed to do it together; you are supposed to discuss it with the whole group and not just the domestic members. (FG5) Other participants, feeling awkward, said this was not fair and there was much agreement and nodding until the subject was changed. The third tension example above where the Canadian student claims no need for friends also illustrates how difficult it can be for international students to socially integrate. This problem was specifically identified by another participant who said: I've talked to some of the international students and they've expressed that it is hard to make friends with Canadian students, they want to but it can be hard. (FG6) Considering the comments in this and the previous section it seems that the lack of meaningful interaction is multifaceted. A few comments also acknowledged how 121 avoidance might be used as a strategy to minimize discomfort with difference or the possibility of making a mistake. Forms of avoidance strategies are discussed next. 6.3.4. Avoidance Strategies The previous sections illustrated perceptions that intercultural interactions are fraught with barriers on campus and in the classroom. This theme explores how avoiding interaction or finding reasons to avoid interaction were prevalent in participant comments. A few participants acknowledged that fear of offending or making a mistake could influence interactions as the following comments illustrate: At times we are so afraid of offending them we kind of avoid contact with them, I find that can be harmful. (FG4) In class we were having this huge discussion, it is mostly Canadian students in the classroom and I find a lot of them are quite nervous. For example even caring for a Native patient can be quite intimidating. (FG7) Practicing working with other cultures can take away the fear. (FG6) Other participants believed that language proficiency was the issue that prevented effective interaction. The following comments from Canadian students illustrate their reluctance to interact with peers who were not entirely fluent in English: There are not a lot of international students in Science. There are actually some people that are in 3rd year Science but they don't speak a word of English. (FG4) You try to talk with them but they don't even speak English, they won't even talk. So there's only so far you can work with a team without opening your mouth. (FG4) Most of the time, I find that international students here are less equipped with English. (FG1) These participant comments reveal the perception that without linguistic proficiency, interactions are not possible or desirable. This is an unfortunate mindset for students attending institutions with at least 15% of their peers using English as a second, third, or forth language. Also of interest is that the ESL student was framed as deficit, yet there was a lack of acknowledgement that many Canadian students are monolingual and that the lack of linguistic ability could be interpreted differently. Furthermore, the following 122 comments show that some of the assumptions about language ability are stereotypical and uninformed. In the first comment an international student who speaks English fluently shares her experience of bias. In the second comment an international student was reprimanding a Canadian student for making broad comments about lack of English proficiency: In one of my classes I was put in a group with all domestics and they really made me feel left out. They wouldn't speak to me, they had this stereotype that Indians don't know how to speak English for some reason. (FG5) They don't necessarily not speak English just because they come from another country! (FG7) Other comments are clearer in illustrating privileged positions that go unexamined by some Canadian students. The following comments illustrate how some participants perceived little value in interacting or learning from their international student peers: I don't think me knowing other languages or being aware of other cultures is necessarily going to benefit me unless the governments who are controlling my country want to work with other countries. It has nothing to do with what I know or want. (FG2) If I just want to stay in Canada I only need to know one language, one culture even. (FG2) These final comments are troubling in light of Canadian linguistic and cultural diversity. However, they were countered by a number of comments from other participants that highlighted the need for intercultural competence due to Canadian multiculturalism which is the final theme of Intercultural Learning. 6.3.5. Multicultural Canada A prominent theme in how participants valued intercultural and global learning was framed in the context of Canadian multiculturalism including Aboriginal peoples, immigrants, and more generally the multicultural mix of Canadian society. Most participants felt that skill and understanding were integral to the promotion of collaboration in civil society. The comments below exhibit a range of these perspectives within the home context: 123 In Canada we have so many different cultures and a lot of beliefs that we will be dealing with. We don't want to push western culture and beliefs on people we want to know where they are coming from and to be able to work with them. So I think it is really important to understand and to work with them and intercollaborate. It makes for a better system. (FG3) I had another comment about intercultural learning in education and I just think I would definitely look at the First Nations perspective. (FG6) I think now... just in Canada with immigration there are hundreds of different peoples that come here to learn, to work, to do anything and just knowing what they think is normal can go a long way to understanding why they do things a certain way. (FG7) Canada itself is very multicultural. An institution needs to include and incorporate people of other cultures. (FG2) Despite the prevalence of student perceptions that multicultural or global contexts will bring them into contact with other people, perspectives, and practices from around the world and at home, the focus group discussion have provided ample evidence the experiences on campus may not be effectively meeting the needs of students to develop the competencies to work and live in those contexts. The next section will investigate student perceptions of how curriculum and pedagogy influence their intercultural and global learning opportunities. 6.4. The Influence of Curriculum and Pedagogy As a study interested in students' perceptions of intercultural and global learning in academic settings, the majority of directed focus group questions were specific to students' educational experiences: • In what ways has your program provided you with intercultural and global learning opportunities? • Are there opportunities in your program to you to learn from each other? (In classes where a variety of cultural perspectives or practices are represented within the student composition) • How do your instructors influence intercultural and global learning? • Do you think your program has prepared you to effectively participate in a multicultural and global environment? 124 • How could universities improve intercultural and global learning opportunities? Or is it all good now? Although each focus group was asked the above questions, the discussions went in a variety of directions. Analysis of this data revealed three prominent themes: student perceptions that intercultural and global learning in their curriculum is either absent or merely scratches the surface, identifying that intentional curriculum and pedagogy is critical, and suggestions how higher education could enhance intercultural and global learning. Participants were able to identify educational practices they felt influenced their intercultural and global learning. In some cases they linked these to curriculum and program content, where in others it was clear that the instructor's choice of pedagogy was the influencing factor. Therefore, the first two themes above will be presented together in two separate sections, one dealing with both positive and negative perceptions of curriculum and program content, the next exploring perceptions of pedagogy as beneficial or detrimental to intercultural and global learning outcomes. Finally, participant recommendations for enhancing learning opportunities will be presented. 6.4.1. Scratching the Surface Participants articulated a variety of positive and negative curricular influences to their intercultural and global learning. In particular, Anthropology, Geography, Nursing, and Tourism students were more likely to discuss their program and curricular content as influential; whereas, participants from Sciences consistently identified the absence of intercultural and global learning in their programs. However, even within those disciplines where participants discussed the program as influential, numerous comments also identified lost opportunities or what participants described as a lack of application for their learning, as will be discussed shortly. This first set of comments is indicative of students' perceptions that their program includes appropriate opportunities for intercultural and global learning. The majority of positive comments came from students studying in disciplines where one would expect some courses that address global or 125 intercultural issues, as the comments from about Anthropology, Geography, and Tourism students indicate: In Anthropology there are many courses that study the cultures that are on campus there's lots of courses that focus on First Nations people, there's a course that focuses on what we may think our culture is - there's one class on... focusing on the Western, post-industrialized culture that's sort of developing the world and sort of questioning that. There's lots of chances to study and apply it to the people that exist here and ourselves. There are guest speakers from cultures we are studying. (FG2) Geography is so multidisciplinary that it comes at it from all those angles — political, cultural, etc. (FG3) There is a course called cultural geography which looks at different aspects of culture around the world. (FG3) Tourism is geared toward communication. (FG5) different cultures and intercultural Indigenous Peoples in Global Comparative Perspectives. So it was basically looking at colonization and how it has affected every nation in the world. So that was good in grounding you in the history, what's happened to everybody and where everything has been coming from, so you have a really good idea of the history and have a base knowledge. (FG7) However, many of these same participants also discussed the lack of practical application for their learning. Several expressed that although their program included learning about other cultures or other parts of the world, in their opinion it fell short and only scratched the surface. On both campuses nursing students talked about how their programs only recently included a whole course dedicated to health issues in other parts of the world. Several participants discussed how they were taught theory or instructed to be culturally sensitive but never really given the opportunity to put their learning into practice, as the following quotes illustrate: The theory is presented to us but in no way shape or form are we forced or even asked to practice it. It's more like "well if you're interested" or "you should be aware of this.” (FG4) I think they defined globalization. Told us what it was and then just left it. (FG5) In the education program I don't think we get enough discussion about intercultural awareness. Just recently we got a little bit; we were told a little bit about ESL. (FG7) 126 Other participants discussed how their program was preparing them for a Canadian context, so there was little emphasis on intercultural or global learning. The following comments illustrate this approach in professional schools. I don't think my program does a good job talking about globalization because when you are hired, it's by the Canadian government and teaching requirements are different in different places. (FG7) In international social work I think I would like to talk about how social work is taught or practiced in other countries. We vaguely mention social work is taught or practiced in other countries. (FG6) The following comments express a desire for a more substantial approach to intercultural and global learning: Unfortunately [intercultural and global learning] was not built in as much as it could have been...it would have been really nice to have not just a discussion but a whole course about how to respect different cultures. I just think that could have been more valuable in Education courses — just a bigger global aspect in Education, the background about education in different cultures. (FG3) I think my program wants to... and it sort of brushes the surface a little, but it doesn't actually...I think it rather fails actually. I think my program wants us to be aware of other cultures and there's lots of different perspectives and we talk about that but that's just really surfacy. (FG4) Some participants discussed how intercultural and global learning was very dependent on course choice rather than infused throughout a program as the following comments indicate: It depends on the classes you choose. This semester my classes are awesome for that but if you don't take those classes... like my other 4 years I had no experience with that. It all depends if you want to take those courses. (FG6) In the first couple of years it is general studies so we all have to take classes. In OB a lot of it is about globalization and intercultural communication. But then beyond that it depends on what you specialized in, like international business or human resource management but stuff like accounting, finance, economics - it is nonexistent. (FG7) The university as a whole, I wouldn't say, not in my upper level classes anyways, there has been any focus on anything outside of Canada at all. (FG 4) 127 On both campuses, science students were clear that there is a distinct absence of intercultural and global learning in their programs, as the following comments convey: I would say very little. Now we think of science as a universal thing that most cultures strive for in terms of knowledge acquisition. But it definitely isn't always that way. It is, I guess amongst developed, industrialized nations. And that's all we really learn about in the science field, just what's going on here and furthering that knowledge base and not really cultural implications of this knowledge or those experiments or that procedure is not ever really discussed at all. (FG6) It is implied that it is accepted that this is the truth. You don't ever learn of other ways. (FG2) I can say in my program there is none. (FG 7) No there's no real discussion about it - there is just an implied sort of acceptance that this is the way it is. That what we are teaching you is the way that it is everywhere - this fact, that fact. (FG6) Finally, two comments are telling in participants' summary of the influence of their educational experiences on their intercultural and global learning: I guess it's better than someone who never went to university. (FG1) I learned more about the Chinese culture serving in a restaurant than I do in school. (FG5) Participants in this study have articulated clearly that there is a decided imbalance in addressing intercultural and global learning outcomes across the curriculum and that it is often more random than systematic. Students in certain programs or certain courses may be given opportunities; yet, even when the content is sufficiently focused on this learning their application of the learning is limited. This limitation is linked to the next section on pedagogical practice. 6.4.2. Pedagogy Participants across disciplines identified instructors as a critical influence to their intercultural and global learning; describing teaching practices they perceived as constructive or destructive. In some cases they discussed effective strategies that instructors had used, in others they pointed to instructors' lack of knowledge or skill as a barrier to their learning opportunities. In a number of cases they identified lost 128 opportunities where instructional choices limited meaningful interaction and perspective sharing, as the following comments demonstrate: We do have a few international students ...but the teachers don't really bother, they are just one of us. (FG6) I've had some international students in my classes but there is not a lot of interaction. (FG5) The next comment speaks to the sentiment that there is not always sufficient application of learning: I get that we are in university and there has to be theory and there has to be knowledge, but there is a lack of practical experience — where we are actually doing things instead of reading about it. (FG5) When participants identified specific instructional practices they perceived to be effective, all had elements of critical pedagogy in that they attempted to surface alternate experiences or view points, and invited students to critically reflect and discuss their perceptions. In the first example below, the instructor exposes students to a different perspective and invites them to discuss and reflect without providing "the" answer: My one teacher shows a lot of video clips and again depending on where it is from it will have a different spin on it, but she shows it and then has a discussion around it and lets us form our own opinion. And I really like the way that she says she has questions for us to consider... but she doesn't always have the answer. (FG3) In the next example the instructor asks students to critically examine the approach of a field school initiative, inviting them to question the impact and sustainability of North / South development work: My teacher brought up the question: Are we doing more harm than good when we send these eager nursing students over to implement these great initiatives based on how we nurse and we learn and then we leave. What are we leaving them with? Is this sustainable what we put in place? Or did we leave them possibly worse off because now they realize that they don't have the ability to sustain what we are doing. The girls who were going to [country] in this class were infuriated, they got so mad because they felt that they were going out there to help these people and the rest of the class was kind of like you know what, this is a good point... what are you guys doing out there? Is it for the best? Is it sustainable? What happens afterwards? (FG3) 129 Another example of influential pedagogical practice involved a guest speaker with international experience in the field, allowing students to compare policy and practice: For our silviculture class our instructor brought in someone who has done a lot of work in South America to talk to us specifically about the type of forestry and forestry practice that they had going on there. A point of contrast to what we do here a lot of it's to do with government and legislation but that it was important to view the work that we do here... understanding what's happening, what's done in the rest of the world. (FG7) The final example involved a virtual exchange initiated by the instructor with a class in another part of the world allowing students to understand the different perspectives of their international peers: One of our professors implemented a global picture exchange with a class in [country]... we did what does each human rights mean to you? We could see the similarities and differences. That was really amazing. I wish there was more time. (FG2) Unfortunately, participants did not share a multitude of examples of pedagogy that invited multiple perspectives. More often the discussion revolved around what was missing in terms of learning other perspectives or practices. In many cases, what was missing from their classroom experiences was perceived to be connected to the instructor's competency to facilitate intercultural and global learning whether through choices of curriculum, facilitation of discussions, or general capacity as captured in this comment: It totally depends on the instructor's capacity. (FG6) Other participants highlighted instructor's interests and background as a factor: It really depends on the instructor, the instructor's background. What they want to choose for a methodology or concepts, textbooks; what they want to put in. (FG2) For others, the surfacing of multiple perspectives in class work was dependent on the facilitation skills of the instructor. The following comments illustrate the frustration of students who felt their perspectives were not included in discussions: 130 In some classes, certain teachers are more likely to let things roll into a conversation. I know one instructor in a sociology class who just shut it down every time it went in kind of another direction - like what is your perspective... (FG6) I don't feel like they give you the opportunity to really give your own perspectives, like they teach about cultural diversity but they don't encourage you to come out and say this is how I feel. Some instructors do but just to a certain extent. (FG4) Instructors' capacity was also a dominant theme when participants discussed opportunities to learn from one another in class. In several discussions, the issue of multicultural group work became a focus of discussion. Many participants expressed difficulty with group work and several identified pedagogical approaches as exacerbating the problem. The first two comments below illustrate what participants perceived as lost opportunities for interaction due to a lack of intentionally facilitated exchange in culturally diverse classrooms: I think that we like learn the theories but we don't interact enough with each other. It depends on the teacher and it depends on the course content. But there's a lot of opportunities, especially in business, for us to be working with one another and working with other cultures and not all of the teachers approach it. Often times I wonder why they don't. (FG7) I've had some international students in my classes but there is not a lot of interaction so we don't really have opportunities to learn from them. (FG6) The next two comments highlight perceptions that some instructors may not have sufficient awareness of, or interest in, creating opportunities for exchange and interaction: There's a big difference how different instructors react to having international students in their class. Some instructors didn't want to know about anything at all. (FG6) Some of the teachers definitely want people to learn more about it, especially in HR or international business. Otherwise, I don't think the teachers care who you work with or what you learn besides the course material. (FG5) This final example illustrates how one instructor's attempt to introduce mixed culture groups was ill conceived and sent a negative message to students: 131 I had a teacher that did that too [made us form multicultural groups] but she did it in a really derogatory way. It actually blew my mind that she did this. It was one of my marketing classes. She was willing to hand out extra marks for anyone that would work with a foreign student; any white kids that would work with foreign students. That's pretty forward. (FG5) Interestingly, in the focus group where this scenario was shared, the majority of participants did not react as though surprised but rather nodded in agreement leaving the impression that this was not an isolated incident. Many participants discussed the problems inherent in group work as linked to assessment and grading. One international student expressed his interpretation of the situation in the following way: Maybe also it is a concern for Canadian students to keep their GPA and they don't want to take the risk. I might do the same with a Canadian studying [in my country] "Sorry buddy, but I have to keep my GPA.” (FG6) Numerous other comments underline this concern and illustrate how assessment practices may undermine meaningful interaction in learning environments as students are focused on the product of their learning rather than the process, as the following comments illustrate: I find it hard in university, you are working so hard towards your own grade and someone's forcing a situation on you. (FG5) I should get to learn the way that is benefiting me the most because I'm paying to be here. If someone doesn't work well, that's not my problem. (FG5) In school there's usually walls up - there might be a couple of people that you have conversations with but the focus in school is getting that assignment done, getting the A. (FG2) It is interesting to note that in the discussions about group work, although both international and domestic students commented on the challenges of working with each other, the international students in this study did not perceive similar challenges when working with other international students. The comment below indicates that the issues may be more about Canadians working with international students than with multicultural group work: 132 They definitely need to work on international and domestic mixing up in class. In one of my classes I was put in a group with all domestics and they really made me feel left out. So I had a big problem with that and I told the professor so he put me in another group with internationals and now we are working really well. (FG5) Another international student identified the benefits to working with students from all around the world in the following exchange with a domestic student: In class, in terms of group projects for example, it is quite true that Canadian students group together for group projects and internationals are together. I have two classes — in one I am with one Swiss and one Australian and in another I'm with a Serbian and Japanese. So you see these are different cultures but no Canadians involved. (FG6) To which the Canadian student gave some thought and asked: So international students, you think, have a lot of chances to learn from each another but the Canadians students don't? (FG6) This exchange in combination with other comments in this section illustrates participants' perceptions that instructional approaches influence interactions in the classroom. Whether in group formation, facilitation of group work, or assessment of group work, participants clearly articulated the importance of faculty and teaching practices to the success of intercultural interactions in academic settings. Furthermore, participants were able to identify what they perceived as beneficial or detrimental practices in terms of other instructional practices, highlighting the benefits of pedagogy that surfaced multiple perspectives and practices. Participants also provided numerous ideas and recommendations for how institutions of higher education might better facilitate intercultural and global learning to prepare students to work and live in the twenty-first century globalized context. The next section will present participants' perceptions regarding why it is important for institutions to facilitate this learning and how outcomes might be improved. 6.4.3. Improving the Outcomes Despite the prevalence of student perceptions that intercultural and global learning are important, this chapter has provided ample evidence that the content and delivery of 133 post-secondary undergraduate education may not be effectively meeting the needs of students to work and live in global or multicultural contexts. The final question of the focus group discussions solicited student input regarding what they felt institutions could be doing better to prepare students. Although many ideas were offered, two dominant themes emerged: the need for more supported interaction and a more interdisciplinary approach; each will be discussed in the following sections. Interaction As illustrated earlier in this chapter, many participants experienced a culturally divisive atmosphere on campus. Across the discussions participants identified the need for more opportunities for mutual exchange, as well as, clear institutional messaging advocating for interaction rather than division of students into demographic categories. This first set of comments illustrates participant perspectives on how opportunities for interaction could be more intentional: I think we need more of this kind of opportunity, this kind of forum. I think young people are more open to the changes. I think we need more opportunities to talk, to inform each other and to correct the misunderstandings. (FG1) Promoting Canadians going into these international meetings. (FG2) I think making sure that the opportunities are there and that they are the kind of opportunities that people want to come out and have fun with. (FG7) Generate the curiosity for students to know about each other’s culture - through education. (FG4) Even by having the university promote international student and domestic student events would be helpful. (FG2) Other participants suggested that intentional integrating of international and domestic populations would be helpful, whether by highlighting exchange students as in the first example below or by using cultural events to provide opportunities as in the second example: Another thing I'd like to see is better integration with international students. Like the study abroad students who are here for six months are still pretty secluded among the other international students and within their program too. It would be cool and I think a lot of people who don't even know they are here and would like to take advantage 134 of meeting people from other cultures and learning about other cultures but we're not really mixed. (FG7) Often times it ends up like it is Chinese week and all the Chinese are hanging out together but there is really no integration. I think there needs to be more encouragement to get us to integrate with them and them to integrate with us and vice versa. (FG2) Participants also offered their perspectives regarding how instructors could be more intentional in exposing students to different perspectives, either by inviting people to class or creating assignments that included intentional interaction. The examples below illustrate how an invited guest, virtual learning, or inviting students from other cultures to class might facilitate learning: I think teachers could bring in guest speakers. In one of our classes we had some people from international week come to our classes, a doctor from Ghana. It was very interesting to me. (FG3) With technology these days... you could even have international instructors instructing a class. (FG6) So I would love if even more integration of different cultures or if international students came into our class for even half an hour - and just meeting each other. I would have no problem with that; I would very much like that. (FG3) Other participants felt that course work or assignments could incorporate intercultural and global learning through creating opportunities for interaction with culturally diverse peers: Even if they would promote us going out and learning about different countries — finding students from Sweden, from wherever because everyone is here. Then it would be really hands on and some awesome learning could be created. (FG6) Or talking to people doing the same class as you on the other side of the world, you know linking up different people so that you can see their point of view. (FG7) The majority of participants expressed perspectives that institutions could do more to facilitate intercultural and global learning opportunities. Many discussions revealed a sense of segregation and a lack of intentional support for interaction between culturally diverse student groups to enhance learning opportunities. Most participants 135 recommended that institutions and instructors become more active in facilitating learning opportunities for students. However, two participants felt strongly that this was not the responsibility of the institution, but rather up to individuals as the following comments illustrate: I don't really think it is the university's place to make us global citizens, it's up to us, and it's up to our parents. (FG2) I disagree. I don't want the university doing any encouragement. If it is something worth doing then we need to decide for ourselves to get involved. (FG2) The comments in this section have related to the general integration and interaction of student groups; another theme that emerged from analysis of participant recommendations was that institutions should consider a more interdisciplinary approach to enhance learning opportunities. The next section will provide a summary of participant perceptions of how program requirements might better meet learning outcomes. Interdisciplinarity Participants had some specific perspectives on how the structure of academic programs may enhance or hinder intercultural and global learning opportunities. In particular, a number of comments revealed a desire for mandatory or recommended courses outside of program areas that would ensure a broader reach of intercultural and global content. This sentiment is illustrated by the quotes below: I think education needs to be more multidisciplinary. I think that a sociology course should be added on to everyone's requirements rather than just the English course. Cause I learned so much. (FG3) When I started Nursing Anthropology. (FG1) there was a mandatory course in I think that one of the biggest downfalls of universities is that the programs are so compartmentalized. So having that interdisciplinary option of... I hear so many people say “I think everyone in university should take this class..." We can't ignore the fact that we are global citizens and we are going to face critical issues with relationships with other cultures and understanding our own. So maybe beginning with every program having a mandatory Anthropology course... or .... (FG3) 136 The fact that First Nations Studies are a program is detrimental. Unless it is an elective you can only learn about that if you are in the program. There should be a First Nations Studies for Nursing, for Science. (FG2) Others felt that a mandatory course was not necessary but that a targeted course or entry level course would be suitable, as the following comments indicate: I think they should offer a course. Not a mandatory course but one that you could take if you were interested. Let's call it "Globalization and Cultural Diversity", or maybe "Globalization and the Future" because we have enough history courses already. (FG7) Entry level courses give everyone a broad overview and you don't need a lot of analytical understanding. (FG3) Others expressed the opinion that all courses should have focused content, as the next comment suggests: I think that it would be really valuable to have in all of our different courses even just to have one class or even one hour like focused on global or intercultural understanding. It's like we're learning about whatever we are doing here but that we are always looking out there to see what's going on. (FG2) The comments above strongly suggest that some students perceive program structures as a barrier to a broader knowledge base that could include intercultural and global learning. Another interesting recommendation was for increased language learning opportunities. Although earlier comments indicated that many Canadian participants viewed language proficiency as the responsibility of the international student, when asked what universities could do better, several participants highlighted the need to develop multilingual skills for both social and academic purposes. The following quotes demonstrate these perspectives: One thing that universities can, and should do, is language training. We can't converse with other cultures, we can't understand other values, and we can't read certain texts unless we develop language skills. That is one thing that should A) be requisite in more degrees B) be more available. (FG2) About 10 years ago, the internet was 80% in English. Not the case anymore. So as the internet uses more languages more people might find it necessary to learn more languages. One thing that causes 137 trouble for me is that I'd like to read untranslated works in French or Spanish but I can't. (FG3) It is kind of interesting that we come to this perspective as native English speakers and the world at the moment tends to operate predominantly in English. From a scientific point of view there's a lot of literature that we look at in English. Even if people speak another language in their home country they tend to publish in English... so we already have a leg up in a sense; whereas, if things were to shift and maybe we shift to say Mandarin or some other language focus. I would just be head over heels; I'm not keeping up with the world. (FG7) In these comments student participants demonstrated a desire for programs and courses that they feel would better suit their needs as citizens and professionals in an increasingly globalized context. Although a limited number of participants made it clear that intercultural and global learning were the responsibility of individuals and not the educational programs or institutions, the overwhelming majority articulated strong recommendations for how higher education could better prepare them for effective participation in local and global contexts. Participants in this study consistently identified intercultural and global learning as important for personal, professional, and civic effectiveness and engagement. Furthermore, participants were easily able to identify curricular, pedagogical, and institutional approaches that could enhance the development of intercultural and global competencies, and those that do not support or facilitate these developments from a student perspective; clearly indicating that students regard curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning. Analyses of student perceptions and comments from the focus group data, in conjunction with the qualitative analysis of IDI data, allow educators to consider how curriculum and pedagogy within academic disciplines, as well as student status and institutional approaches, influence students' intercultural and global development. The quantitative findings alone are only able to give a snapshot of the levels of development of students completing undergraduate degrees in internationalized, regional institutions and how demographic variables relate to these levels. Taken together with the qualitative analysis, we begin to see in more depth how educational experiences 138 influence development. We also begin to understand what we might put in place moving forward. 6.5. Linking the Data Sets The ANOVA results reported in Chapter 5 demonstrated statistically significant discrepancies in scores dependent on academic discipline. Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparisons confirmed that students studying in professional school programs had both higher perceived and developmental scores and smaller overestimation of development indicated by smaller OG scores and that Science students had lower perceived and developmental scores while demonstrating larger overestimation in OG scores. Taken together with student perceptions of the influence of pedagogy and curriculum on intercultural and global learning discussed through the themes developed in previous sections of this chapter, it is clear that the development of intercultural and global competencies is neither systematic nor comprehensive across academic disciplines, curricula or instructor's pedagogical choices. Given that the quantitative analysis confirmed a relationship between intercultural development scores and academic discipline, the next sections will summarize the influence of academic discipline on participant perceptions revealed during the qualitative analysis of discussion comments. 6.5.1. Academic Discipline Participants studying science offered perspectives that corroborated the quantitative findings in which science students scored significantly lower in developmental scores and larger overestimation. In a number of cases their comments directly addressed a lack of curricular content that acknowledged other perspectives or approaches. One participant summarized his academic experience as follows: I would say very little. Now we think of science as a universal thing that most cultures strive for in terms of knowledge acquisition. But it definitely isn't always that way. It is, I guess amongst developed, industrialized nations. And that's all we really learn about in the science field, just what's going on here and furthering that knowledge base and not really... cultural implications of this knowledge or those experiments or that procedure is not ever really discussed at all. A couple of courses where we are talking 139 about climate we might discuss global implications but it doesn't really delve into the cultural aspects at all. As demonstrated earlier in this chapter, stereotypes regarding language capacity were not uncommon. In particular, domestic students studying science students commented more frequently on language deficiencies of their international counterparts; yet, also acknowledged having very little interaction or experience with international students which may have influenced such biases. The statistical analysis also found that participants studying in professional schools had a higher mean developmental score and a smaller mean orientation gap. The focus group data provided a number of comments in which these participants acknowledged that although curriculum did address global and intercultural themes; their perception was often that it was not substantial and rarely allowed for the application of the learning towards skills development as illustrated by this participant's experience: That's something I wish there was more of in the Nursing program is working with the First Nations culture just because they make up a very large majority of B.C. In first year we had an intercultural awareness day where we met with the chief and talked about First Nations traditional healing methods and everything. But that was one day out of the whole three years. Although the quantitative findings did not indicate statistical significance in IDI scores for participants studying academic professions, researcher notes from discussions revealed that while many of them claimed to have studied intercultural and global themes, their understanding was often superficial and limited to definitions addressing the cognitive rather than affective or behavioral aspects. Participants from all four disciplinary groups commented on either the absence of curricular content or that the content merely scratched the surface. However, students studying academic professions revealed the most challenges in terms of negotiating cultural differences in academic settings. This is likely due to the fact that these disciplines often attract the most international students creating highly diverse classroom settings in which multicultural group work is the norm. These participants were also the most vocal regarding classroom tensions and the critical role of pedagogy which will be discussed next. 140 6.5.2. Pedagogy The critical role of instructional choices in enhancing intercultural and global learning emerged as a prominent perspective in the focus group analysis. A number of comments revealed that at times the curriculum provided content; yet, deep learning through reflection and application was not often the norm. Participants easily identified the capacity of instructors as necessary for successful intercultural and global learning, in some cases discussing profound experiences provided by instructors; yet, in many cases commenting on the deficiencies of some instructors to facilitate learning due to lack of interest, focus on content and product rather than process, or their own intercultural competencies. Participants in this study described their experiences of substantial intercultural and global learning as sporadic, ad-hoc and often dependent on the choice or chance of course or instructor. Others identified intercultural and global learning as linked to reality once out of university. In learning to work with others, this participant sees the link to her career reality: In the real world you don't always get to choose who you are going to work with. I think when we don't get to pick our group it puts challenges on us and it is another type of learning. I've been in extremely challenging positions having to write a paper with someone who doesn't know how to write a basic essay. But there is room to learn from that person and that person to learn from you and you can take something away from it. But you are going to be bound to be in those types of situations in other contexts. Although students studying science commented more that curriculum was responsible for limited intercultural and global learning, participants across disciplinary designations discussed instructors' capacity and pedagogical choices as critical to their intercultural and global learning. This section has provided insight into how the qualitative analysis is linked to the quantitative analysis through a mixed methods approach. Prior to the discussion of both sets of findings in Chapter 7, a summary of the analysis of the qualitative data will conclude this chapter. 141 6.6. Summary of Analyses of Student Perceptions This chapter has provided thematic and content analysis of the focus group data and then considered it in conjunction with the IDI data analysis. Participant perceptions from seven focus groups revealed themes in three overarching areas: Global Learning, Intercultural Learning, and the Influence of Curriculum and Pedagogy. Perceptions of global learning presented four themes: A confused understanding of globalization; a passive resignation that globalization is a veritable reality involving little personal agency; a sense that globalization presents the need for competition; and understandings of global interconnectedness that at times revealed notions of complicity or responsibility, yet mostly demonstrated a naive conceptualization of global citizenship. Under Intercultural Learning another four themes emerged: the lived reality of two solitudes; tensions that must be negotiated in multicultural classrooms; avoidance as a strategy to minimize potential risks or failures; and Canadian multiculturalism as a framework through which intercultural learning is valued. Within the Curriculum and Pedagogy theme three sub themes emerged: student perceptions that current curriculum merely scratches the surface; perceptions that pedagogy and instructional capacity are critical; and that participants had clear recommendations on how enhanced approaches by educators could better serve their intercultural and global learning outcomes. The quantitative findings presented in Chapter 5 indicated that the majority (84.9%) of third and fourth year respondents were finishing their programs in ethnocentric or transition phases of the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC). Academic discipline and student status were found to be statistically significant factors influencing intercultural development. The focus group data analysis also revealed that some participants may have overestimated their intercultural and global competencies, which was clearly evident in the orientation gap revealed by the IDI data. This inflated confidence was illustrated by unsophisticated understandings of globalization and global citizenship, as well as the discrepancy between what participants said about the importance of intercultural learning and their lived reality. The final chapter will discuss these themes in relation to the literature and make recommendations for enhanced intercultural and global learning outcomes based on the mixed methods analysis. 142 7. Discussion of Findings In seeking to understand more clearly the intercultural and global learning of students in the process of completing undergraduate programs in regional British Columbian universities, this mixed methods study provided both a quantitative measurement of participants’ intercultural development and student perceptions of curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning. Chapters 5 and 6 offered the data analysis of quantitative and qualitative results respectively, and then considered the data sets together at the end of Chapter 6. Independently each of these data sets and analysis provide insights for educators. Interpreted together, the IDI scores and the focus group data yield greater insight into how Canadian institutions might proceed in order to garner the full benefits of increased intercultural diversity resulting from trends in both domestic and international enrollment. This chapter will discuss the findings and their implications and make recommendations for student services and academic units based on the study results. The chapter will conclude with recommendations for further research to enhance educational approaches in the diverse, internationalized, globalized contexts of the future. 7.1. Research Procedures The purpose of this study was to investigate the intercultural development of upper level students in British Columbian regional institutions, to determine which demographic factors were associated with development, and to understand student perceptions of intercultural and global learning in academic settings. To this end a mixed methods design was employed using both quantitative data collected through the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) and qualitative data collected through seven hours of focus group discussion on two campuses. The following research questions were posed: 143 1. What is the difference between the perceived and actual intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? 2. Do student demographics influence perceived and actual scores? 3. How do students perceive intercultural and global learning? 4. How do students regard curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning? The first two research questions were answered by statistical analysis of IDI scores and the second two research questions were answered by thematic analysis of the discussion data. 7.2. Intercultural and Global Learning 7.2.1. Perceived and Developmental Intercultural Scores Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of IDI data concluded that all but one of 178 respondents overestimated their intercultural development by demonstrating that upper level students at both institutions under study had perceived scores that were between 6.66 and 56.74 points higher than their actual developmental score. A difference of seven points is considered an overestimation. An overestimation of 56.74 points demonstrates an overestimation of almost four full developmental stages. The difference between perceived and developmental scores is represented by the Orientation Gap (OG) scores. The mean OG for this population was 28.59, sd 9.621. Therefore the mean overestimation for this population was close to two developmental stages. Statistical significance of the difference in PO and DO scores was confirmed by a paired t-test that resulted in a p value of<.01. The mean Developmental Orientation was 91.77, sd 14.703, from which we can conclude that the majority of third and fourth year students graduating from B.C.'s regional institutions have not developed beyond the ethnocentric / transition stage of lower Minimization; yet, their perception of their development is inflated to the ethnorelative stage of Acceptance. DO scores in Minimization are not uncommon in undergraduate profiles. Several of the studies reviewed for this dissertation reported mean scores within Minimization (Brown, 2008; Carter, 2006; Jon, 2009; Nichols, 2011; Pederson, 2009). However, none 144 of these studies specifically measured upper level Canadian students in regional, internationalized institutions. Nor did any reviewed IDI studies investigate the two demographic variables found to be significant influences of development in this study, as discussed next. In order to answer the second research question univariate Analyses of Variance and Tukey pairwise comparisons for significant factors with more than two levels were conducted in the GLM. Of the seven demographic variables tested only two unique to this study were found to be significant. Student status was significant for all three dependent variables: Perceived Orientation F (1) = 6.55, p = 0.011; Developmental Orientation F (1) = 10.43, p = 0.001; Orientation Gap F (1) = 11.89, p = 0.001. Therefore, being an international student related to statistically significant higher perceptions of intercultural development, lower actual developmental scores, and larger overestimation of development. Similarly, academic discipline was found to be significant for all three dependent variables: Perceived Orientation F (3) = 4.42, p = 0.005; Developmental Orientation F (3) = 3.39, p = 0.019; Orientation Gap F (3) = 2.78, p = 0.043. Tukey comparisons verified that two academic disciplines were related to statistically significant variance in scores: Professional schools and science. Therefore, studying in a professional school program was associated with higher perception of development, higher actual developmental scores, and a smaller overestimation of development; whereas, studying in a science program was associated with lower perception of development, lower actual developmental scores, and a larger overestimation of development. In this study gender was not significant at a confidence level of 95%; only the DO ANOVA was close at F (1) =3.65, p = 0.058. As discussed in Chapter 3, some American studies have found gender to be a significant factor (Brown, 2008; Nichols, 2011; Vande Berg, 2009; Westrick, 2004); however, an equal number of studies reviewed did not find gender to be significant (Carter, 2006; Davis, 2008; Jon, 2009; Pederson, 2011). None of the other demographic variables tested (age, time spent abroad, member of an ethnic minority, or institution) were found to be statistically significant influences on intercultural development scores as measured by the IDI. Of the IDI studies reviewed for this dissertation none found age to be significant which is in keeping with the findings of IDI validity tests (Hammer et al., 2003; Paige et al., 2003). Although there is often an 145 assumption that time spent abroad enhances intercultural development, only Jon (2008) found some gains in IDI subscales but not in overall PO or DO scores. Westrick (2004) did find gains associated with time spent abroad; although, the participants were high school students studying in International Baccalaureate programs in Hong Kong and her study did not account for a variety of other social factors that may have related to variances in scores. Of the studies reviewed for this dissertation, none used similar categories to differentiate between disciplines; yet, nonetheless produced findings that could also represent the need for research into how disciplinary content is related to intercultural development. For example, Carter (2006) found that being a theatre or engineering student was associated with lower IDI scores, and Nichols (2008) found that students studying non-international business programs also scored lower on the IDI. Conversely, Vande Berg et al. (2009) found increases in IDI scores associated with social sciences and humanities study. This study may represent the first to investigate variances in IDI scores by student status. The implications for services and programming will be discussed later in this chapter. The next section will discuss the implications of the qualitative findings for curriculum and pedagogy. 7.2.2. Perceptions of Intercultural and Global Learning Where the quantitative analysis of IDI data provided evidence of differences in intercultural development scores of upper level students, the qualitative analysis provided further depth in understanding the perceived realities of students regarding intercultural and global learning in academic settings. Analysis of student perceptions produced a number of themes which taken together with the statistical analysis both informs post-secondary educators and offers potential starting points to enhance intercultural and global learning in higher education. This section focuses on the findings from the focus group data while linking those findings to the quantitative evidence. Analysis of focus group discussions and written responses revealed three overarching themes for students' perceptions of learning in academic settings which related to the literature reviewed in Chapters 2 and 3. The three main areas of analysis 146 were: global learning, intercultural learning, and curriculum and pedagogy, which will each be discussed below. Global Learning Four themes emerged under participants' perceptions of global learning: confusion of global learning with globalization; a resigned passivity toward globalization; competition as a strategy to cope with global forces; and a superficial conceptualization of global citizenship. In all seven discussions participants linked global learning to globalization; however, even though a number of them claimed to have studied globalization in depth, their understanding of globalization was often superficial, based on cliché, and always limited to Western perspectives. As discussed in Chapter 2, the acceptance of simplistic conceptualizations of globalization has become common; yet in the context of university education it is unfortunate that these one-dimensional understandings seem to have remained interrogated. Participants in this study did not reveal complex learning regarding the direction of benefits of globalization (Santos, 2006) or question whether anyone is accountable (Popkewitz & Rizvi, 2009), or whom globalization as an ideology may serve (Bourdieu, 2003). Rather, they seemed contentedly resigned to the inevitability rhetoric (Altbach & Teichler, 2001; Burbules & Torres, 2000) even when some of them professed to have studied globalization in detail. This tendency to overestimate global learning aligns with the overestimation of intercultural development evidenced in the quantitative analysis. Moreover, this naive lens that views global processes through a monocultural lens can be aligned with Bennett's (1986; 1993) developmental stage of Minimization in which individuals or groups tend to minimize difference into familiar ways of seeing the world. This is consistent with the quantitative findings that 61% of respondents' developmental scores placed in Minimization or the cusp of Minimization with an additional 25% placing in the ethnocentric stages of Polarization or Denial which are characterized by dichotomous worldviews or denial that other world views exist respectively. The IDI results showed that close to 85% of respondents DO scores placed them in either ethnocentric or transition stages of development. This developmental stage may also illuminate the second theme of resigned passivity in which participant comments 147 revealed their perception of inevitability and lack of agency in the face of globalizing forces indicative of dualistic, monocultural worldviews. The third global learning theme of competition also revealed some participants' dispositions toward an "us and them" framework which corresponds with the intercultural development stage of Polarization. Many participants perceived globalizing forces in economic terms requiring competitive strategies whether individually in terms of future careers or from national standpoint where we must compete for resources. This finding relates to Shultz's (2011) four quadrant analysis of syllabi discussed in Chapter 2 where quadrant 1 represented both weak structural analysis and intercultural focus where competition and entrepreneurialism were highlighted under a guise of universalist neutrality. It also relates to Oka's (2007) syllabi analysis in which she found that the majority of times (86%) where global concepts were taught the focus was economic, whereas only 14% focused on social justice. Furthermore, the tendency to frame globalization in market rhetoric is consistent with the concerns of many educational scholars (Côté & Allahar, 2011; Harris, 2008; Nussbaum, 2009; Popkewitz & Rizvi, 2009; Santos, 2006; Stomquist, 2007; Popkewitz & Rizvi, 2009) as discussed in Chapter 2. Although some of the focus group discussions acknowledged complicity or impacts on other populations, none of the participants evidenced an understanding of globalization that took multiple perspectives or rose above popularized globalization rhetoric. This tendency to view global issues through monocultural mindsets was further evidenced through the final global learning theme of global citizenship. The final global learning theme of global citizenship arose in many discussions. Some participants expressed this as a vague interconnectedness resulting from globalization; whereas, others were able to articulate a sense of complicity or responsibility as part of their conceptualization of global citizenship. However, none of the participants questioned the meaning of the term or how it might be construed from a different cultural perspective, nor did they frame this membership in terms of any type of praxis. Discussions of global learning and global citizenship did not reveal cosmopolitan understandings as participants did not link their understanding to either democratic idealism or ethical actions. Nor did they evidence any understanding of what Santos (2001) refers to as insurgent cosmopolitanism developing in other areas of the globe that serves as a counter to hegemonic globalization. Their perceptions of global citizenship 148 were limited to envisioning themselves as quasi-philanthropic citizens which was not necessarily inclusive of others, nor displayed cosmopolitan orientations of unity in diversity. This positioning of one's self as a global citizen without really considering who gets to be a global citizen (Dower, 2011; Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011) or what this citizenship looks like on a global scale (Abdi, 2011; Appadurai, 2001; Shultz, 2011) does not demonstrate informed global learning. Focus group participants linked global learning to globalization; yet, their understanding of globalizing forces was more often naive, and representative of a monocultural perspective. This finding also relates to Shultz's (2011) four quadrant analysis and aligns with the calls of many GCE scholars that education must provide more than the dominant perspective of global citizenship (Abdi, 2011; Andreotti, 2011; Pike, 2008). Even for participants whose curricula contained global themes, there was a lack of application of learning beyond a "developed" world perspective. Many participants overestimated their global learning and although they may have learned definitions or facts, their conceptualization of the global remained interrogated. Some participants also narrowly equated global learning with intercultural learning. This lack of distinction could be due to the fact that the study presented the terms together and caused confusion for some participants, or it could be indicative of a lack of global knowledge beyond cultural differences for many of the participants. The quantitative results indicated that the population under study demonstrated a range of intercultural competence with the majority in the lower levels of development; the qualitative analysis demonstrates that for many participants global competency was also lacking. Intercultural Learning Four themes emerged from the discussions and written responses under the overarching theme of intercultural learning: the two solitudes that many participants experienced as a reality on both campuses; the tensions they negotiate in culturally diverse classrooms; the use of avoidance as a strategy to mask fear, embarrassment, indifference, or perceived risk to academic success; and Canadian multiculturalism as a reason for developing competence. The qualitative analysis was guided by the DMIS / IDC in terms of the tone of comments and how they related to the quantitative evidence. 149 IDI profiles and also include "leading" or "trailing" orientations. A trailing orientation may cause an individual, in certain situations, to revert to a previous orientation. A leading orientation is related to an individual's perceived orientation; where they perceive themselves to be. Therefore participant comments may have been related to their trailing orientation, where under pressure their comments are characteristic of former mindsets, or they may have represented leading orientations in which participants projected their perceived orientation in discourse. Participant comments were interpreted as potentially representative of intercultural mindset but did not pretend to interpret where a participant's IDI score might actually be. Deardorff's Process Model also informed the analysis in terms of how participants framed intercultural learning. Although Deardorff's (2006) Process Model does not directly measure intercultural competence, it provides a framework by which to interpret components of competence both internally and externally, as well as through the requisite attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Deardorff (2009) explains that while internal outcomes may be assessed by the individual, external outcomes necessitate the assessment of others involved in the interaction. Therefore, the reactions of other participants and researcher notes provided additional means through which to analyze participants' intercultural competence. Deardorff (2009) states that attitudes serve as the basis for her model and therefore influence all other aspects of competency development. The first focus group question: Why is intercultural and global learning important, or not, for today's students?, provided ample evidence that participants acknowledged the importance of attitudes: specifically respect, curiosity, and openness. The majority of participants in all seven focus groups discussed being open minded, respectful, and interested in other cultures. Although participants generally communicated an understanding that attitudes were an important aspect of intercultural learning, researcher observation noted that at times their rhetoric was undermined by the surfacing of alternate attitudes, many times by the same speaker who previously proclaimed the importance of being open minded. These instances provided additional evidence of an inflated confidence that did not always translate to intercultural skills. 150 The Process Model moves from attitudes to knowledge and skills. Deardorff (2006; 2009) includes cultural self-awareness within the knowledge and skills quadrant of her model. It is interesting to note that there was a lack of commentary from participants that reflected deep cultural self-awareness. Although a few individual participants evidenced some degree of cultural self-awareness, their comments were less clearly articulated than when discussing the need for knowledge of other cultural perspectives. Researcher notes commented on the lack of cultural self-awareness in both behaviour and comments, as well as the absence of any substantive discussion of this as a necessary component of intercultural learning. The other aspects of Deardorff's knowledge component are deep cultural knowledge and sociolinguistic awareness. Throughout all focus group discussions there was surprisingly little display of deep cultural knowledge. Participants expressed the need for knowledge but did not exhibit deep understanding of another culture. Comments that referred to knowledge about other cultures were limited to surface knowledge about eye contact or the wearing of veils. As a causal model Deardorff's (2006; 2009) Process Model moves through individual competence development to competence in interaction with others. For Deardorff these represent internal outcomes involving informed frame of reference shifts that include adaptability, flexibility, ethnorelative view, and empathy, and external outcomes which involve effective and appropriate communication and behaviour in intercultural situations. In the analysis of participant comments, it was clear that many participants routinely framed intercultural knowledge and skills as necessary for professional reasons; whereas, fewer highlighted the need in terms of personal or societal benefits. Those participants who saw intercultural knowledge and skills as necessary for personal growth or effective citizenship were less articulate, and more general or sweeping in their comments. The fact that the majority of participants framed intercultural competence in terms of external rather than internal outcomes may reflect the statistics reported in Chapter 5 where the difference between perceived and developmental scores evidenced significant orientation gaps for the majority of respondents. These comments may also be reflective of students studying in an individualist culture in which educational pursuits of all types are increasingly framed in terms of economics (Altbach, 2004; Kezar, 2007; 151 Stromquist, 2007; Teichler, 2003), as discussed in Chapter 2. In addition, the fact that many students linked the importance of intercultural learning to Canadian multiculturalism, may relate to Kymlicka's (2003) contention that although individuals may have been educated to support state sanctioned multicultural policies, this does not necessarily mean that they will have intentionally engaged with learning across cultures or reflected on their own position within the multicultural milieu. Participants in this study significantly overestimated their intercultural development. The great majority of participants were operating within a Minimization world view. Although they continually articulated the importance of intercultural and global learning, there was less evidence that their learning had been reflective or internalized. Both general comments and those related specifically to classroom experiences indicate that cultivating cultural self-awareness was not often encouraged as part of learning, where experts agree it is a necessary component of intercultural development (Bennett, 2009; Deardorff, 2006; 2009; King et al., 2005). The lack of discussion regarding skill development is also informative. This brings us to the question of how students might be gaining knowledge and skills and their perceptions of how their academic experiences may or may not be facilitating this acquisition. The following sections look more closely at student perceptions of pedagogy and educational practices that foster the development of intercultural and global learning. 7.3. Implications for Canadian Higher Education The findings of this study have clarified that there are imbalances and sometimes absences in the intercultural and global learning of students in B.C.'s regional universities. The range of intercultural development measured by the IDI and the statistically significant differences across student demographics should give educators pause. Moreover, the overestimation of intercultural and global learning evidenced in the analysis of the data sets is both troubling and informative at the same time. Given that both institutions included in this study engage in international student recruitment and also welcome new Canadians and high numbers of Aboriginal students from a variety of regions and backgrounds, the IDI results may be surprising to some who assume that mere contact with diversity results in development. What is perhaps more 152 informative is not the IDI scores but the participants' perceptions of how intercultural and global learning is, or is not, facilitated on their campus. The two data sets considered together imply that there is still much work to be done if we are to truly prepare students to be personally, socially, and professionally successful in increasingly multicultural, multilingual, and global environments. The implications for Canadian higher education demonstrated by this study can be separated into four categories: the need to re-vision the mission of internationalization; professional development for faculty and staff; curricular revision that recognizes other ways of knowing and being; and pedagogical interventions that include intentional design and delivery of opportunities for meaningful peer interaction. 7.3.1. Re-visioning the Mission of Internationalization Chapter 2 reviewed the internationalization literature revealing a divided field which some scholars claim has gone dangerously in the direction of a market rather than and educational venture (Harris, 2008; Stromquist, 2007; Teichler, 2003). Indeed, Brandenburg and de Witt (2011) suggest that it is time to rethink international education as a means to a goal; presuming this would be an educational goal it might necessitate connecting internationalization more explicitly to intercultural and global learning outcomes Considering that we are educating students during a time of unprecedented mobility of populations and ideas (Appadurai, 1996), it would seem prudent to prepare students to live and work effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds and practices, if not to inform cosmopolitan orientations. For internationalization to realize this potential, we must begin to consider that success may involve outcomes as well as outputs and not perceive success solely based on numbers of people or programs moving across borders. Perhaps this will require as Brandenburg and de Witt (2001) suggest a "new unbiased paradigm" (p. 28), by which they mean that we may need a completely new way to conceive of education in the current highly mobile, technological, and global reality. Regardless it will entail institutional reflection and intentional and informed leadership in order to position international education as a robust academic venture. According to Asgharzadeh (2008): We need a vision of international education that pays attention to the educational and social needs of multicultural student populations. To this 153 end, policies and practices of teaching, learning, and educational delivery need to move away from conventional methods based on monolingualism and monoculturalism. Such a shift should be reflected in teacher training courses, development of curricula, and design of the school environment where emphasis is placed on cross-cultural, sociopolitical, and sociohistorical aspects of interrelations between and among sites such as language, identity, and power. (p. 340) International education has for the most part downplayed the sociopolitical and sociohistorical implications of language, power, and identity that Asgharzadeh (2008) recommends addressing. As suggested in Chapter 2, an alliance with global citizenship education (GCE) and cosmopolitan frameworks may provide a way forward. Some GCE scholars acknowledge connections with international education (Gacel–Avila, 2005; Shultz, 2011; Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011). Yet there are a number of areas where GCE and cosmopolitanism scholarship could inform a new understanding of internationalization. First, international educators have not traditionally been concerned with how their efforts may inherently champion a dominant epistemology; whereas, GCE and cosmopolitanism advocate for the inclusion of multiple perspectives and epistemologies (Andreotti, 2011; Appiah, 2006; Asgharzadeh, 2008; Banks, 2009; Bates, 2005; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Santos, 2007; Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010). Second, GCE and cosmopolitanism attempt to explicitly address inequities and ethical dilemmas surrounding globalization which could benefit international education in moving towards an outcomes focus. Finally, GCE has a focus on pedagogy and curriculum that encourages critical thinking and perspective shifting that has only recently become a discussion in international education. Furthermore, in order to create a campus ethos that nurtures global mindedness, all campus personnel need clear communication regarding the rationales for internationalization and intercultural and global learning as part of the campus culture (Anderson, 2008). This concept of campus ethos that reaches all areas of the institution is in line with Hudzik's (2011) definition of comprehensive internationalization: Comprehensive internationalization is a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all 154 academic service and support units. It is an institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility (p. 6). Hudzik's definition complements Knight's (2004) definition, yet demands action, which will be critical if internationalization is to meet its full potential as a foundation for 21st century learning. If Canadian higher education is to play a role in preparing young people to be effective citizens in an increasingly interconnected world, it will involve leadership that does more than pay lip service to diversity or engage in rhetoric about inclusion. This leadership will need to be throughout the institution and not be relegated to international departments who often have business rather than educational backgrounds. Rather, the type of leadership required is at the executive level in which the highest institutional offices clearly communicate the need for institutional change that values linking intercultural and global learning outcomes to academic excellence, pedagogy, and curricular transformation (Anderson, 2008). If this type of leadership were to emerge then the stage would be set for campus wide professional development, which is discussed next. 7.3.2. The Need for Professional Development Chapter 3 reviewed the literature advocating for the professional development of faculty; yet given the findings of this study, the need for professional development should not be limited to faculty. In particular, the quantitative findings indicate that International Student Services must retain or train personnel to facilitate intercultural learning prior to arrival, upon arrival, and throughout students’ time at the institution. Yet, this need not be the sole responsibility of international departments. All staff working with students (whether domestic or international) or programming student services should be encouraged to develop deeper understanding of intercultural and global learning in order to facilitate student learning outcomes for all students. In particular, student services personnel could be inspired to develop intercultural competencies in themselves in order to model inclusion and appreciation of diversity, and those designing programs should become familiar with intercultural learning models. Of course, developing rigorous, theoretically informed programs will necessitate that educators themselves have a certain degree of development, which will be discussed later in the following section. 155 The data analysis in this study revealed that although students perceived a campus climate that was often more divisive than inclusive in terms of activities and events, the quantitative and qualitative analysis confirmed that curriculum and pedagogy were associated with intercultural and global learning outcomes. As illustrated in Chapter 3, a review of recent literature reveals a growing body of scholarship calling for the professional development of faculty as a foundation for developing competencies in students (Bond, 2006; Leask, 2006; Lee et al., 2012; Odgers & Giroux, 2006; Stone, 2006; Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007, Teekens, 2003; Otten, 2009), the challenges of developing competence in educators (Bennett, 2010; Deardorff, 2009; Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007; Stohl, 2007; Teekens, 2003), and the critical role faculty hold (Bond, 2003; Dewey & Duff, 2009; Lee et al., 2012; Schweitz, 2006; Stohl, 2007). Given the findings of this study, it appears that pedagogy and curricular content are associated with intercultural and global learning outcomes. Differences in developmental scores and student perceptions both indicate that both what and how we teach are related to intercultural and global learning. Therefore, the approach to academic learning outcomes must be both intentional and comprehensive (Green, 2013; Hudzik, 2011; Leask, 2009; 2012; Lee et al., 2012). According to Lee et al. (2012), it is faculty who: have the ability to facilitate such competence development when mindful of the purposes and actions that are necessary to guide students into interactions that are inclusive of their respective differences and productively disrupt the pattern of non-engagement or the mindless acceptance of rejection or difference. (p. 104) Furthermore, the same authors assert that the ways in which educators can facilitate intercultural and global learning need not be limited by disciplinary content or focus. Two recent studies of employer attitudes toward intercultural and global competencies illustrate the need for rethinking this type of learning as solely for the humanities or professional schools. A US report published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) indicated that more than 90% of employers valued intercultural skills and 93% valued critical thinking and communication over academic major (Hart Research Associates, 2013). Another report entitled "College Learning for the New Global Century" indicated that 56% of employers felt that education should 156 place more emphasis on cultural values and traditions (AACU, 2007). These findings are of interest in the context of faculty professional development because incorporating intercultural and global learning may not be considered necessary content in some disciplines; yet these studies show they constitute a component of student success following graduation. Employers' perceptions taken together with the results of Green's (2005) study that gathered student perceptions of global learning and found that over 70% of students felt that it was important to learn about other countries, cultures and global issues, indicates that while some faculty may not see it as important, both students and their potential employers may. Moreover, Green (2005) found that close to 70% of student participants believed it was the responsibility of the faculty and the institution to help them become aware of global and intercultural issues; whereas, 60% reported never learning about these topics from faculty. These results are of interest to this study in their similarity to the focus group analysis. Green’s (2005) findings also speak to the broader need for curricular revision to address the learning outcomes which will prepare today's youth to constructively contribute to the local, national, and global contexts in which they will live and work. Indeed, the situation is reminiscent of Barr and Tagg's (1995) observation that a paradigm shift is imminent in which education must move from providing instruction to producing learning. Lee et al. (2012) also advocate for a transformation in teaching that must involve a "shift from a content-focused pedagogical paradigm to a way of learning that utilizes diverse viewpoints in productive and rewarding ways across the curriculum" (p. 2). They claim it is critical that instructors receive professional development in both pedagogy and instructional design in order to support learning outcomes. Faculty professional development should include multicultural perspectives, multilingual approaches, and multidisciplinary collaboration (Lee et al., 2012; Otten, 2003) and support pedagogy that is inclusive and welcoming to cultural perspectives and practices (Asgharzadeh, 2008; Banks, 2009; Bates, 2005; Kincheloe & Steinberg; 2008, Kuokkanen, 2009) of students from backgrounds not traditionally represented in Western academia. This would also necessitate knowledge of the global more broadly, and specifically at the disciplinary intersection. Another component of faculty professional development involves reflection and self-awareness (Deardorff, 2009; Leask, 2012; Odgers & Giroux, 2006; Schuerholz157 Lehr, 2007). Odgers and Giroux (2006) present a three pillars model that connects the educator (their assumptions, experiences, philosophy) with their teaching (classroom dynamics) and curriculum (content and evaluation). Deardorff (2009) offers a set of provocative questions including: • How truly open am I to those from different cultural, socio-economic and religious backgrounds? • Do I make quick assumptions about a student? Do I prejudge students or situations, or do I withhold judgment while I explore the multifacets of the situation? • Do I measure a student’s behaviour based on my own culturally conditioned expectations or do I try to understand a student’s behaviour based on his or her own culturally conditioned background? • How would I describe my worldview? • How would I describe some of the students’ worldviews? How might these differ from the ways in which I see the world? • How can I incorporate my students’ worldviews into my course materials? • What worldviews are demonstrated through the course materials I currently use? How can I enhance those materials so that other worldviews are represented The implications for faculty professional development thus involve awareness, deep reflection, gaining knowledge and skills that would drive innovation, collaboration, and intentional pedagogy. In order to move beyond a content, expert-centered pedagogy towards a student-centred learning environment, faculty professional development should also include a critical pedagogy framework. The link between intercultural and global learning and critical pedagogy was discussed in Chapter 2 revealing a complementarity in that critical pedagogy and intercultural pedagogy both advocate for critical reflection and dialogue. According to Lee et al. (2012) intercultural competencies are associated with the ideological awareness advocated by critical pedagogues; they claim that intercultural pedagogy and critical pedagogy "complement one another in a shared commitment to interrupt cultural and personal patterns that inhibit respectful interactions with alternate perspectives" (p.82). Teaching for global mindedness can be enhanced through critical pedagogy by engaging learners in an active process through which experience complements 158 concepts and knowledge is constructed through reflection, interaction, dialogue, and ultimately praxis. This section has illuminated the implications for pedagogy and the need for ongoing support and professional development for staff and faculty. All campus personnel should be included in professional development activities and the creation of a campus ethos that values global mindedness. However, this discussion has focused on the needs of faculty as the drivers of learning within and across the disciplines. Faculty are responsible for most of the formal learning experiences of students and are critical to students' development and learning outcomes, as the key facilitators of classroom learning and interaction, their engagement and professional development is crucial. Faculty are also the creators of course and program content through the development of the formal curricula. The next section will explore the implications for curricular revision and development implied by the findings in this study. 7.3.3. Revisiting Curricula The previous two sections illustrated the need for leadership, communication and professional development in order to support all students' intercultural and global learning. One of this study's findings is the need for BC's regional institutions to revisit curricula and program learning outcomes to ensure that students across disciplines and program areas are provided with similar opportunities. These opportunities should allow for more application of intercultural and global learning relevant to academic disciplines in order to ensure that all students graduate with the capacity to understand and effectively engage intercultural and global issues and approaches within their field. Incorporating intercultural and global dimensions across the disciplines will continue to be a challenge as differing disciplinary dispositions, institutional contexts, and instructors' engagement and capacity create a complex set of hurdles. Yet if we believe that all students, regardless of discipline would benefit from a broadened world view then perhaps we do require "an ‘educational reform’ that requires that we think differently about the universality of knowledge" (Mestenhauser, 1998, p. 21). 159 The quantitative analysis of IDI scores revealed that the intercultural development of students was significantly related to their field of study. Participants studying in professional schools had significantly higher PO and DO scores and smaller OG scores; conversely, participants studying in the sciences had significantly lower PO and DO scores and larger OG scores. In addition, comments from participants representing sciences in focus group discussions indicated that science students' perceptions of their curriculum can be that it typically represents one world view and does not consider other ways of understanding the world or how the Western scientific approach may impact diverse populations locally or globally. Indeed the AUCC (2009) has noted: There is a differential uptake across disciplines, which confirms the perceived cultural neutrality of some academic disciplines identified as a barrier in the literature. Some faculty members may believe that there are no cultural differences in technology, for instance, although the application of technologies is never far removed from specific cultural and ethical settings. (p.14) In other countries, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) courses are increasingly being discussed as academic areas in need of intercultural and global learning as these professions increasingly span borders and will require intercultural and international collaboration. Indeed, the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) held a 2013 Colloquium on the Internationalization of STEM fields (NAFSA, 2013) where educators discussed the need for these disciplines to consider international learning outcomes. Holbrook (2008) also discusses a "global STEM initiative" aimed at preparing students to become citizens of an increasingly complex, interconnected, interdependent world that should be informed by global perspectives and the ability to appreciate the contributions of other knowledge systems. Therefore, BC's regional STEM courses might consider developing students' competencies to keep pace with these developments. Focus group analysis in the present study identified that an interdisciplinary approach could also enhance intercultural and global learning outcomes for students. Interdisciplinary collaboration is also advocated for by Crichton and Scarino (2007), Hudzik (2011), Lee et al. (2012), Mestenhauser (1998), and Odgers and Giroux (2006). 160 Leask's (2012) Conceptual Framework for Internationalizing the Curriculum puts the "knowledge in and across the disciplines" (p. 3) at the centre flanked on one side by the institutional, national, and global contexts and on the other by dominant and emerging paradigms within the discipline. Although the quantitative analysis of IDI scores revealed that studying in a professional school was related to higher scores and lower overestimation, analysis of focus group comments indicated that even students studying in professional schools were dissatisfied with the depth of their intercultural and global learning. In particular, participants representing professional schools and academic professions indicated that even when intercultural and global content was included in their program, they were rarely asked, or given the opportunity, to apply their knowledge. If instructors were to revisit curriculum using Leask's (2012) Process Model for Internationalizing the Curriculum in which educators are invited to move through a five step process to evaluate, review and reflect, imagine, revise and plan, and act; they may find innovative ways to allow students to apply their learning. Moving through these stages allows for faculty to see where revisions are necessary and possible. Backwards curriculum design is also particularly useful in revising curriculum to meet intercultural and global learning outcomes. By starting with the outcome — by asking what students will be able to do, value, or know at the end of a course or program — we move to more learner-centered approaches. Rather than what will we teach them? We should ask what outcome do we want to see? Once the outcome is established, we are then able to develop innovative learning tasks that provide opportunities for students to reach those outcomes. Killick (2006) and Jones and Killick (2007) provide guidelines for revising curriculum to develop global perspectives and Leask's (2012) guide to internationalizing the curriculum can also provide a framework for educators to rethink both content and delivery methods. Participants in this study discussed the use of technology and experiential learning as potential ways to engage student learning. The possibilities presented by the use of technology to learn about other worldviews and practices are endless. Furthermore, experiential learning of this kind has been established as a high impact learning experience by Kuh (2008). 161 Educators should also consider the developmental and causal models presented in the intercultural literature (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Bennett's (1986; 1993) DMIS, King and Baxter Magolda's (2005) Model of Intercultural Maturity, and Deardorff's (2006) Process Model could also be used as frameworks for how learning can be layered throughout a program in order to balance challenge with support and meet learners at the stage from which they can experience development. Developmental models can also guide the pace and positioning of learning, as much of this learning takes time and a scaffolded approach (Bennett, 2010). Furthermore, these models all include successive learning in the cognitive, affective, and behavioral realms and so necessitate moving away from the tendency to present students with cognitive materials without allowing the development of attitudes and skills necessary for competence to be achieved. Providing opportunities for students to apply knowledge and develop skills can be enhanced through intentional design and facilitation of opportunities in which they can interact with difference. How we can improve these opportunities is discussed in the next section. 7.3.4. Improving Opportunities through Informed Intent Both the overall IDI scores and participant perceptions indicate that there is room for improvement in facilitating intercultural and global learning across campus. Given that the mean IDI scores for the full sample of upper level students was in the beginning of the transition phase of Minimization and that more than one quarter of the sample's scores were in the ethnocentric stages of Denial or Polarization, there are numerous opportunities for enhancing student development. The preceding two sections dealt specifically with pedagogical and curricular changes; therefore this section will look to how institutional approaches to extra and co-curricular programming could enhance student learning opportunities. Both the IDI scores and participant comments indicate that student services programming should carefully consider the incorporation of intercultural and global learning from orientation onward and include scaffolded developmental opportunities throughout student engagement activities. These opportunities should not be ad hoc but should be carefully chosen and designed according to learning models. Initial programming in the first and second years should employ intercultural development 162 approaches aimed toward the lower phases of development and not begin with more complex identity issues or cultural differentiation models that could serve to entrench ethnocentric mindsets and stunt development. Student development professionals should be aware of the impacts of intergroup contact and become knowledgeable regarding intercultural and global competence development. Participants in this study were clear that in many cases their interaction is limited due to silos created either by the demographic labels or separate services provided by their institution; therefore, student service professionals should also consider ways to integrate programming where possible while at the same time retaining service specifics unique to each demographic group. When we look to the qualitative data, there is plenty of evidence that students would welcome more opportunities for intercultural and global learning in so far as many expressed the need for it to ensure personal, professional, or societal success. This may be particularly important for students in disciplines where neither the curriculum nor the demographic makeup allow for much intercultural interaction or learning focus. In particular, a number of focus group participants recommended institutional approaches that could enhance interaction and exchange – most notably, orientation and activity programming. These programs should aim to socialize students to an intercultural and globally minded ethos early on rather than provide separate programming that divides, labels, and positions demographic groups from the outset. This socialization should not only focus on the integration of culturally diverse learners to the institutional culture, but introduce all students to the global nature of the campus — as Jones and Killick (2007) suggest the diversity and development of both domestic and international students should be considered. The IDI scores and statistical analysis provide another area of concern, namely the differences in scores between international and domestic students. The demographic factor of being an international student as opposed to a domestic student was found to be a statistically significant factor on all three response variables. International students had higher PO scores, lower DO scores and consistently overestimated their intercultural development by more than one full developmental phase and in most cases by between two and four phases. This finding may be surprising to those who have assumed that international students have developed intercultural skills as a result of studying internationally. The results are not as surprising 163 if one considers the central assumption of Bennett's (1986; 1993) model that it is one's experience of cultural difference and how one construes the experience, that leads to development. Many international students join us from previously monocultural experiences and may not have had much exposure to multicultural environments. Therefore, it is essential that student services personnel support programming with consistent and scaffolded opportunities for international students to develop both cultural self-awareness and understanding of other cultural practices through "experiential, constructivist" programming (Vande Berg et al. (2012) and opportunities for reflective practices. Although the scores for the entire sample were disappointingly low, the international student scores were decidedly skewed to the lower phases, with an alarming number in the first phase of Denial in which the importance of cultural similarities and differences is simply denied. Another large proportion scored in Polarization indicating an “us and them” orientation in which either the home or the host culture are viewed as superior. The implications of this finding for educators are serious. On campus international student support personnel are more than aware of the challenges faced by international students; however, this data confirms the need for an enhanced approach to supporting international students. How can educational supports to improve international student success be effective if a clear majority of students are unable to acknowledge or refuse to navigate the complex cultural nuances involved in achieving success in another cultural context? How can these young sojourners be supported to reflect on their cultural preferences and similarities and differences with Canadian culture if they are in Denial or Polarization? Educational programming in general could be guided by developmental models such as Bennett's (1986; 1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity or King et al.'s (2005) Model of Intercultural Maturity or what Sptizberg and Changnon (2009) have termed "causal path" models such as Deardorff's (2006; 2009) Process Model or Ting-Toomey's (1999) Multilevel Process Change Model of Intercultural Competence to guide students' development throughout their undergraduate years. Moreover programming specific to international students' development should also consider what Spitzberg and Changnon term "adaptational" models, such as Kim's (1998) Intercultural Communicative Competence Model or Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki's (1989) 164 Attitude Acculturation Model. There is no shortage of models to guide educators in supporting students' intercultural development; educators simply must familiarize themselves with the models that suit their intended outcomes in order to create theoretically grounded programming that will support student development and adaptation. Student services programming should be guided by research and scholarship, use clearly stated learning outcomes strategically bridged throughout orientation and engagement activities, and include assessment of learning outcomes (Deardorff, 2004; 2006). Lee et al. (2012) cite years of research to support their claim that "intentionally designed and actively facilitated intercultural interactions" (p.5) are critical to the development of students' intercultural and global competency development. Indeed, almost 20 years ago Volet and Ang (1998) warned “that unless inter-cultural contact is engineered as a part of formal study, social cohesion will not happen and all students will miss out on critical learning opportunities” (p. 8). Efforts should also consider cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes and not only focus on giving students information about culture or adaptation. What is clear is that simply putting students together or telling students about culture shock is not sufficient to reach the intended learning outcomes for students to succeed in multicultural, globalized contexts. The previous sections have outlined the implications of this study's findings: the need to re-vision internationalization terms of learning outcomes; the need for campus wide professional development, and for faculty or program planners in particular; the need to revisit and refine curricular learning outcomes across the disciplines using established frameworks and models, and the need for intentionally designed opportunities for interaction. As evidenced by the literature review in Chapter 3 and the discussion in this chapter, there has been much recent scholarship that has begun to provide promising practices for enhancing intercultural and global learning outcomes; yet, more research is needed in order to understand the impacts of changes on student learning outcomes and to refine best practices for teaching and learning in and about multicultural, globalized environments. The next section will make recommendations for future research. 165 7.4. Recommendations for Future Research Both the findings presented in Chapters 5 and 6, as well as the implications discussed in this chapter give rise to the need for additional research. First, further study incorporating frameworks or instruments developed outside of Western or Northern scholarship would be beneficial. To understand culturally diverse students' development and perceptions of intercultural and global learning through a variety of cultural lenses and models would clearly be beneficial. Second, the quantitative findings which showed statistically significant results that student status and academic discipline are related to intercultural development scores as measured by the IDI should be corroborated in further studies including larger urban institutions and more specific disciplines and programs. This study chose four groupings for academic discipline. Future research should investigate specific disciplines, as well as disciplines not included in this study. It would also be beneficial to have a large enough portion of a future sample that would identify as Aboriginal or New Canadian to better understand how those populations are developing and provide a clearer understanding of their perceptions of intercultural and global learning in academic settings, as this study originally set out to explore. The result that being an international student is significantly associated with lower developmental scores should be further investigated by country demographic in order for educators to more clearly understand which student groups may require additional supports. A balanced research design that could investigate the interaction effects of independent variables or allow for multiple regression analysis would be beneficial in further understanding how student demographics are associated to intercultural development scores. Furthermore, another study should include other extra-curricular and co-curricular experiences as additional influences. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings demonstrated that the majority of students overestimate their intercultural and global learning. The qualitative results demonstrated that although participants discussed globalization and global citizenship at length, they did not demonstrate that deep reflective learning on these concepts had occurred. Future research could investigate which aspects of critical pedagogy would best support critical reflection and dialogue of global issues. 166 The qualitative results indicate that students would welcome more intercultural and global learning as they see this as an important element of their development. However, the results also demonstrated that student perceptions of pedagogy and curriculum are not always positive and are rarely systematic. Future research might investigate how curriculum and pedagogy influence intercultural and global competency development and should also include faculty perspectives in order to better understand promising practices in fostering these competencies for students. Some of the recommendations for research discussed in this section are the result of this study's findings, others are recommended due to the limitations of this study's design, discussed next. 7.5. Limitations of the Research The findings of this study provide educators with many considerations for programming, curriculum, and pedagogy. Yet, this study was confined to collecting data from only two small regional institutions. Furthermore, these institutions do not offer a number of academic programs that are offered in other British Columbian and Canadian institutions. The findings of the quantitative analysis are limited by the unbalanced data which would not allow for further investigation of the interaction effects among independent variables. Data collection did not sufficiently provide for data from Aboriginal and new Canadian students, who are therefore not included in this study, yet comprise important groups of culturally diverse students on most Canadian campuses. Furthermore, the primary intercultural models employed as well as the IDI instrument can be viewed as culturally bound and inherently North American in their conceptualization and use. Focus group composition may also have introduced limitations. Although the demographic representation of focus groups was reflective of the campus populations; the small number of international students only allowed for certain cultural perspectives to be included. Furthermore, in some cases the international students may have felt outnumbered and potentially unwilling to honestly discuss their classroom experiences. However, limitations aside, I am confident that this study makes an important contribution to the potential enhancement of intercultural and global learning in academic settings. 167 Are We Graduating Global Citizens? This mixed methods study begins to answer this question by providing the answers to four research questions: 1. What is the difference between the perceived and actual intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? 2. Do student demographics influence perceived and actual scores? 3. How do students perceive intercultural and global learning? 4. How do students regard curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning? Quantitative analysis using both descriptive and inferential statistics of IDI scores and qualitative analysis of focus group discussions provided the answers to these questions. The main findings of this study include: • Upper level students in two of BC's regional universities overestimate their intercultural development by between one and four developmental phases of the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC). • Student status and academic discipline were associated with statistically significant variations in intercultural development scores. International student scores were significantly different than domestic student scores on all three response variables: lower PO, lower DO, and larger OG. Professional school students had significantly higher PO, higher DO, and smaller OG; whereas, science students had lower PO and DO scores and larger OG. • Students’ perceptions of intercultural and global learning were that it is important for personal, professional, and societal reasons. However, their demonstrated understanding of both intercultural and global competence was often naive and superficial. • Students perceived both curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and global learning; yet, identified a lack of content and application of learning, as well as choice of course and instructor as the factors of whether they would have these learning opportunities. Furthermore, they identified institutional processes as inhibiting interaction outside of class. This study has filled a gap in the literature by providing educators with evidence of students' intercultural and global learning in academic settings. Are we graduating global citizens? Probably... some... however, it is not through intentional or systematic learning opportunities for all students. The results of this study show that we may be missing opportunities to prepare students for the reality of living and working in an increasingly mobile, technological, and global environment. It is my hope that the findings in this study will assist educators to enhance these learning outcomes through 168 intentional pedagogical and curricular revision in order to best prepare our graduates for the multicultural and globalized environments they will need to succeed in. There are many dedicated educators working on strategies to enhance intercultural and global learning as demonstrated by the literature review and discussion. Although much excellent scholarship has begun to show us the way, this study makes clear there is still much work to be done. The findings of this study are an invitation for educators to act. Through critical engagement with the teaching and learning process we can, I believe, provide students with learning specific to their disciplines while at the same time providing them with opportunities to understand their personal, professional, and social positions within the complex world in which they will apply their post-secondary learning. This journey began with a simple question: "Are we graduating global citizens?" As an educator and interculturalist I first pondered this question as I noticed increasing rhetoric in international education making such claims. As a practitioner I was not convinced, though continued to be hopeful, that this was the case. I believed, and still believe, that internationalization offers the potential to educate for global mindedness but I also understand that this is not likely to happen through osmosis. From the beginning of this endeavour I understood the need for a critical examination of both the means and the ends of our internationalization initiatives. The need to look at the outcomes and both the intended and unintended consequences of our actions in ways that invite sometimes difficult reflection has influenced me both personally and professionally. If international educators can take a critical look at our position, informed by sociocultural, sociohistorical, and contemporary educational issues that consider the potential economic and social inequity that may result from of our daily work, I believe we can meet the full potential of internationalization bringing the world to our campuses. This work has convinced me that educators have moral obligations to serve our students and our societies. When we intentionally broaden our scope to include communities on the other side of the world, the responsibility to understand promising practices multiplies. My colleague and good friend, Todd Odgers, says that international educators are in the business of selling futures. If one really considers the implications of this, then one becomes obliged to ensure that what we are selling is what we are delivering and that the future we are creating is one we feel proud to live with. 169 References Abada, T., & Tenkoran, E.Y. (2009) Pursuit of university education among the children of immigrants in Canada: the roles of parental human capital and social capital. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(2), 185-207. doi: 10.1080/136760802558870 Abdi, A.A., & Shultz, L. (2008). Educating for human rights and global citizenship: An introduction. In A.A. Abdi & L. Shultz (Eds.). Educating for human rights and global citizenship (pp.1-11). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Abdi, A.A. (2011). De-monoculturalizing global citizenship education: The need for multicentric intentions and practices. In L. Shultz, A.A. Abdi, & G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp. 25-39). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Abdi, H. (2010). Coefficient of variation. In N.J. Salkind, D.M., Dougherty, & B. Frey (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage. pp. 169171 Absalom, M., & Vadura, K. (2006). Student perceptions of internationalization of the curriculum: An Australian case study. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice 5(3), 317-334. Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioural sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126. doi:10.1177/1558689809360805 Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. Inc. Altbach, P. G. & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5, 5-25. doi: 10.1177/102831530151002 Anderson, J. A. (2008). Driving change through diversity and globalization: Transformative leadership in the academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Andreotti, V. (2011). The question of the “other” in global citizenship education: postcolonial analysis of telling case studies in England. In L. Shultz, A.A. Abdi & G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp.140-157). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. 170 Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton & Co. Appiah, K. A. (2008). Education for Global Citizenship. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 107, 83–99. Apple, M. W. (2000). Between neoliberalism & neoconservatism: Education and conservativism in a global context. In N.C. Burbules, & C.A.Torres C. A. (Eds.). Globalization and education: Critical perspectives (pp. 57-77). New York: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (2006). Interrupting the right: On doing critical educational work in conservative times. In G. Ladson-Billings, & W. F. Tate (Eds.), Education research in the public interest: Social justice, action, and policy (pp. 27-45). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Apple, M. W. (2011). Global crises, social justice, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 222-234. doi:10.1177/0022487110385428 Asgharzadeh, A. (2008). The return of the subaltern: International education and politics of voice. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(4), 334-363. doi: 10.1177/1028315307308137 Asher, N. (2009). Considering curriculum questions and the public good in the postcolonial, global, 21st-century context. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(1), 193-204. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.01445.x Association of American Colleges and Universities (2009), College Learning for the New Global Century, A Report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America's Promise. Retrieved from: http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2009). Internationalization: A force for change in Canadian universities. Retrieved from: http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/internationalization_card Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2010). Value of a degree for Aboriginal Canadians. Retrieved from: http://www.aucc.ca/publications/auccpubs/value-of-a-degree/for-aboriginal Banks, J. A. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global world. Educational Forum, the, 68(4), 296-305. Banks, J. A. (2006). Democracy, diversity, and social justice: Educating citizens for the public interest in a global age. In G. Landson-Billings, & W. F. Tate (Eds.), Education research in the public interest: Social justice, action, and policy (pp. 141-157). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A. (2009). Human rights, diversity, and citizenship education. Educational Forum, 73(2), 100-110. doi:10.1080/00131720902739478 171 Bannerji, H. (2000). The dark side of the nation: Essays on multiculturalism, nationalism and gender. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995) Teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-25. Bates, R. (2005). Can we live together?: Towards a global curriculum. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 4(1), 95-109. doi:10.1177/1474022205048760 Beck, K. (2008). Being international: Learning in a Canadian university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Simon Fraser University. Berry, J.W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies, Applied Psychology, 38, 185-206. Benhabib, S. (2006). Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 178–196. Bennett, M.J. (1993.) Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.). Education for the Intercultural Experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 1– 34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. (2009). Defining, measuring, and facilitating intercultural learning: Introduction to the special issues. In M. Bennett (Guest Ed.). State of the art research on intercultural learning in study abroad and best practice for intercultural learning in international youth exchange. Special Double Issue of Journal of Intercultural Education. International Association of Intercultural Education, Volume 20, Supplement 1, January, 2009. Bennett, M. (2012). Turning cross-cultural contact into intercultural learning. Proceedings of the Universidad 2012 8th International Congress on Higher Education, The University for Sustainable Development, Feb. 15, 2012, Havana, Cuba. Bhagat, R. S. & Landis, D. (1996) A model of intercultural behaviour and training. In R. S. Bhagat & D. Landis (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 116) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Blades, D. W., & Richardson, G. H. (2006). Restarting the interrupted discourse of the public good: Global citizenship education as moral imperative. In G. H. Richardson, & D. W. Blades (Eds.), Troubling the canon of citizenship education. (pp. 115-123). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. 172 Bok, D. (2009). Foreword. In D.K. Deardorff (Ed), The sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. ix-x) Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Bond, Sheryl (2006). Transforming the Culture of Learning: Evoking the International Dimension in Canadian University Curriculum. York University/Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations Symposium: “Internationalizing Canadian Universities: Practices, Challenges and Opportunities” Retrieved from: http://international.yorku.ca/global/conference/canada/papers/ Bourdieu, P. (2003). Firing back: Against the tyranny of the market 2 (The NewPress Trans.). New York, NY: Raisons d'Agir Editions. Bourne, D. (2010). Students as global citizens. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalization and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 18-29). New York, NY: Routledge. British Columbia (2012). Canada starts here: The BC jobs plan. Victoria, British Columbia. Retrieved from: http://www.bcjobsplan.ca/ Brown, M. (2008). A mixed methods examination of college students' intercultural development. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3328774) Brunstien, W. I. (2007). The global campus: Challenges and opportunities for higher education in North America. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 398-413. doi:10.1177/1028315307303918 Burbules, N.C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In T.S. Popkewitz, & L. Fender (Eds.), Critical theories in education. New York: Rutledge. Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (2000). Globalization and education: An introduction. In N. C. Burbules, & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. New York: Rutledge. Brandenberg, U., & de Witt, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalisation of Higher Education. Amsterdam: Center for Applied Research on Economics & Management, School of Economics and Management. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Camicia, S. P., & Franklin, B. M. (2010). Curriculum reform in a globalised world: The discourses of cosmopolitanism and community. London Review of Education, 8(2), 93-104. doi:10.1080/14748460.2010.487327 Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Directions for Evaluation, (74), 19-32. 173 Carter, K. (2006). Did we make a difference?: Contributors to intercultural sensitivity development in undergraduate students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Loyola University, Chicago Illinois. Caruana, V. (2010). The relevance of the internationalised curriculum to graduate capability: The role of new lecturers' attitudes in shaping the 'student voice'. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalization and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 30-42). New York, NY: Rutledge. Chan-Tiberghien, J. (2004). Towards a "global educational justice" research paradigm: Cognitive justice, decolonizing methodologies and critical pedagogy. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(2), 191-213. doi:10.1080/14767720410001733647 Childress, L. K. (2010). The twenty-first century university: Developing faculty engagement in internationalization. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Clegg, P. (2008). Creativity and critical thinking in the globalised university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 219-226. doi:10.1080/14703290802175982 Conversi, D. (2010). The limits of cultural globalization. Journal of Critical Globalization Studies, 3, 36-59. Côté, J. & Allahar, A. (2011). The lowering of higher education: The rise of corporate universities and the fall of liberal education. Toronto: University of Toronto. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. Crichton, J., & Scarino, A. (2007). How are we to understand the "intercultural dimension"? An examination of the intercultural dimension of internationalisation in the context of higher education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 4.1-4.21. Dale, R., & Robertson, S. (2009). Capitalism, modernity and the future of education in the new social contract. In T. Popkewitz and F. Rizvi (Eds), Globalization and the study of education. Chicago: Wiley Blackwell, National Society for the Study of Education, 108th NSSE Yearbook, 111-129. Davis, E.W. (2009).The wayfinders: Why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. Toronto ON: House of Anansi Press. Davis, J.C. (2008). An empirical investigation into the intercultural sensitivity of foreign student advisors in the United States: The state of the profession. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston College, Boston Massachusetts. 174 Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5-25. de Witt, H. (2009). Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education: An introduction. In H. de Witt (Ed.), Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education (EAIE Occasional Paper 22 ed., pp. 1-8) European Association for International Education. de Witt, H. (2011). Internationalisation of the universities of applied sciences: Misconceptions and challenges. Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalisation of Higher Education. Amsterdam: Center for Applied Research on Economics & Management, School of Economics and Management Deardorff, D.K. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the united states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University: Rayleigh. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-265. doi:10.1177/1028315306287002 Deardorff, D.K. (2009). Implementing intercultural competence assessment. In D.K. Deardorff (Ed.). The sage handbook of intercultural competence, pp. 477-491. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. DeJaeghere, J. G., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Development of intercultural competence among US American teachers: Professional development factors that enhance competence. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 255-268. doi:10.1080/14675980802078624 Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), (2005). Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks: CA. Dewey, P., & Duff, S. (2009). Reason before passion: Faculty views on internationalization in higher education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 58(4), 491-504. doi:10.107/s10734-009-9207-z Dower, N. (2008). Are we all global citizens or are only some of us global citizens?: The relevance of this question to education. In A. A. Abdi, & L. Shultz (Eds.), Educating for human rights and global citizenship. (pp. 39-54). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dovido, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes& Intergroup Relation, 6(1), pp. 5-21. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297-324. 175 Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. In M. Vande Berg (Guest Ed.). Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X, Fall 2004, 219-236. Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalisation, and the nation-state: Recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 47(3), 361382. Fantini, A.E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D.K. Deardorff, (Ed.). The sage handbook of intercultural competence, 456-476. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications of the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(6), 6-16. doi:10.1177/1558689809349691 Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gabb, D. (2006). Transcultural dynamics in the classroom. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 357-368. doi: 10.1177/1028315306288594 Gacel-Avila, J. (2005). The internationalisation of higher education: A paradigm for global citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(2), 121-136. doi: 10.1177/1028315304263795 Garies, E. (2012). Intercultural friendship: Effects of home and host region. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1-20. doi:0.1080/17513057.2012.691525 Garrett-Ruck, D.(2012). Byram versus Bennett. Proceedings of Intercultural Competence Conference, Vol2, p.11-33. Retrieved from: www.cercll.arizona.edu Garson, K. (2009). Applying transformative learning to cross-cultural learning endeavors. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1), 68-85. Giroux, H. A. (1994). Disturbing pleasures: Learning popular culture. New York: Routledge. Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425-63. 176 Giroux, H. A. (2003). Betraying the intellectual tradition: Public intellectuals and the crisis of youth. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(3), 172-186. doi:10.1080/14708470308668103 Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2009). Beyond bailouts: On the politics of education after neoliberalism. Policy Futures in Education, 7(1), 1-4. Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19(6), 515-525. doi:10.1080/14675980802568319 Grafen, A., & Hails, R. (2008). Modern statistics for the life sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grayson, J. P. (2008). The experiences and outcomes of domestic and international students at four Canadian universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(3), 215-230. doi:10.1080/07294360802183788 Green, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 51-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, (74), 5-17. Green, M. F. (2005). Internationalization of U.S. higher education: A student perspective. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Green, M. F. (2013). Improving and assessing global learning. NAFSA. Retrieved from: http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/improving_assessing.pdf Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2009). Learning and growing in a "foreign" context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(1), 7-23. Guimaraes-Iosif, R. (2011). Rethinking citizenship education in higher education institutions through the lens of critical pedagogy: Educating the local and global emancipated citizen. In A. A. Abdi, & G. H. Richardson (Eds.), Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp. 76-93). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Hammer, M. R. (1999). A measure of intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. In S. M. Fowler & M. G. Fowler (Eds.), The Intercultural Sourcebook (Vol. 2), (pp. 61–72). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hammer, M. R. (2009). The Intercultural Development Inventory. In M.A. Moodian (Ed.). Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence, (pp. 203-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 177 Hammer, M.R. (2011). Additional cross-cultural validity testing for the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, (pp. 474-487). doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.014 Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. In R. M. Paige (Guest Ed.). Special issue on the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421–443. Harari, M. (1981). Internationalizing the curriculum and the campus: Guidelines for AASCU institutions. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). Harris, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 346-357. doi:10.111/j.1469-5812.2007.00336.x Harris, S. (2009). Translation, internationalisation and the university. London Review of Education, 7(3), 223-233. doi:10.1080/14748460903290108 Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. (2010). Interactions in the international classroom: The UK perspective. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalization and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 125-142). New York, NY: Routledge. Hart Research Associates (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Washington DC: Hart Research Associates. Retrieved from: http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/2013_EmployerSurvey.pdf Holbrook, K. (2008). The global STEM imperative. EDUCAUSE Review, 43 (2). Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/global-stem-imperative Hudzik, J. K., & Stohl, M. (2009). Modelling assessment of the outcomes and impacts of internationalisation. In H. de Witt (Ed.), Measuring success in international education (EAIE Occasional Paper 22 ed.) (pp. 9-22) European Association for International Education. Hunter, B., White, G.P., & Godbey, G.C. (2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267-285. doi: 10.1177/1028315306286930 Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (1st ed.) (pp. 297-320). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Jon, J. (2009). The new landscape of Korean higher education: Institutional and personal factors influencing intercultural competence. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota: Duluth, Minnesota. 178 Jones, A. (2010). Globalization: Key thinkers. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2007). Internationalisation of the curriculum. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising Higher Education (pp. 109-119). London: Routledge. Karlberg, M. (2010). Education for interdependence: The university and the global citizen. The Global Studies Journal, 3(1) 129-138. Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 273-297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kezar, A. (2004). Obtaining integrity? reviewing and examining the charter between higher education and Society. The Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 429-559. Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (2008). Indigenous knowledges in education: Complexities, dangers, and profound benefits. In N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln, & L. Tuhiwai Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Killick, D. (2006). Cross-Cultural Capability & Global Perspectives. Guidelines for Curriculum Review: Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University. Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory.Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. King, P., & Baxter Magolda, M. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571-592. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0060 Klein, N. (2000). No logo. Toronto, Ont: Random House. Klein, N. (2008). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Toronto, Ont: Random House. Klenowski, V. (2009). Public education matters: Reclaiming public education for the common good in a global era. Australian Educational Researcher, 36(1), 1-25. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832 Knight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 14-15. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 179 Krogman, N. & Foote, L. (2011). Global citizenship and the environment: Embracing life in all its forms. In L. Shultz, A.A. Abdi & G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies, (pp.108-119). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Kuokkanen, R. (2007). Reshaping the university: Responsibility, indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Kuokkanen, R. (2008). What is hospitality in the academy? Epistemic ignorance and the (im) possible gift. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 30, 60-82. doi:10.1080/10714410701821297 Kymlicka, W. (2003). Multicultural states and intercultural citizens. Theory and Research in Education, 1, 147-169. Leask, B. (2006). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor--implications for academic staff development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183199. Leask, B. (2010). 'Beside me is an empty chair: The student experience of internationalisation. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalization and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 3-17). New York, NY: Routledge. Leask, B. (2012). Internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) in action: A guide. Sydney: University of South Australia. Lee, A., Poch, R., Shaw, M.,& Williams, R. (2012). Engaging diversity in undergraduate classrooms: A pedagogy for developing intercultural competence. ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 38, Number 2. Malatest, R.A. & Associates, (2004). Aboriginal peoples and post-secondary education: What educators have learned. Quebec: Millennium Research Series. Marginson, S. (2007). Globalization, the “idea for a university” and its ethical regimes. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(1), 31-45. Matthews, J., & Sidhu, R. (2005). Desperately seeking the global subject: International education, citizenship and cosmopolitanism. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(1), 49-66. doi:10.1080/14767720500046178 Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 241-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. May, S., & Sleeter, C. E. (2010) Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis. Routledge: New York, N.Y. 180 McLaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2005). Teaching against global capitalism and the new imperialism: A critical pedagogy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Mertler, C.A., & R. A. Vannatta. 2005. Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods (3rd Ed). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. Mertens, D. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social science research (pp. 351-384). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mertens, D. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 212-225. doi: 10.1177/1558689807302811 Mertens, D. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469-474. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364612 Merriam S. B., & Simpson E. L. (Eds.). (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults, 2nd ed. Malabar, FA: Krieger. Merriam, S. B. (2007). An introduction to non-western perspectives on learning and knowing. In S.B. Merriam & Associates (Ed.). Non-western perspectives on learning and knowing (pp. 1-20). Malabar, FL: Krieger. Mestenhauser, J. A. (1998). Portraits of an international curriculum: An uncommon multidimensional perspective. In J. A. Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus (pp. 339). Phoenix: Oryx Press. Ministry of Advanced Education (2012). British Columbia's international education strategy. Victoria, B.C.: Government of British Columbia Munck, R. (2010). Civic engagement and global citizenship in a university context: Core business or desirable add-on? Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 9(1), 31-41. doi: 10.1177/1474022209350102 NAFSA (2013). Colloquium on internationalizing STEM fields. Conference web page. Retrieved from: http://www.nafsa.org/Conference.aspx?id=34773&LangType=1033 Nainby, K. E., Warren, J. T., & Bollinger, C. (2003). Articulating contact in the classroom: Towards a constitutive focus in critical pedagogy. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(3), 198-212. doi:10.1080/14708470308668105 Nichols, K. P. (2011). Fostering intercultural competence through study abroad: A gender-based analysis of individual and program factors influencing development. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Minnesota. 181 Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at Home from a Swedish Perspective: The Case of Malmo. Journal of studies in international education 7(27), 27-40. doi:10.1177/1028315302250178 Noddings, N. (2010). Moral education in an age of globalization. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(4), 390-396. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00487.x Nussbaum, Martha (1996). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In Martha Nussbaum et al. (Eds.), For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism (pp. 2-20). Boston: Beacon Press Nussbaum, M.C. (2009). Education for profit, education for freedom. Liberal Education, 95(3), 6-13. NSSE (2010). Overview. Retrieved from: nsse.iub.edu/2010_Institutional_Report/.../NSSE%20Overview_2010.pdf Odell, P., Korgen, K., & Wang, G. (2005). Cross-racial friendships and social distance between racial groups on a college campus. Innovative Higher Education, 29(4), 291-305. Odgers, T., & Giroux, I. (2006). Internationalizing Faculty: A Phased Approach to Transforming Curriculum Design and Instruction. Paper presented at the York University Annual International Conference on Internationalizing Canada's Universities. Retrieved from http://international.yorku.ca/global/conference/canada/papers/Odgers-Giroux.pdf Oka, K. U. (2007). Pedagogy of the global: Knowledge, empire and internationalization in the university.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto Ontario. Olsen, A. (2009). Outcomes and impacts of international education on students. In H. de Witt (Ed.), Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education (EAIC Occasional Paper 22 ed.) (pp. 93-108) European Association for International Education. Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global Competency and Intercultural Sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 116-137. doi:10.1177/102831530152003 Osmond, J., & Roed, J. (2010). Sometimes it means more work...:Student perceptions of group work in a mixed cultural setting. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 113-124). New York, NY: Routledge. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 351-384). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 182 Onweuegbuzie, A.J., Dickinson, W.B., Leech, N.L., & Zoran, A.G. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-21. Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 12-36. doi:10.1177/1028315302250177 Otten, M. (2009). "Academicus interculturalis"? Negotiating interculturality in academic communities of practice. Intercultural Education, 20(5), 407-417. doi:10.1080/14675980903371266 Paige, M.R. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. In M. R. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 120).Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Paige, R. M., & Mestenhauser, J. A. (1999). Internationalizing educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 500-17. Paige, R. M. (2003). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A critical review of the research literature. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 6, 53–61. Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Intercultural Development Inventory. In R. M. Paige (Guest Ed.). Special issue on the Intercultural Development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 467–486. Palaiologou, N. (2012). Prologue. In N. Palaiologou & G. Dietz (Eds.), Mapping the broad field of multicultural and intercultural education worldwide: Towards the development of a new citizen. (pp. xvi-xxiv). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Palaiologou, N., & Dietz, G. (2012). (Eds.). Mapping the broad field of multicultural and intercultural education worldwide: Towards the development of a new citizen. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pedersen, P. (2009). Teaching towards an ethnorelative worldview through psychology study abroad. Intercultural Education, 20, 73-86. doi:10.1080/14675980903370896. Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review Psychology, 49, 65-85. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(5), pp. 751-783. American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Pidgeon, M. (2008). Pushing against the margins: Indigenous theorizing of “success” and retention in higher education. J. College Student Retention,10(3), 339-360. 183 Pike, G. (2000). A tapestry in the making: The strands of global education. In T. Goldstien & Selby (Eds.), Weaving Connections: Educating for Peace, Social and Environmental Justice, (pp 218-241). Toronto: Sumach Press. Pike, G. (2008). Reconstructing the legend: Educating for global citizenship. In A.A. Abdi & L. Shultz (Eds.). Educating for human rights and global citizenship (pp.223238). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Pigozzi, M. J. (2006). A UNESCO view of global citizenship education. Educational Review, 58(1), 1-4. doi:10.1080/00131910500352473 Popkewitz, T. & Rizvi, F. (Eds.). (2009). Globalization and the study of education. Chicago:Wiley Blackwell, National Society for the Study of Education, 108th NSSE Yearbook. Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). Student survey response rates across institutions: Why do they vary? Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 229-247. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8887-1 Prior McCarty, L. (2011). Cosmopolitan education, Colleagues: Vol. 6 (1), Article 5. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/colleagues/vol6/iss1/5 Reed, J. & Payton, V.R. (1997). Focus groups: issues of analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 765-771. Richardson, G., Fabrizio, L., & Ansu-Kyeremeh (2011). “It’s overwhelming and hard to articulate”: Analyzing student narratives of an international global citizenship education field experience. In L. Shultz, A. A. Abdi & G. H. Richardson (Eds.), Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies. (pp. 95-107). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Rizvi, F. (2008). Epistemic virtues and cosmopolitan learning. Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 17-35. Rizvi, F. (2011). Beyond the social imaginary of ‘clash of civilizations’? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(3), 225-235. doi: 10.111/j.1469-5812.2009.00593.x Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., Perez-Prado, A., Alacaci, C., Dwyer, E. S., Fine, J.C., & Papamihiel, N. E. (2003). The pragmatic and dialectical lenses: Two views of mixed methods use in education. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 595-618). Publisher: Place. Roslyn Kunin & Associates, Inc. (2009). The economic impact of international education in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.international.gc.ca/education/assets/pdfs/RKA_IntEd_Report_eng.pdf 184 Roslyn Kunin & Associates, Inc. (2012). The economic impact of international education in Canada—an update. Retrieved from http://www.international.gc.ca/education/report-rapport/economic-impacteconomique/index.aspx?view=d Said, E. (2000). From the AUB Archives: In War and Peace. MainGate: American University of Beirut Quarterly Magazine, Fall 2006, 39. Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sanderson, G. (2008). A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276-307. doi:10.1177/1028315307299420 Santos, B.d.S. (2006). Globalizations. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 393-396. Santos, B. d. S. (2007). Another knowledge is possible: Beyond northern epistemologies. London: New York: Verso. Santos, B. d. S.; Rodriguez-Garavito,C.A. (2005). Law and Globalization from Below: Towards a Cosmopolitan Legality. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 21 September 2013, from