MIAMI UNIVERSITY
The Graduate School
Certificate for Approving the Dissertation
We hereby approve the Dissertation
of
Chen W. Ferguson
Candidate for the Degree:
Doctor of Philosophy
_____________________________________
Dr. Kate Rousmaniere, Director
_____________________________________
Dr. Sally A. Lloyd, Reader
_____________________________________
Dr. Kathleen Knight Abowitz, Reader
_____________________________________
Dr. William John Boone, Reader
ABSTRACT
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO STUDENTS’ GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES:
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF REGIONAL CAMPUS, BUSINESS,
AND STUDY ABROAD STUDENTS
by Chen W. Ferguson
This study was designed to identify factors that contribute to undergraduate students’
global perspective development. Global perspective is defined as a viewpoint that the world is an
interdependent complex system and interconnected multi-reality whereby certain values,
attitudes, knowledge, experiences and skills are demonstrated through cognitive, intrapersonal
and interpersonal dimensions in an international, intercultural or global environment.
This study utilized Larry Braskamp’s Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) instrument and
surveyed 1,637 students from regional campuses, school of business, and study abroad
subgroups of a Midwest university. This dissertation included the much needed study of nontraditional students’ global perspective development from regional campuses.
GPI was informed by the holistic development theory in cognitive, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal dimensions by Kegan (1994), King and Baxter Magolda (2005). Accordingly,
students’ global perspectives were evaluated through the six subscales of Knowing, Knowledge,
Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction.
Hierarchical multiple regression models were utilized in this research after validity and
reliability tests. The findings were that students’ global perspectives were strongly related with
their curriculum, co-curriculum, and sense of community factors, but were not related to most
social location and academic factors, such as parents’ education and GPA. One surprising
finding was that students’ global perspectives were not related to their study abroad participation
for the all-university dataset as well as business and regional campus subgroups.
When using GPI, five of its six subscales (Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social
Responsibility, and Social Interaction) are recommended together with the Global Citizenship
subscale. Implications for higher education leaders include cultivating an environment that
focuses on quality and aims for long-term effects of students’ global perspective development.
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO STUDENTS’ GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES:
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF REGIONAL CAMPUS, BUSINESS,
AND STUDY ABROAD STUDENTS
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Educational Leadership
by
Chen W. Ferguson
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
2013
Dissertation Chair:
Dr. Kate Rousmaniere
©
Chen W. Ferguson
2013
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
The Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................. 4
Research Question ................................................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 6
From International to Global Focus ...................................................................................... 6
Assessing Students’ Global Perspective ............................................................................. 21
Global Perspective Inventory (GPI).................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY & METHODS ...................................................................... 32
Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 32
Methods............................................................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4 – DATA REDUCTION & ANALYSIS ................................................................. 44
Dependent Measures ........................................................................................................... 44
Independent Measures ........................................................................................................ 55
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 57
Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................................... 57
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Models .......................................................................... 59
Exploratory Analyses with the Three Subgroups ............................................................... 73
CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 79
Major Findings of the Study ............................................................................................... 79
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................... 86
GPI Issues and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 89
Implications for Higher Education Leaders ........................................................................ 93
References ..................................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix A – Global Perspective Inventory - Version 5 ........................................................... 108
Appendix B – Institutional Review Board (IRB) Certifications ................................................. 114
Appendix C – Statistical Test Tables .......................................................................................... 117
iii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Global Perspective Definitions ..................................................................................... 17
Table 2.2 GPI Construct Improvements ....................................................................................... 28
Table 2.3 Cronbach’s α Coefficient Reliability of GPI – National Data ...................................... 29
Table 4.1 Initial Factor and Reliability Analyses of the Original Six GPI Subscales .................. 46
Table 4.2 Factor and Reliability Analysis with Modified Subscales ............................................ 48
Table 4.3 Reliability Tests of the Knowing Subscale with 3 Subgroups...................................... 49
Table 4.4 Alternative Approach of Combining Items within GPI Dimensions ............................ 50
Table 4.5 GPI Subscale Correlations for the All-University Dataset and National Data ............. 51
Table 5.1 Mean Differences with Study Abroad Participation Frequency ................................... 59
Table 5.2 Dummy Coding for Categorical Variables ................................................................... 61
Table 5.3 Missing Data Solutions for the All-University Dataset and Three Subgroups ............. 63
Table 5.4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Models with the All-University Dataset ................. 71
Table 5.5 Explorative Analyses for Global Citizenship with the Three Subgroups ..................... 73
iv
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Global Perspective Definition as Graphic Presentation .............................................. 19
Figure 2.2 Connecting Experiences to Outcomes: The 3x3 Matrix.............................................. 27
v
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated
To my parents, for inspiring lifelong learning and being proud of me as the first immigrant to the
U.S. and the first Ph.D. in the family;
To my husband, Andrew, for his unconditional love and support though the process;
To my children, Angela and John, for their hard work and accomplishments each day.
vi
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
This research seeks to identify factors contributing to students’ global perspective
development. The chapter starts by describing the need for a qualified workforce in our
globalized society followed by the purpose statement of this research. The chapter finishes with
the research question: what factors contribute to students’ global perspective development?
The Problem Statement
The history of global learning is extensive and can be traced back to Socrates’ time in
ancient Greece when philosophers offered their teachings to students who traveled far away from
foreign states (Walker, 2002). Many terms have been used related with learning from nations or
cultures other than one’s own, such as international or multi-cultural. In modern time, global
learning was described as “The knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students acquire through a
variety of experiences that enable them to understand world cultures and events; analyze global
systems; appreciate cultural differences; and apply this knowledge and appreciation to their lives
as citizens and workers” (Olson, Evans & Shoenberg, 2007, p. 9). Chapter two will address
different definitions in detail.
The impetus for international education in the U.S. started after World War II, when
American leaders realized the significance of securing peace between the U.S. and Europe
(Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). One result of this realization was the establishment of the
Fulbright Program in 1946 under legislation introduced by then-Senator J. William Fulbright
with funding from the United States Congress (Council for International Exchange of Scholars,
2012). The Fulbright Program’s goal was to “internationalize” U.S. higher education by
internationalizing undergraduate curriculum, building academic partnerships with foreign
universities, and encouraging American students to study abroad (Lovett, 2008).
After several decades, internationalization efforts expanded to include international
components such as internationalizing curriculum, foreign language requirements, and study
abroad participation. For example, the rate of American students studying abroad has tripled in
the past two decades with over 270,000 U.S. students having studied abroad during the academic
1
year 2010-2011 (Institute of International Education, 2012). As study abroad participation has
increased, educators have started to pay attention to learning outcomes. One question often
asked is whether study abroad and internationalization efforts in general are achieving their
intended outcomes.
While study abroad participants tend to claim that they have had “amazing experiences”
abroad, some students have embarked on their experience with limited goals. For example, in a
2010 New Yorker cartoon, a college student told her roommate, “For my junior year, I am going
to learn how to party in a foreign country” (Donnelly, 2010, p. 64). Beyond this anecdote, what
is heard most often is how much traveling students did and how many friends they made with
other U.S. students during their international experiences (Engle & Engle, 2002). In the 21st
century, scholars have begun to challenge whether the learning outcomes from study abroad are
any different from taking glorified vacations (Gardner, Gross & Steglitz, 2008; Passarelli & Kolb,
2012).
In addition to concerns over learning outcomes from students’ study abroad experiences,
the overall need to produce globally competent leaders and workforce among U.S. college
graduates has been requested. Microsoft founder Bill Gates dismissed the most elite educational
institution in the U.S. by stating that while Harvard educated him well in science advancement, it
failed to prepare him to understand suffering in the world (Altinay, 2009). Jack Welch, the
retired CEO of General Electric (GE), commented on the significance of international experience,
“The next head of GE will be somebody who spent time in Bombay, in Hong Kong, in Buenos
Aires” (Swiss Consulting Group, 2002, p. 10). Welch emphasized that American society and its
entire workforce need to prepare for the globalization reality.
Much data indicated that the American workforce displayed discomfort or even failed at
working overseas (O’Connell, 1994). For example, on a military aircraft engine project, 37% of
Americans working abroad in Western Europe returned home to the U.S. earlier than planned. In
other regions and professions, the early returnee rate was even more troublesome: recruited
hospital administrators placed in a Middle Eastern country reported an attrition rate of nearly
100%. Even among global-oriented Peace Corps volunteers, the early returnee rate has been
between 10 and 20 percent (O’Connell, 1994).
2
In 1992, Adler and Bartholomew conducted a survey of 50 firms headquartered in North
America and found that business leaders thought their employees lacked global thinking and
tended to believe “that the world begins and ends at the U.S. borders” (p. 60). Although there
was no consensus among business leaders on what exactly global thinking entailed, it was
apparent that American companies demanded graduates with global perspectives in order to
function successfully in an environment different from their own.
Business leaders identify the root cause of this lack of global perspective with U.S.
college education, as O’Connell (1994) deplored that many U.S. college students were ignorant
of world geography, unfamiliar of foreign languages and insensitive to other cultures. Fifteen
years later, Spitzberg & Chagnon (2009) still stressed that “It is important for internationally
competitive business to hire interculturally competent employees” (p. 4).
As business leaders have requested American higher education to produce qualified
employees, professional organizations acted on this call and began to advocate for producing
globally competent graduates and pushed for the assessment of learning outcomes. Through the
2000s, assessment efforts gained momentum, however, most were designed to evaluate study
abroad programs (Rubin D. & Sutton R., 2009). Sponsored in 2000 by NAFSA, the world’s
largest professional association of international educators, a survey was sent to the 120 most
active study abroad institutions in the U.S. The results indicated that 95% of all designed
surveys sought students’ level of satisfaction with a specific program (study abroad, exchange,
culture events, etc.), 40% measured students’ language proficiency, and only 15% touched on
intercultural proficiency (Institution of International Education, 2000 IIE/SECUSSA, 2000).
One reason the focus has been on evaluating specific programs is that policy-oriented
reports, instead of scholarly research, have been required by professional organizations. Thus,
assessing overall learning outcomes of students’ global perspective development was “somewhat
sporadic, non-cumulative, and tends to be carried out by national organizations as part of
advocacy projects” (Cummings, 2001, p. 2). Oftentimes, professional organizations formed ad
hoc groups to generate policy-oriented guidelines for programs. When their immediate task was
over and the ad hoc group dissolved, the scholarly research on U.S. college students’ global
perspective development remained unexplored.
3
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to assess U.S. undergraduates’ global perspective
development at a Midwest U.S. university. The short version of global perspective is defined as
“a viewpoint that the world is an interdependent complex system and interconnected multireality.” Based on the short version of global perspective, major factors such as students’ social
locations, academic progress as well as their curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of community
(3C), and study abroad participation will be studied to examine their relationship to students’
global perspective development.
Research Question
The focus of this research is to identify the factors associated with students’ global
perspective development. The research question is: what factors contribute to students’ global
perspective development?
I argue that there are three broad factors associated with students’ global perspective.
The first factor is students’ social locations, such as age, gender, family background, and income.
For example, students from high income families presumably have more opportunities for study
abroad and international experiences; therefore, they may have a higher potential for global
perspective development. Previous research has shown that global perspective varies by the
social locations. For example, younger college students had positive international attitudes than
older students, male students tended to be more open to internationalism than females, and white
students were less international-oriented than minority students (Clarke, 2004). In addition to
these factors, this research will study other social factors such as students’ living location
(suburban, rural or big city), and examine their relationship to students’ global perspective
development.
The second factor relates to students’ academic factors, including GPA, class status, and
academic division. Presumably, seniors will have higher global perspectives than freshmen,
given the emphasis of liberal education in the U.S. on global perspectives and respect for
diversity. Although there is no specific hypothesis about the relationship between GPA and
students’ global perspectives, it is important to control for GPA in the analyses. In addition,
previous research indicated that students’ majors were related to their global perspectives:
4
business students had more international perspectives than more idealistic liberal arts students
(Clarke, 2004). Students’ academic factors will be studied further in this research among the
three subgroups of regional campus, business, and study abroad students.
The third and most important factor for this study is students’ curriculum, co-curriculum
and sense of community (3C) factors. These include activities such as attendance at cultural
events, participation in diversity dialogues, and the integration of service learning into courses.
These kinds of activities may be related to students’ global perspective development, because
these activities contribute to their personal growth as well as to their maturity in dealing with
diversity. In addition, these activities expose students to multiple viewpoints, cultures, and life
circumstances that are different from their own. Compared with the first two factors, this last
factor is more action-oriented, so higher education leaders can initiate 3C-related programs.
Thus, the 3C factors will be the focus of this dissertation.
In summary, this research strives to fill the gap of scholarly research assessing students’
global perspective development. The literature review in Chapter 2 describes the origin and
evolution of international education in the U.S., then global perspective-related terminology and
definitions are deliberated. After describing assessment projects and relevant global perspective
assessment tools, Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) is highlighted. Chapter 3 explains the
postpositivist methodology and related methods used in this research. Data reduction techniques
are described in Chapter 4 and multiple hierarchical regression results are presented in Chapter 5.
Conclusions are drawn in Chapter 6 with recommendations for GPI implementation and
implications for higher education leaders.
5
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review is organized in three major sections. The first section presents the
scholarly research associated with the paradigm shift from an international to global focus. From
this evolution, the working definition of global perspective is established for this research.
Based on this working definition, the second section discusses the assessment of global
perspective starting with an overview of assessment tools available in the field and exemplary
assessment projects. The third section focuses on Global Perspective Inventory (GPI), the
survey instrument used in this research.
From International to Global Focus
There is a philosophical difference between international and global. I review the
fundamental differences from the origin of international education and the integration of global
learning into America’s liberal education.
Origin and Evolution
International education developed primarily after World War II, as part of America’s
emphasis on national security. After World War II, the United States sought greater world
stability. Between the 1940s and 1960s, federally sponsored research centered on identifying the
characteristics of international specialist personnel (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). As one way
of achieving this, the federal government focused on educating international specialists to handle
international complexities. One of the signature programs created was the Peace Corps in 1961.
Under this program, “Individuals were recruited to serve in a culture very different than the one
where they were born and raised” (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 136). Related research on
international specialists was the U.S. Navy personnel adjustment study (Benson, 1978), which
summarized characteristics for successful foreign assignees. As Spitzberg & Changnon pointed
out, after World War II, the United States sought greater involvement and international education
was used to spread the United States’ influence (2009). Alger and Harf (1986) summarized that
from the beginning, international education was created to train Foreign Service professionals
and help them with insights about different nations, regions, and cultures.
6
The launch of Sputnik in 1957 by the Soviet Union reinforced America’s interest in
global matters. This event highlighted the belief that a country no longer existed by itself;
instead, it had to position itself in the world system among other nations. Academia started to
witness a resurgence of interest in global matters (Hicks, 2003) and began the transition from
international to global focus.
Coming into the 1980s, Theodore Levitt was the first scholar to use the term
globalization (as cited in Stromquist, 2002) and global learning became more widely recognized
in higher education by the 1990s. Early in the 21st century, the term “global” instead of
“international” was used to describe “an appropriate education for the twenty-first century”
(Hovland, 2006, p. 2). After more than a decade, Hovland’s report (2006) published by the
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) stated, “While ‘international
experiences’ await our students out there, ‘global experiences’ in this sense, serve to remind us
that the United States is part of the globe” (p. 2). Those using the discourse of global learning
argued that:
All professionals and bodies of knowledge must be prepared to deal with their
involvement in worldwide systems … [and] requires the removal of the national
borders … All have need to know in what ways they are involved, how they are affected,
and how they affect people in other countries. (Alger, 1986, p. 257)
Thus, to be more accurate in contemporary higher education, while “international studies”
refers to the academic major that trains country specialists, there are many terms that are related
to global learning. These terms have instilled a perspective that emphasizes a systematic view of
the interconnected world.
Advocacy from Organizations
Two leading U.S. professional organizations, the American Council on Education (ACE)
and the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), have played significant
roles in the development of global education guidelines.
In 1990, the AACU launched a major effort to advocate core curricula for the American
liberal education to better reflect the plurality of our society (Hovland, 2006). Among their
7
many reports on the topic, the most frequently quoted are the four AACU rubrics. These rubrics
address Civic Engagement, Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Ethical Reasoning, and
Global Learning. These rubrics included the three stages of benchmarks, milestones, and
capstones to describe the detailed behavior characteristics for the progressive stages that students
may experience. Therefore, these rubrics have been used as a reference by U.S. colleges and
universities to assess concrete learning outcomes.
As this research is to study students’ global perspective development, two of the AACU’s
rubrics, Intercultural Knowledge and Competence as well as Global Learning are most pertinent
to this research. AACU’s Intercultural Knowledge and Competence quoted Bennett’s “cognitive,
affective and behavior skills and characteristics that support effective and appropriate interaction
in a variety of cultural contexts” (Bennett et al., 2009, p. 1). The AACU’s Global Learning
Rubric is the most important rubric for this study since it defined the terms global self-awareness,
cultural diversity, global systems, and perspective taking.
ACE (American Council on Education) also produced several reports in the early 2000s.
Its 2005 report focused on describing a globally competent student with knowledge, skills, and
attitude. The next year, an ACE roundtable proposed that internationalization and multicultural
education and specified the following learning outcomes (Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007, p.
13):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develop a sense of perspective and social responsibility
Overcome provincial/parochial thinking to reduce their own prejudice
Appreciate differences; value and acknowledge other cultures as legitimate
Improve cultural self-awareness and understanding of one’s self in the global context
(one’s own place and connections)
Demonstrate greater appreciation of or an interest in learning about different cultures
Develop empathy and perspective consciousness
Demonstrate open-mindedness and an understanding of complexity
Based on Olson’s definition endorsed by ACE (Olson et al., 2007), the AACU further
defined global learning, “A critical analysis of and an engagement with complex, interdependent
global systems and legacies (such as natural, physical, social, cultural, economic, and political)
8
and their implications for peoples’ lives and the earth’s sustainability” (2013, p. 1). The Global
Learning Rubric explicitly advocates global perspectives among U.S. college graduates, stating:
Through global learning, students should 1) become informed, open-minded, and
responsible people who are attentive to diversity across the spectrum of differences, 2)
see to understand how their actions affect both local and global communities, and 3)
address the world’s most pressing and enduring issues collaboratively and equitably.
(Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2013, p. 1)
While the U.S. professional associations advocated for the development of globally
competent students, other countries have also tried to foster students’ global perspective. The
United Kingdom’s Development Education Association (DEA) published Global Perspectives in
Higher Education in 2003. It listed required knowledge, understanding, values, attitudes, and
skills. Regarding values and attitudes, the DEA’s list specified the following (Mckenzie, 2003, p.
42):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Individual self-esteem
Empathy and respect
Commitment to social justice and equity
Valuing and respecting diversity
Commitment to sustainable development
Commitment to action
After years of development, professional associations in both Europe and North America
finally reached consensus that higher education has to educate graduates who can approach
world problems with an interconnected world view. The following sections examine this
worldview and related terms on global perspective.
Definition of Key Terms
The working definition of global perspective in this research is a viewpoint that the world
is an interdependent complex system and interconnected multi-reality whereby certain values,
attitudes, knowledge, experiences, and skills are demonstrated through cognitive, intrapersonal
and interpersonal dimensions in an international, intercultural or global environment. To better
9
understand the working definition of global perspective, the following related terms provide
necessary background.
Most global terms are closely related with the terms of culture or nation. When prefixes
of “inter”, “cross” and “multi” are combined with terms such as “nation” and “culture”, new
terms are created, such as intercultural, cross-national and multinational. However, there are
subtle differences between these terms; for example, “inter” implies assimilation and absorption;
“multi” implies co-existence (James, 2005). It might be more accurately described as
“interculturalist” rather than ‘internationalist,” because a nation has well-defined borders, but not
culture (Gunesch, 2004). Other terms, such as “international-mindedness” and “worldmindedness” (Hayden & Thompson, 1995a, 1995b; Schwindt, 2003) emerged in addition to
intercultural competence, citizenship education, development awareness, and global learning
(Lunn, 2008).
This study focuses on global perspective, which has derived from international, crosscultural, and multi-cultural research. Below are related terms that appear in this dissertation and
other terms will be explained as they are introduced.
Intercultural Communication: “Emphasizes the subject side of culture – its assumptions,
values, and patterns of thinking and behaving – and can serve as a bridge between
internationalization and multicultural education” (ACE Report, 2007, p. 15).
International Education: “Historically preferred term used by higher education practitioners,
referring to education abroad, the recruitment of international students, the delivery of area
studies programs, or the delivery of modern language instruction” (ACE Report, 2007, p. viii).
Internationalization: “The process of integrating international/intercultural learning into the
teaching, research, and service functions of the institution; it seeks as a primary objective to
enable all students to understand world cultures and events, analyze global systems, appreciate
cultural differences and apply this knowledge to their lives as citizens and workers” (Knight,
2003, p. 33).
10
Global Citizenship: “That part of the citizenship curriculum which refers to global issues,
events and perspectives; also being or feeling a citizen of the global community (as well as
cultural or national communities)” (Hicks, 2003, p. 275).
Global Competence: “Having an open mind while actively seeking to understand cultural
norms and expectations of others, and leveraging this gained knowledge to interact,
communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment” (Hunter, 2004, p. 101).
Global Education: “Developing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are the basis for
decision-making and participation in the world characterized by cultural pluralism,
interconnectedness, and international economic competition” (Merryfield, 1998, p. 371).
Global Learning: “The knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students acquire through a variety
of experiences that enable them to understand world cultures and events; analyze global systems;
appreciate cultural differences; and apply this knowledge and appreciation to their lives as
citizens and workers” (Olson et al., 2007, p. 9).
Multicultural Education: “The promotion of educational equality for students from diverse
racial, ethnic, social-class, and cultural backgrounds; and to assist all students to obtain the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to function effectively in the growing global society”
(as cited in Butto & Davis ACE presentation, 2010, p. 4).
Co-existence of Multiple Terms
Various terms associated with global perspective have been used in the field, and they
have been used interchangeably without clear differentiation. During the 1970s and 1980s,
terminology emerged that was later described as conceptual fuzziness by Hicks (2003) due to a
lack of clarity. Several scholars posited that researchers were unable to reach an agreement on a
single and consistent terminology (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004; Hayden et al., 2000; Hayden
& Thompson, 1995a, 1995b; Pasternak, 1998). On the other hand, “there is no need to lose the
proverbial forest in the trees of terms such as approach, perspective, paradigm …” (Spitzberg &
Changnon, 2009, p. 5), since they do share a common theme of viewing the world as an
interconnected system and emphasize the “interdependence, connections and multiple
perspectives” (Hicks, 2003, p. 270).
11
The main terms used by scholars included global learning, global perspective, and global
competence. Among these, global learning is a broad term and has many variations which
include global education, global citizenship, global perspectives, and global dimension (Hicks,
2003). Each term has its own “interpretation, visions, agendas, and activities” (Hicks, 2003, p.
270). The leading professional organization in U.S. higher education, ACE, attempted to
normalize all these terms as follows:
The term global learning is shorthand for three related kinds of learning: global (denoting
the systems and phenomena that transcend national borders), international (focusing on
the nations and their relationships), and intercultural (focusing on knowledge and skills to
understand and navigate cultural differences) (Olson et al., 2007, p. 19).
Since many terms have been used interchangeably, the next section focuses on the
evolvement of global perspective, which is the outcome of global learning and from which the
working definition of this research has evolved.
Evolution of Global Perspective
Among many scholars, Anderson (1968) was one of the first to argue that a system view
was needed in order to understand global interdependence (Hicks, 2003). Becker’s (1975)
project, Mid-America Program for Global Perspectives in Education at Indiana University, was
also a groundbreaking work because it emphasized interdependence of the world (Hicks, 2003).
However, Robert Hanvey’s (1976) publication, An Attainable Global Perspective, was
considered the most influential in the field (Kirkwood, 2001). Hanvey defined global
perspective using the following five dimensions (p. 2).
•
•
•
•
•
Dimension 1 – Perspective consciousness: the recognition or awareness on the part of the
individual that he or she has a view of the world that is not universally shared.
Dimension 2 – State of the planet awareness: awareness of prevailing world conditions
and development, including emergent conditions and trends.
Dimension 3 – Cross-cultural awareness: awareness of the diversity of ideas and practices
to be found in human societies around the world.
Dimension 4 – Knowledge of global dynamics: some modest comprehension of key traits
and mechanisms of the world systems.
Dimension 5 – Awareness of human choices: some awareness of the problems of choice
confronting individuals, nations, and human species as consciousness and knowledge of
the global system expands.
12
Hanvey’s research was sponsored by a grant from the National Endowment for
Humanities to the Center for Teaching International Relations at the University of Denver. In
1976, Hanvey introduced his paper, “This essay is a beginning effort to define some elements of
what we call a global perspective” (p. 2). His goal was to understand what global perspectives
were and to determine how to integrate them into curriculum. Hanvey was ahead of his time
when he summarized the above five dimensions. Dimension one was the recognition that a view
of the world would not be universally shared. Dimension two was about the prevailing
conditions, emergent conditions and trends. Dimensions three, four and five used the terms
“around the world”, “the world systems” and “the global system” to signify cultural differences,
global dynamics, and human choices. All five dimensions reinforced Hanvey’s proposition that
a country exists as part of the global system.
In the years that followed, Hanvey’s definition was enriched by contributions from
scholars in various disciplines. Kerr (1979) specified that the definition involved three areas:
special skills, knowledge, and cross-cultural awareness. Kniep (1987) later emphasized that the
history of the world is a global history, thus his concept of historical and social phenomena
across time and space added new dimensions to the definition. To view global perspectives from
a different angle, Alger and Hart (1986) added the importance of the role of non-government
organizations in the affairs of the world. Soon after, Lamy (1987) advocated that global
perspectives must consider knowledge about the contributions from native people and their
worldview. More than a decade later, Case (1993) divided his definition of global perspectives
into perceptual and substantive categories. His perceptual category focused on the development
of world mindedness and empathy while the substantive category included contemporary events
and conditions in the world.
In addition to Kerr, there was a school of scholars that advocated the integration of
learning outcomes into students’ global perspective development. Triandis (1977) specified the
three components of affective qualities, cognitive skill, and behavioral competence from his
cross-cultural research. According to Triandis, affective refers to the positive emotional
response that evolves from frequent associations with pleasurable events (Triandis, 1977). He
further provided examples, such as one person may have an amazing feeling at the top of a
13
mountain while another person might have acrophobia; one person may come to life at parties
while another person might avoid parties because of excessive shyness. Triandis (977) argued
that the affective trait was a result of early socialization, especially involving emotional
responses. He also believed in the possibility of cultivating “a pattern of emotional responses to
specific situations, people, or environments” (p. 21) through cross-cultural development. For
example, to put one’s global perspective in a socialization context, as encounters increase, the
negative emotions due to a lack of experience could be reduced. Hence, the affective trait was
one of the important learning outcomes that could lead to acceptance or even the embracement of
multiplicity. These affective qualities became one of three important learning outcomes together
with cognitive skills and behavior competence.
While global perspective was developed in the U.S., scholars from other countries also
joined the effort. In the United Kingdom, Richardson (1976) directed the World Studies Project
which resulted in his framework of exploring global issues from the world system view (World
Studies Project, 1976; Hicks, 2003). This project also led to an important publication, Learning
for Change in World Society. Later, Graham Pike and David Selby (1988) produced influential
research promoting global education in the United Kingdom (Hicks, 2003).
Coming into the 1990s, the global perspective definition expanded to include new
components. Merryfield (1992) combined previous research and created a new framework with
eight elements comprising global perspective: human beliefs and values, global systems, global
issues and problems, cross-cultural understanding, awareness of human choices, global history,
acquisition of indigenous knowledge, and development of analytical, evaluative and participatory
skills. Merryfield contributed to the field by advocating the integration of cultural studies
through curriculum, so that students benefit from increased interconnectedness of the world’s
cultures, economies, technologies, ecology, and political relationships.
The learning outcomes associated with global perspective were further defined in 1990s.
Diaz (1999) defined three kinds of outcomes: cognitive, affective, and participatory. The
cognitive dimension was the knowledge about other cultures and world systems. The affective
dimension was empathy with the values of other cultures and the participatory dimension was the
willingness to take a stand on issues.
14
With respect to defining global perspective, most scholars either focused on what global
perspective entails or what the learning outcomes look like; the UK group seemed to be able to
blend these together. The Global Perspectives in Higher Education project in UK, defined global
perspective as follows:
To enable students to develop knowledge about different places and cultures of the world;
cross-cutting global issues, problems, and events – past, present, and future; and an
understanding of the relevance to their own lives. Such students will be made more
aware of different ways of thinking about the world and contemporary issues and will
cultivate values, attitudes, and skills that equip them to be informed and active citizens,
voters, employees, employers, and travelers in the world. (as cited in Lunn, 2008, p. 233)
The definition of global perspective continued to evolve by many scholars in the 21st
century to reflect changes in society. Hicks (2003) commented that global perspective “looks at
how global issues affect and are affected by the interrelationship between past, present and future”
(p. 269). But no scholar could surpass Hanvey or Merryfield when defining global perspective,
especially on what entails global perspective. Since then, neither scholars nor professional
organizations have made much of a breakthrough (Hunter, 2004). Kirkwood (2001) supported
this conclusion by referring to organizations and scholars define global perspective and how
most of them were really just enhancements of the original definition. Pike and Selby (1988)
defined global perspective with five aims: system consciousness, perspective consciousness,
health of planet awareness, involvement consciousness as well as preparedness and process
mindedness. However, these five aims represented an enhancement to Hanvey’s original
definition in the 1970s.
In recent years, as employers required employees to possess tangible international skills
for America to be competitive, more scholars expanded the notion of global perspective to
include skills-based competence and communication emphasis. These researchers included
Hunter, Deardorff and Braskamp, whose work also directly impacted the working definition used
in this research.
15
In 2004, instead of labeling his definition as global perspective, Hunter used the term
global competence. Hunter defined global competence as “having an open mind while actively
seeking to understand cultural norms and expectations of others, and leveraging this gained
knowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment” (Hunter,
2004, p. 101). Hunter emphasized that tangible skills and competence were required for a
qualified global workforce. In addition, Hunter captured the importance of students’ interactions
with others in his definition by adding the communication dimension, for students “to interact,
communicate and work effectively” (p. 101).
Braskamp, Braskamp, Carter Merrill and Engberg (2009) emphasized the communication
dimension with the same significance as intercultural maturity. Their global perspective
definition consisted of the three domains of cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal.
According to Braskamp et al. (2009), “For each domain, one scale reflects the theory of cultural
development and the other reflects intercultural communications theory” (p. 4). In 2009,
Braskamp et al. added a cluster of items that he grouped under the general term of student
experience. He further categorized student experiences into curriculum, co-curriculum, and
sense of community (3C) activities, which could be conducive to students’ cognitive,
intrapersonal, and interpersonal development with respect to global perspective.
Deardorff used intercultural competence to summarize her research. In her 2009 work,
she advocated a change from output to outcomes. Instead of equating the number of study
abroad participants as indication of intercultural competence, Deardorff called for attention for
learning outcomes. According to Deardorff (2009), output implied the number of international
students, study abroad programs, and students studying foreign languages. However, it was the
learning outcomes from these international efforts that mattered.
Even though Deardorff did not use the exact terminology of global perspective, the major
components from her definition echoed with global perspective. Her work shared a common
theme with Braskamp’s. For example, both Deardorff and Braskamp addressed intercultural
competence or global perspective development as an ongoing process. Second, there was a
category match between Deardorff and Braskamp’s definitions: Deardorff’s internal outcome
was equivalent to Braskamp’s intrapersonal identity and affect; Deardorff’s external outcome
16
was reinforced in Braskamp’s interpersonal interaction dimension. The reinforcement between
Braskamp and Deardorff’s research was apparent when Deardorff explicitly called for global
perspectives stating, “There was only one aspect agreed upon by all the intercultural experts in
this study, and that was the ability to see from other’s perspectives” (Deardorff, 2009, p. 433).
Because the essence of Deardorff’s research was about global perspective, even though it was
not labeled as such, Deardorff’s definition is also included in this study. Table 2.1 lists major
definitions that influenced the working definition used in this research.
Table 2.1
Global Perspective Definitions
Definitions Related to Global Perspective
Author
Five dimensions of global perspective:
Hanvey (1976)
-
Perspective consciousness
State of the planet awareness
Cross-cultural awareness
Knowledge of global dynamics
Awareness of human choices
Cultural differences and learning outcomes:
-
Triandis (1976)
Affective Qualities: Tolerance for ambiguity, empathy, and ability to
suspend judgment
Cognitive Skills: Knowledge about the target culture, cultural
differences and one’s own cultural norms
Behavioral competences: Ability to form relationships, accomplish
tasks in an intercultural context and solve problems created by crosscultural differences
Eight elements of global perspectives:
-
Merryfield (1992)
Human beliefs and values
Global systems
Global issues and problems
Cross-cultural understanding
Awareness of human choices
Global history
Acquisition of indigenous knowledge
Development of analytical, evaluative and participatory skills
17
Three kinds of outcomes:
Diaz (1999)
-
Cognitive: The knowledge which the individual possesses of other
cultures and how the world systems operate
Affective: Individual empathizes with the values of other cultures
Participatory: The willingness to take a stand on issues
Global competence: Having an open mind while actively seeking to
understand cultural norms and expectations of others, leverage this gained
knowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively outside one’s
environment.
Hunter (2004)
Global learning: Knowledge, skills and attitudes that students acquire through
a variety of experiences that enable them to understand world cultures, and
events; analyze global systems; appreciate cultural differences; and apply this
knowledge and appreciation to their lives as citizens and workers.
ACE endorsed
definition from
Olson, Green &
Hill (2006)
Global perspectives: The purpose of embedding global perceptive in higher
education is to enable students to develop knowledge about different places
and cultures of the world; cross-cutting global issues, problems, and events –
past, present, and future; and an understanding of the relevance to their own
lives. Such students will be made more aware of different ways of thinking
about the world and contemporary issues and will cultivate values, attitudes,
and skills that equip them to be informed and active citizens, voters,
employees, employers, and travelers in the world.
Global Perspective
in Higher
Education Project
(2008)
Global perspective dimensions and experiences:
Braskamp (2009)
-
Cognitive: Knowing and knowledge
Intrapersonal: Intrapersonal identity and affect
Interpersonal: Social responsibility and social interaction
Connect experiences of curriculum, co-curriculum and community to
the above three dimensions
Intercultural competence: from outputs to outcomes
-
Attitude: Respect, openness, curiosity and discovery
Knowledge, comprehension and skills
Desired internal outcomes: Frame of reference, shift (adaptability,
flexibility, empathy)
Desired external outcome: Effective and appropriate communication
and behavior in an intercultural situation
18
Deardorff (2009)
A viewpoint that the world is an interdependent complex system and
interconnected multi-reality whereby certain values, attitudes, knowledge,
experiences, and skills are demonstrated through cognitive, intrapersonal and
interpersonal dimensions in an international, intercultural or global
environment.
Ferguson (2013)
All of the above definitions emphasize that our society is an interconnected and
interdependent world system. People have to maintain an open attitude, pursue global
knowledge, and practice intercultural skills. The next section explains more about the working
definition of global perspective used in this research.
Working Definition
Drawing primarily on Hanvey and Braskamp’s research, I believe that a global
perspective definition first has to include the components of values, attitudes, knowledge, skills,
and experiences. Second, global perspective can be linked with human development in the
cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, which are indicated by how people
approach new realities, view the self, and deal with others. Third, when these three dimensions
occur in the international, cross-cultural or global context, a person’s global perspective
manifests by recognizing the interconnected and interdependent multi-reality. Figure 2.1 is a
graphic presentation of my working definition of global perspective.
Figure 2.1
Global Perspective Definition as Graphic Presentation
VAKES = Values, Attitudes, Knowledge, Experiences and Skills
19
Figure 2.1 can also be understood from the two aspects of external environment and
internal development. The external environment covers the space outside the cylinder and
internal development occurs inside the cylinder. People progress from left to right in the context
of an international, cross-cultural and global environment along the development process. Inside
the cylinder is where cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions interrelate with one
another, which is influenced by their values, attitudes, knowledge, experiences, and skills
(VAKES). After this process, the viewpoint is formed that the world is an interconnected and
interdependent multi-reality. Thus, global perspective is the outcome from international,
intercultural, and global learning. Furthermore, global perspective conveys how we approach
something different, new and unfamiliar, how we view ourselves, and in what way we interact
with others through cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal development.
Emphasized in my definition is experience, which is included as a distinct component.
The term “experience” in the global perspective definition can imply many kinds of curriculum
and co-curriculum experiences that involve diversity and global engagement. Examples include
service learning courses related with international topics, events that help expose individuals to
different cultures, and direct interactions with international students. In recent years, global
student mobility has increased from 2.1 million in 2000 to an estimated 5 million in 2012 with
students traveling beyond their local areas to gain new experiences (Marmolejo, 2012). Both
studying abroad internationally and studying away domestically are experiences that expand
students’ horizons. To reflect this student mobility trend, the experience component was
explicitly included in the working definition.
To summarize, I believe that the global perspective definition today not only goes beyond
the national, regional or culture-bound mentality, but also employs a holistic approach and
includes a full array of values, attitudes, knowledge, experiences, and skills through the human
development process. Students with global perspectives maintain certain values that are fair to
all stakeholders, embrace an open attitude for new cognitive challenges, and actively pursue
global knowledge. They also practice their intercultural skills to strive for win-win situations.
Last, but not least, they treasure international experiences and believe that international
experiences will expand their horizons. As Lovett (2008) mentioned, a global perspective exists
regardless of where students are located. Whether in developing countries or developed
20
countries, students hold a perspective to view the world from others’ position. In the same spirit,
the global perspective definition in this research implies the maintenance of a strong ethical
value that is fair to all stakeholders, practice of an open attitude, pursuit of global knowledge,
exercise of intercultural skills, and the value of international experiences.
With the above working definition of global perspective, the assessment of global
perspective could be approached in different ways. For this research, the global perspective
assessment was approached from the three dimensions of cognitive, intrapersonal and
interpersonal. The next section is dedicated to global perspective assessment.
Assessing Students’ Global Perspective
As scholars contributed to the process of what comprises global perspective and how
people develop their global perspective, they began to call for both quantitative and qualitative
assessment tools that assess the development of global perspective. This section describes the
efforts of exemplary scholars, their projects, and assessment tools in the field. All of these
assessment tools evaluate similar outcomes of global learning, intercultural competence, and
cross-cultural adaptability.
Exemplary Scholars and Their Projects
Just as the global perspective definition would not be complete without mentioning
Hanvey, the assessment discussion would not be complete without including Deardorff. Despite
her use of the terminology “intercultural competence” instead of “global perspective,” global
perspective assessment efforts have been advanced by Darla Deardorff. Her assessment plan
broadly covers curriculum, extracurricular activity, community involvement/impact, and study
abroad programs. Her edited book (2009), together with prolific publications, have made
Deardorff a sought after scholar in the global learning field.
Deardorff’s framework (Deardorff, 2009) used an industrial factory metaphor of input,
process, and output to provide the big picture of campus internationalization. Deardorff’s
framework indicated that many dimensions can be analyzed at every stage and addressed the
stakeholders of students, faculty, campus, and community. In this framework,
internationalization efforts started with inputs from multiple stakeholders at a university, which
21
included a university’s leadership, vision, and funding. Then, this process incorporated a series
of activities that included the development of international curriculum, study abroad programs,
and the presence of international students and scholars on the campus. Third, the output stage
contained quantitative data, such as the number of international students, number of study abroad
programs, and number of students studying foreign languages. The significance of her model
was that she suggested the transition from purely emphasizing quantity (output) to quality
(outcome).
Regarding assessment methods, Deardorff specified direct assessment such as embedded
course assessments, tests, and capstones directly linked to curriculum. She also specified
indirect assessment such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, curriculum/transcript analysis, and
documented data. All of these elements were part of her overarching framework that lead to
intercultural competence learning outcomes (Deardorff, 2006).
Following this assessment framework, Deardorff conducted a large scale project with 73
U.S. postsecondary institutions that was endorsed by NAFSA (Association of International
Educators) and ACE (American Council on Education). The invitation for participation in this
assessment was extended to institutions ranging from community colleges to large research
institutions. Her assessment resulted in the following conclusions. She first identified the
validity of both quantitative and qualitative research. Second, Deardorff acknowledged that
there were a wide variety of definitions. Third, the definition of intercultural competence
continued to evolve and definitions written 10 or more years ago were revised by authors
themselves. One surprise finding was the difference between administrators and scholars
regarding pre- and post-tests. While “only 65% of scholars felt that pre- and post-tests should be
used as a way to assess intercultural competence, administrators (90%) overwhelmingly agreed
on the use of pre/post-tests” (Deardorff, 2006, p. 251).
Another scholarly assessment project was Clarke’s (2004) effort among college students.
Because of its similar theoretical foundation and statistical results with the Global Perspective
Inventory (GPI), the assessment tool used in this research, Clarke’s project was included in this
section. Clarke’s assessment was based on Diaz’s (1999) theoretical framework of cognitive,
affective, and participatory dimensions. The survey was sent to 701 college students to capture
their global awareness and attitudes. Global awareness was used as an independent variable,
22
representing “cognitive or knowledge aspects of students’ perception” (p. 56). This included
learning foreign languages, visiting foreign countries, exposure to media, coursework in nonwestern civilizations, and personal involvement or interaction with someone from another
country. On the output side, transformation effects were tested for as dependent variables. For
example, survey questions asked “whether the respondent would work and study in a foreign
country, whether the U.S. should be isolated or participate in the global economy, whether the
U.S. should give military and economic assistance to foreign countries, and whether other
cultures are as good as U.S. culture” (p. 56). Clarke’s conclusion was that Americans have an
average level of global awareness and a mixed belief about America’s involvement with other
countries. According to Clarke, students’ global awareness accounted for a significant
proportion of the variability in the dependent variable international attitudes (Clarke, 2004).
This section includes the projects of two scholars: Deardorff as the leading scholar for
assessment efforts in the U.S. and Clarke for the similar research topics of social location factors
studied in this dissertation. Works by other scholars that used the GPI assessment tool will be
addressed in later chapters, so that the results from this research can be compared directly with
others scholars’ work side-by-side. The remaining section of this chapter focuses on assessment
tools.
Representative Assessment Instruments
Scholars have assessed global perspective using different instruments. Bantini (2006)
composed a comprehensive list entitled Assessment Tools of Intercultural Communicative
Competence, which briefly described the available tools. The following represents a more
current list of established global perspective assessment tools in the field:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
American Identity – Adapted from Jean Phinney’s multigroup ethnic identity measuring
two factors of identity search and affirmation: belonging and commitment (Phinney, 1992)
BEVI – The Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory developed by Craig Shealy to assess
international and multicultural learning (Shealy, 2004)
CCAI – Kelley and Meyers’ Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (Kelley & Meyers,
1995)
CETSCALE – Shimp and Sharma’s Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Scale (Shimp &
Sharma, 1987)
GES – Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale (Neuliep & McCrosky, 1997a)
GPI – Braskamp’s Global Perspective Inventory (Braskamp, et al., 2007)
IAAC – International Awareness and Activities Survey (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004)
ICAS – Intercultural Communication Apprehension Scale (Neuliep & McCrosky, 1997b)
23
•
•
•
•
•
•
IDI – Hammer & Bennett’s Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer, Bennett, &
Wiseman, 2003)
ILO – Intercultural Learning Outcomes (Sutton & Rubin, 2004)
ISI – Intercultural Sensitivity Index (Olson & Kroeger, 2001)
MPQ – Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven,
2001)
SCAS – Socio-Cultural Adaptation Scale (Ward & Kennedy, 1999)
TEIQ – Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Petrides, 2009)
Based on the needs of educational institutions, some have used multiple survey
instruments or portions of them to assess students’ global perspective. After using both IDI and
GPI in Anderson (2011) research, he concluded, “both the GPI and the IDI can fulfill this role” if
the goal is to assess improved intercultural development (p. 97). In comparing IDI to GPI, IDI
was based on two assumptions. The first assumption is that of intercultural sensitivity and is
described as an individual’s reaction to people from other cultures which can predetermine an
individual’s ability to work effectively with people from that culture (Anderson, 2006; Bhawuk
& Brisline, 1992, Hammer & Bennett, 2002). The second assumption is that an individual
follows a predictable path as he/she gains experience with different cultures. As a person’s
experiences accumulate, he/she moves through the six stages of denial, defense/reversal,
minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration (Hammer & Bennett, 2002). In turn, these
experiences contribute to cultivating a person’s intercultural sensitivity that helps him/her to
function successfully with people who are different. The strength of IDI is that it offers a path
for how to develop intercultural competence through different stages. However, it requires
special training before using IDI for assessment. In comparison, GPI is easy to implement with a
dedicated website that provides the necessary documents for getting started. The section below
focuses on GPI, the assessment tool used in this research.
Global Perspective Inventory (GPI)
GPI was officially launched and administered on multiple American campuses in 2007.
It focused on capturing student self-evaluation of their international knowledge, skills,
experiences, and global attitude (refer to Appendix A). In recent years, GPI has become a
popular assessment instrument among more than 85 tools available in the field (Rubin D. &
Sutton R., 2009). Since its launch, many established universities have used GPI to assess their
24
internationalization efforts, including Yale University, SUNY (State University of New York),
and Semester at Sea. The next section discusses GPI’s theoretical concepts as well as its
reliability and validity.
GPI’s Theoretical Foundation and Construct
The theoretical foundation of GPI is informed by Kegan (1994) as well as King & Baxter
Magolda’s (2005) framework. Robert Kegan’s seminal work argued that people grow as they
engage in meaning making. In Kegan’s theory of “self-authorship” (In Over Our Heads, 1994),
individuals act as authors of their lives. According to Kegan, mature individuals are better
equipped to approach and are open to complex life tasks because they exemplify what he has
termed “self-authorship” (p. 185). Kegan indicated that people are engaged in meaning making,
and trying to make sense of their journey in life. In doing so, they not only rely on their thinking,
but also their feelings and can relate with others in forming and reforming their journey in life.
Therefore, through this meaning making process, the holistic view requires a constant balancing
of external influences with individual interests and people around them. Otherwise, those living
a complex life often report being overwhelmed or “in over their heads” (Kegan, 1994).
Patricia King and Marcia Baxter Magolda (2005) advanced “self-authorship” by stating
that, “Individuals act as authors of their lives (not just the stage on which their lives are played
out)” (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005, p. 574). They further situated students’ development by
describing their socio-cultural development in their college years. In the context of intercultural
maturity, people simultaneously develop their mind, sense of self, and relations with others.
These three dimensions rely on peoples’ thinking, feeling and relating with others, which are
labeled as the three interrelated and interacting dimensions of human development: cognitive,
intrapersonal and interpersonal (Kegan, 1994; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Braskamp et al.
2009).
Based on Kegan as well as King & Baxter Magolda’s concepts, Braskamp advanced the
theoretical framework in the global context. Braskamp believed that through the life journey,
especially the college years, students will learn to think with more complexity in an
interconnected world, acquire their sense of identity in a diversified society, and recognize their
25
ability to relate to others from different cultures. His theoretical assumption was that individuals
need to be competent and sensitive to function in a pluralistic society (Braskamp, et al. 2009).
Based on the cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal development, Braskamp
constructed his GPI survey around six subscales. These six subscales and their definitions
(Braskamp et al., 2009, p. 4) are as follows:
1. Knowing. Degree of complexity of one’s view of the importance of cultural context in
judging what is important to know and value.
2. Knowledge. Degree of understanding and awareness of various cultures and their impact
on our global society and level of proficiency in more than one language.
3. Identity. Level of awareness of one’s unique identity and degree of acceptance of one’s
ethnic, racial, and gender dimensions of one’s identity.
4. Affect. Level of respect for and acceptance of cultural perspectives different from one’s
own and degree of emotional confidence.
5. Social Responsibility. Level of interdependence and social concern for others.
6. Social Interaction. Degree of engagement with others who are different from oneself and
degree of cultural sensitivity in living in pluralistic settings.
It is worth mentioning that Braskamp labeled cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal
as domains, and other scholars used the term dimension. Similarly, Braskamp referred to the
cognitive level of “Knowing” as scales, while other scholars used subscales. According to
Braskamp:
For each domain, one scale reflects the theory of cultural development and the other
reflects intercultural communications theory. For example, the cognitive domain
includes the Knowing and Knowledge subscales. The scale of Knowing stresses the
complexity of thinking which is the ‘content’ (intercultural development focus). The
scale, Knowledge, portrays a level of acquisition of knowledge about multicultural issues
(intercultural communication focus) … Accordingly, the similar rationale distinguishes
the scales of Identity (intercultural maturity focus) from Affect (intercultural
communication focus), and the scales of Social Responsibility (intercultural maturity
focus) from Social Interaction (intercultural communication focus). (Braskamp et al.,
2009, p. 12)
26
In general, the odd numbered scales above address intercultural maturity and the even
numbered scales address intercultural communication within the same domain (Braskamp et al.,
2009, p. 12). In 2009, Braskamp added a cluster of items that he grouped under the general term
of “experience.” He categorized students’ experiences into curriculum, co-curriculum, and
community involvement (3C) activities. Furthermore, he used the 3x3 matrix in Figure 2.2 to
link experiences directly with learning outcomes.
Figure 2.2
Connecting Experiences to Outcomes: The 3x3 Matrix
Source: Braskamp, et al., Global Perspective Inventory (GPI): Its Purpose, Construction, Potential Uses and
Psychometric Characteristics, 2012, p. 16.
Some of Braskamp’s statements from Figure 2.2 can be traced to earlier research. For
example, Braskamp’s co-curriculum experiences included attending events of students’ own
culture and others’ culture was supported by Cortes’ (1998) statement, “National and global
events provide ideal foci for combining multicultural and global thinking in analyzing multiple
perspectives” (1998, p. 127).
Since GPI’s initial launch in 2007, it has evolved through multiple versions. Table 2.2
lists the major changes made to GPI through Summer 2011.
27
Table 2.2
GPI Construct Improvements
Version
Time
GPI Validity Improvement
1
Oct 2007
Changed 9 items based on feedback
2
Nov - Dec 2007
3
Jan 2008
Altered 3 items
4
Aug 2008 - July 2009
Altered 7 items to make more clear and focused
5
2009 - 2010
Major enhancements:
-
6
Summer 2010
-
7
Summer 2011
-
Deleted six items
Added 3 sets of items in 3C involvement
(summer 2009)
Changed five of the nine items in the
Knowing scale
Added more on academic information and
first year experience
Revised items of curriculum and cocurriculum categories
The improvements listed in Table 2.2 include those through version 7. The most recent
version of GPI is version 9 which was made available in Fall 2013. In total, GPI has matured
and been completed by over 100,000 survey participants, mainly from U.S. colleges (Braskamp,
personal communication, August 11, 2013).
GPI’s Reliability
According to Braskamp, “Reliability refers to the extent to which respondents respond
the same or similarly to the same items over time and are generally consistent or coherent in the
pattern of responses in a single administration of the survey” (Braskamp et al., 2012, p. 9). Thus,
the reliability of a survey instrument is based on the tendency towards consistency, which can be
demonstrated through repeated tests (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). If a survey instrument is
reliable, then it should yield similar results when administered repeatedly. The reliability of GPI
is realized through test-retest and internal consistency of the scales.
28
First, GPI reliability was achieved through its test-retest scheme. If the same instrument
was administered with the same participants after a period of time without any interruption, the
two tests should achieve similar results. If the two results are exactly the same, the reliability
coefficient would be 1.00.
Braskamp conducted correlation tests between two administrations of the GPI survey
with study abroad participants pre- and post-trip. According to Braskamp:
They reflect the stability and consistency of the respondents’ responses … in this case,
the extent of the consistency of change in the students in their scores on the GPI before
they participated in a semester education abroad program and after they completed it.
The differences, if any, reflect the consistency of the differences among the students from
their ‘pre-test’ and ‘post-test’ administration … The range of test-retest reliability varies
by scale and by length of study abroad; e.g., one semester versus three weeks. (Braskamp
et al., 2012, p. 9)
Second, the reliability of the GPI scale was also tested through its internal consistency of
the subscale. The internal consistency estimate is given by Cronbach’s α coefficient and is used
to estimate the proportion of variance that is systematic in the data. Braskamp conducted a
statistical analysis using Cronbach’s α to indicate the internal consistency for each of the six
subscales. Table 2.3 summarizes Braskamp’s reliability of the GPI subscales as calculated for
the national data.
Table 2.3
Cronbach’s α Coefficient Reliability of GPI – National Data
Subscale
Knowing
Knowledge
Identity
Affect
Social Responsibility
Social Interaction
Coefficient α
.627
.748
.722
.650
.699
.701
Source: Braskamp, Braskamp, Carter Merrill, & Engberg, 2009.
29
Table 2.3 shows that three of the six subscales did not reach a Cronbach’s α of .700.
Therefore, similar internal consistency tests were conducted in this research using the alluniversity dataset to verify GPI’s internal consistency before statistical models were applied.
These internal consistency tests are discussed in Chapter 4.
GPI’s Validity
Regarding GPI validity, Braskamp commented, “Validity is an empirical question, but no
single statistical index based on one study can be applied to the validity of the results”
(Braskamp, 2012, et al., p. 10). The validity of a survey instrument concerns its accuracy. A
valid survey instrument serves its intended purpose and provides relevant information. There are
different tests and measures to approach a survey instrument’s validity (Mason & Bramble,
1989). GPI addressed its validity through three types of validity: face validity (content),
concurrent validity (criterion-related), and construct validity.
Face validity refers to the “obviousness” of a test which is the obviousness of the claims
that a test makes. Face validity provides the transparency of a statistical test (Bornstein, Rossner,
Hill, & Stepanian, 1994). From GPI’s theoretical foundation, construct and evolvement,
Braskamp made clear that GPI was to assess students’ global perspective demonstrated through
intercultural maturity and communication capability. Through GPI’s development process, the
author collected feedback and continued to improve it, making it one of the most recognized
assessment tools in the field.
“Concurrent validity refers to the degree of relationship and correlation with other
instruments that are designed to measure similar characteristics and constructs” (Braskamp et al.,
2012, p. 11). In the global learning field, which is still a relatively new research discipline, there
is no established survey instrument to be quoted as the authoritative survey instrument. After
Anderson (2011) used both IDI and GPI in his research, he commented that both assessment
tools can fulfill a role. Anderson further commented, “A clear need exists to assess the validity
of the various instruments and to develop a better picture of what each actually measures” (p. 98).
In agreement with Anderson, a dedicated chapter in this research was added to address the
validity of GPI (see Chapter 4).
30
“Construct validity refers to the degree to which the survey results empirically support
and reinforce the desired constructs and concepts under consideration” (Braskamp et al., 2012, p.
11). Through the years, GPI has continued to improve its construct validity by demonstrating
“conceptual usefulness of the items and scales, and their perceived utility for making changes in
campus environments and programs to enhance and foster holistic student development, stressing
a global perspective” (Braskamp et al., 2012, p. 11).
Overall, GPI is one of the most recognized assessment tools in the field. Compared to
other survey instruments, it has an easy to understand construct and has gone through reliability
and validity tests. Furthermore, GPI differentiates itself by providing instructors, administrators,
and international educators with tangible actions to take based on survey results. For example,
faculty can internationalize curriculum, student affairs administrators can organize globaloriented events, and international educators can help create a productive environment to help
students develop their global perspectives.
To summarize this literature review chapter, the assessment of learning outcomes related
with international education and global learning has evolved to meet the needs of society. As the
world has become more inter-connected and inter-dependent, the paradigm has shifted from
focusing on international to global. Accordingly, a global perspective is required to navigate
today’s inter-connected and inter-dependent world. Global Perspective Inventory is a popular
tool to assess students’ global perspective development and is the instrument used in this
research.
31
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY & METHODS
The purpose of this research was to assess students’ global perspectives, so the main
research question was what factors contribute to students’ global perspective development. As a
quantitative study with an empirical-analytic focus, this research identified these factors as well
as studied their relationship to students’ global perspective development.
This chapter presents the methodology and methods of the study. Regards to the
relationship between methodology and methods, Kaplan stated, “The aim of methodology then is
to describe and analyze these methods, throwing light on their limitations and resources,
clarifying their presuppositions and consequences, relating the potentialities to the twilight zone
at the frontiers of knowledge” (1964, p. 23). Quantz simplified this relationship as methodology
refers to the intellectual context within which a particular research method is used (Quantz,
2012). In this light, methodology always has a philosophical assumption and the methods are
simply the procedures used to collect and compile data. Thus, methods are the techniques
employed to gather evidence, so they are also referred to as research techniques or research
strategies.
The following sections briefly describe the development of postpositivism as the guiding
methodology for this research, as well as the specific techniques relating to sample, measurement,
and procedure related to the research method.
Methodology
For each inquiry, the fundamental philosophy of the inquirer’s worldview has to be
clarified before specific research methods can be selected. Postpositivism is the major
methodology that guided this research. Before explaining postpositivism, it is necessary to
briefly review its predecessor positivism, which dominated quantitative research for centuries by
utilizing observed data to make claims. Nonetheless, “The mantle of hegemony has in recent
decades gradually fallen on the shoulders of the postpositivist” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 116).
This was due to the inherent flaws of positivism and the historical, social, and theoretical context
in which postpositivism has evolved.
32
Positivism is based on the rationalistic empirical philosophy that originated with Aristotle,
Francis Bacon, John Locke, Auguste Comte, and Immanuel Kant (as cited in Mertens, 1998).
Positivism uses scientific method, deductive reasoning, and empirical evidence as the bases of
research. Its underlying assumption is that the social world can be studied in the same way as
the natural world (Mertens, 1998). There are several fundamental beliefs related to positivism.
First, positivist methods are based on the belief that there is only one reality and it is the
researcher’s job to discover that reality. Second, researchers and subjects of study are
independent and researchers can be entirely objective. Third, positivists’ main tasks are to test
hypotheses, and in doing so, conditions can be carefully controlled to prevent outcomes from
being improperly influenced (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Mertens, 1998).
Over time, postpositivism developed as a reaction to the critiques of feminism, critical
psychology, anthropology, ethnography, and the development of qualitative research (Ryan,
2006). In 1979, research methodologists Cook and Campbell explicitly pointed to the limitations
of positivism, “We reject the position that observations are laden with only a single theory or
paradigm” (p. 24).
Although both positivism and postpositivism value the conventional benchmarks of rigor
with validity, reliability, and objectivity (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), postpositivism recognizes
multiplicity and complexity as hallmarks of humanity and the research process (Ryan, 2006).
Thus, postpositivism is different from its predecessor in ontology (reality), epistemology (how to
approach reality), and methodology (the nature of knowledge) in the following specific ways
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Mertens, 1998):
•
•
•
Ontology: postpositivism assumes objective realities, but believes in multiplicity and
complexity.
Epistemology: postpositivism assumes that reality can only be understood imperfectly
and within a range of probabilities. Furthermore, researchers are no longer “disinterested
scientists”; instead, they can strongly influence what is observed.
Methodology: postpositivists modify experiments and turn them into quasi-experiments
by recognizing that the theories, hypotheses, and experimental methods can be modified.
More succinctly, “Where the positivist researchers might strive to discover objectively
the truth hidden in the subject’s mind, postpositivists strive to disrupt the predictability that can
occur in traditional interviews” (Ryan, 2006, p. 18). For example, instead of using a quantitative
33
survey exclusively, postpositivists could use canned interview questions: a trained interviewer
could repeat asking the same questions, and then code answers to standardize the responses.
Thus, during the process, postpositivists might use a more relativistic approach with knowledge
being filtered through subjective experiences.
To apply postpositivism to this study, understanding students’ global perspectives is a
complex developmental process, so it is recognized that empirical research with survey
responses has limitations. In this regard, this researcher does not attempt to conclusively predict;
instead, the researcher of this study aggregated data so as to identify conditions, patterns and
projections of students’ global perspective, which may only be one part of the overall “truth.”
Second, this study cannot avoid bringing the author’s own frame of reference to this
research, as postpositivism “strives to produce an awareness of the complexity, historical
contingency and fragility of the practices that we invent to discover the truth about ourselves” (as
cited in Ryan, 2006, p. 25). Therefore, no matter how much effort was made to maintain the
objectivity of quantitative research, the researcher could not entirely become a disinterested
inquirer, because advocacy for international education is the ultimate objective subconsciously
governing the researcher’s entire research agenda.
Lastly, the research acknowledges that this study cannot be generalized to all college
students, because instead of a random sample, only three subgroups from one university
participated in the survey assessment at the request of divisional administrators. The three
subgroups sampled for this research were from a public university located in Midwest United
States. Thus, any conclusions made in this research will be in consideration of similar student
populations to avoid any generalized statement about other U.S. college students. In summary,
postpositivism is the guiding methodology for this research, which is not only demonstrated
through the research paradigm, but also through data collection, analysis, and conclusions.
Methods
In this methods section, the specific data collection strategies used in this research are
described so that the methods may be replicated. These include sample, measurement and
procedure. At the end of this section, IRB compliance is discussed.
34
Sample
The sample was collected from three subgroups from a public Midwest university. The
main campus, established in the early 19th century and traditionally emphasizing full time
residential undergraduate education, has a total undergraduate enrollment over 15,000. Among
this student population during the period of the study, 3% were part-time students and 76%
received either scholarship or financial aid (Office of Institutional Research, Nov. 2013). Two of
the University’s regional campuses were established in the 1960s to provide convenient and
affordable education for residents of two neighboring small cities and communities. With a
combined enrollment of close to 6,000 from the two regional campuses, 27% were part-time
students and 63.6% received either scholarship or financial aid (Schorman, internal
communication, August 21, 2012).
A convenience sample of 1,637 survey responses were collected with the detailed
breakdown of 326 from regional campuses, 625 from School of Business of the main campus,
and 686 from study abroad returnees of the main campus. Within the all-university dataset, the
minimum age was 18 (the age requirement to participate in the Global Perspective Inventory
survey) and the maximum age was 67. The average age of survey participants was 22.58.
For this research, non-traditional students meant any student who indicated an age greater
than 22. Among the three subgroups of this research, regional campuses had the highest nontraditional percentage of 39%. In comparison, about 7.7% of business and 7.3% of study abroad
survey participants were non-traditional students.
Regarding gender, 916 (60%) of the survey participants were female and 793 male
students from the all-university dataset. The gender distribution between women and men was
relatively even for the regional and business subgroups, but there were more women than men
among the study abroad subgroup by a ratio of 67.8 to 30.3 (discrepancy was due to the options
of “Other”, “Decline to state”, and missing data).
Regarding ethnicity, more than 80% of total survey participants were European/White,
which reflects the ethnic breakdown of the University at large. Based on Fall 2012 main campus
enrollment, multicultural students made up 12.6% of the freshman class and 11.6% of the
undergraduate student body (Internal Communication, 2013, Student Profile). Similarly, on the
35
regional campuses, 80.7% of survey participants were European/White. For the comparison of
demographics from all three subgroups, please refer to Appendix C - Table 1.
Regarding family annual income, a significant amount of data was incomplete for all
three subgroups. For example, among the business subgroup of 625 survey participants, 117 did
not supply a family income response. Incomplete response rates occurred among the three
subgroups with percentages of 27.6%, 18.7% and 21.6% for regional, business, and study abroad
subgroups respectively. In addition to missing data, annual family income was dispersed, both
between and within the subgroups. For example, within the regional subgroup, SD=$85,346,
which was bigger than the mean M=$76,895. Therefore, not only between subgroups, but even
within the same subgroup, there existed large differences in reported family income. To address
this situation, additional information such as the median was examined in addition to mean,
minimum, and maximum. The median was preferred over mean because of “the median’s
insensitivity to extreme scores” helped address this skewed distribution issue (Coladarci et al.,
2011, p. 57). The conclusion was that the families of business students were wealthiest among
the subgroups with median annual family income of $150,000. In comparison, median family
income was $60,000 for the regional campus subgroup and $100,000 for the study abroad
subgroup.
For mothers’ and fathers’ education, within both business and study abroad subgroups,
over 40% of the parents held bachelor degrees. In comparison, from the regional survey
responses, 34.4% of the mothers and 40.8% of the fathers were high school graduates.
Regarding the geographical settings where sampled students spent most of their lives,
over 60% of business and study abroad students grew up in a suburban environment. In
comparison, among the regional campus sample, 47.2% grew up in a suburban environment and
28.8% spent most of their lives in a small/middle sized town. For details on combined family
income, parents’ education and where students spent most of their lives, please refer to Appendix
C - Table 2.
Survey respondents also provided information on their class status and grade point
average (GPA). For class status, there were options for new student, freshman, sophomore,
junior, and senior. For GPA, the business subgroup did not ask students to answer this question,
36
so the GPA entry only included data from the regional campus and study abroad subgroups. The
regional subgroup had a mean GPA of 3.08 and median of 3.00 with SD = .56. In comparison,
the study abroad subgroup had mean GPA of 3.38 and median of 3.42 with SD = .41. For details
of class status and GPA from the three subgroups, please refer to Appendix C - Table 3.
Measurement
This research used the existing assessment tool of Global Perspective Inventory (GPI)
version 5. It consisted of 77 survey questions broken down into three sections: the first section
formed the dependent measures with survey items from 1-40; the second section formed the
independent measures with survey items 41-69; the third section included additional independent
variables as well as a custom area where each institution could add survey items and open-ended
questions in the provided content box at the very end of the GPI survey.
Global perspectives were defined by Braskamp as the tendency to think with complexity
considering multiple perspectives, to form identity in a pluralistic society, and to interact with
people from different cultural backgrounds with flexibility and openness (Braskamp et al., 2012).
The first section contained GPI items 1-40, which were the dependent measures. These 40 items
were grouped into subscales based on the theoretical foundation of cognitive, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal dimensions. Within each dimension, there were two subscales, with the first
subscale indicating students’ intercultural maturity and the second subscale indicating
intercultural communication (Braskamp et al., 2012, p. 4). Although the difference between
these two can be very subtle, especially when deciding which subscale a specific survey item
should be part of, the researcher’s understanding was that while intercultural development
emphasized “take-in,” intercultural communication emphasized “expressing out.” Below are
explanations of the GPI subscales together with sample items and reliability coefficient α for
each subscale.
Knowing. Cognitive Knowing deals with epistemology-related inquiry of how to access
complex reality, especially in the global, international and intercultural context (9 items).
Sample items included: Item 7 – “In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to
determine” and Item 23 – “I can evaluate issues from several different perspectives.” The
internal consistency Cronbach’s α was .546. Due to its “Questionable” Cronbach’s α below .700
37
(George & Mallery, 2003, p. 231), the Knowing subscale was extensively analyzed (see Chapter
4), and the decision was made to omit it from the models.
Knowledge. Cognitive Knowledge is about the acquisition of concrete knowledge
associated with various cultures, global systems, and country specific information (5 items).
Sample items included: Item 8 – “I am informed of current issues that impact international
relations” and Item 32 – “I can discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective.” The
internal consistency Cronbach’s α was .756.
Identity. Intrapersonal Identity is about reflection of one’s own identity (5 items).
Sample items included: Item 9 – “I know who I am as a person” and Item 14 – “I am confident
that I can take care of myself in a completely new situation.” The internal consistency
Cronbach’s α was .792.
Affect. Intrapersonal Affect is about the comfort and confidence when expressing
identity while embracing differences (6 items). Sample items included: Item 27 – “I do not feel
threatened emotionally when presented with multiple perspectives” and Item 29 – “I am
accepting of people with different religious and spiritual traditions.” The internal consistency
Cronbach’s α was .715.
Social responsibility. Interpersonal Social Responsibility is related to making a
commitment to the global society and taking relevant actions based on an individual’s ethics (6
items). Sample items included: Item 5 – “I think of my life in terms of giving back to society”
and Item 38 – “I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.” The internal consistency
Cronbach’s α was .729.
Social interaction. Interpersonal Social Interaction pertains to engaging with others with
cultural empathy, sensitivity and flexibility (6 items). Sample items included: Item 34 – “I
intentionally involve people from many cultural backgrounds in my life” and Item 39 – “I am
open to people who strive to live lives very different from my own life style.” The internal
consistency Cronbach’s α was .737.
Global citizenship. The Global Citizenship subscale was another group of survey items
utilized by Braskamp in GPI version 5. It consisted of 10 survey items about students’ feelings
38
of being a citizen of the global community and advocating social justice around the world.
Sample items included: Item 16 – “I work for the rights of others” and “Item 17 – I see myself as
a global citizen.” The internal consistency Cronbach’s α was .759.
Although Global Citizenship was not one of the 6 original GPI subscales from the
theoretical framework, it provided an important aspect of global perspective development. For
this research, the Knowing subscale was removed and Global Citizenship was included. Chapter
4 substantiated this decision with factor analysis, internal consistency analyses, and rationale.
Students were given survey choices using the Likert-type scale 1-5, which corresponded
to response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. After students completed
the survey questions, scores were averaged, and the mean of each subscale was reported as the
indication of students’ global perspective. Thus, a higher survey score corresponded to a more
advanced level of global perspective development. Detailed calculations for each of the
subscales in this research are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Global Citizenship
Knowledge
Identity
Affect
Social Responsibility
Social Interaction
mean of items 5+11+15+16+17+21+32+34+37+38
mean of items 8+13+19+25+32
mean of items 2+3+9+14+33
mean of items 11+17+26+27+28+29
mean of items 5+16+22+31+38+40
mean of items 15+21+34+37+39
The second GPI section, Items 41-69, consisted of independent measures of this research.
They include students’ social locations, sense of community, co-curriculum, curriculum, and
study abroad participation.
Social locations. Items 49-57 addressed social location with students’ demographic
information, such as age, gender, family income, mother’s and father’s education, as well as
academic progress in college. Within the all-university dataset, age was entered as a continuous
variable. Regarding gender, besides male and female, “other” and “decline to state” were
additional student choices. Regarding ethnicity, choices provided were: Multiple Ethnicities,
African/African American/Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, European/White, Hispanic/Latino,
Native American, and “I prefer not to respond.” The family income variable was categorized
into three levels: 1) below $50,000, 2) between $50,000 and $120,000, and 3) above $120,000.
39
For mothers’ and fathers’ education, this was the highest education level that each parent
achieved, ranging from less than high school to a graduate degree. For class status, there were
predefined options of new student, freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, and graduate student.
Sense of community. Items 41-48 related to the community factor, which served to help
understand how students’ sense of community contributed to their global perspectives. Sample
items included: Item 41 – “I have a strong sense of affiliation with my college/university” and
Item 47 – “I have been encouraged to develop my strengths and talents at my college/university.”
After factor analyses and reliability tests, six items were included in the community factor with
Cronbach’s α of .831.
Co-curriculum. Items 58-63 addressed students’ involvement in co-curriculum
activities related to diversity. Instead of asking students whether they participated in cocurriculum activities, the survey asked: “How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated
in the following since you enrolled at the University?” These items included co-curricular
activities such as diversity programs, activities reflecting cultural heritages that are different
from one’s own, and community service activities. Students could choose from four or more
terms, three terms, two terms, one term, and none. After factor analysis and reliability test, five
items were included in this co-curriculum factor with Cronbach’s α of .765. Item 62, religious or
spiritual activities, was removed because it did not load onto the co-curriculum factor.
Curriculum. Items 64-66 addressed students’ involvement in diversity and service
learning curricula. Instead of asking students whether they were involved in curriculum
activities, the survey asked how many terms (e.g., semesters) students registered for courses that
related to race and ethnicity issues, different backgrounds and beliefs as well as the courses with
service learning opportunities. Students could choose from four or more terms, three terms, two
terms, one term, and none. After factor analysis and reliability test, all three items were included
in this curriculum factor with Cronbach’s α of .762.
Study abroad participation. Item 67 asked about students’ participation in
study/education abroad programs. The survey question asked: “How many terms (e.g., semesters)
have you participated in the study/education abroad programs since you enrolled at the
University?” Students could choose from four or more terms, three terms, two terms, one term,
40
and none. Because of the expected impact from study abroad on students’ global perspective
development, this research included study abroad as a standalone independent variable.
The third section of the GPI survey instrument comprised Items 70 -77, which consisted
of additional independent items as well as custom questions based on each institution’s needs. In
the all-university dataset, more questions were added asking students about their GPA (regional
and study abroad subgroups), major, and interaction with international students. For academic
divisions, the all-university dataset included the three subgroups of regional campuses, school of
business, and study abroad students from the main University campus. Like the student
demographics, these questions were also treated as independent variables, grouped into academic
factors as independent variables. The following are the independent variables for this research:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social locations: age, gender, ethnicity, family income, mother’s education, father’s
education, and geographical settings
Academic factors: class status, GPA, and academic divisions
Curriculum: Items 64, 65 and 66
Co-curriculum: Items 58, 59, 60, 61 and 63
Sense of community: Items 41, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48
Study abroad participation: Item 67
Procedure
The data collection procedure involved two phases. The first phase was a pilot study.
The author of this dissertation was involved in a pilot study to survey regional campus students
and Chinese exchange students studying on the regional campuses. During the pilot phase in
2010, several administrators at the University evaluated assessment tools in the field, and
concluded that the University would continue to use GPI for the second phase in a larger scale
study. As a result, administrators at the regional campuses, School of Business, and study
abroad at the University decided to license GPI for its official use. It is worth mentioning that
the data utilized in this research only included the data collected after the pilot phase in 2010 and
during the 2011-2012 academic year.
The procedure for data collection was different across the three subgroups. During the
regional campus pilot phase, the online data collection effort proved ineffective, receiving less
than 10 responses from the regional campus student list. Learning from this, starting from
academic year 2011, a more focused approach targeted BIS (Bachelor of Integrative Studies)
41
students. The BIS program was open to any regional campus students who completed 68 credit
hours and maintained a 2.0 cumulative GPA. In other words, any students who have sufficient
credit hours, as long as they are not subject to academic discipline, can be admitted into the BIS
program. The BIS program was comprised of three consecutive seminars: BIS 201 focused on
“self,” BIS 301 focused on “the other,” and the BIS 401 senior capstone seminar focused on
integration and skill building. All instructors who taught the three BIS seminars were informed
by the BIS Director about this assessment. In addition to the BIS instructors, two additional
regional faculty members who served on the International Advisory Council for the regional
campuses volunteered to administer GPI in their courses. For the regional data, instructors were
provided with paper copies of the survey instrument. They distributed a survey consent form in
their classes and explained that the survey was anonymous, so whether students participated in
the survey or not had no impact on their grade. At the end of classes, regional instructors
collected the surveys. The responses from the paper surveys were then keyed in before
excluding surveys which were missing a large percentage of responses. The regional data were
then merged with the University data, maintaining its original source information.
For the business subgroup, the Associate Dean from the School of Business in charge of
curriculum sent an email message to instructors asking them to encourage their students to
participate in the survey online. Some instructors announced the link to their classes and asked
them to complete it online outside of class. Other professors gave class time to encourage
students to complete the survey, as most students brought their laptops to class or some classes
were conducted in computer labs. In either case, students’ participation in the survey was
voluntary and instructors did not know who completed the survey or who did not, nor did they
know how students responded in the survey.
The third group of data was collected from study abroad participants who volunteered to
complete the survey after their study abroad trip. Study abroad students were encouraged to
complete the survey both before and after their trips. However, this research only used the poststudy abroad survey data. Study abroad students were informed at the beginning of the survey
that their participation in the survey was voluntary and they could stop the survey at any time.
The procedures for collecting data from all three subgroups went through Institutional
Review Board (IRB) approval. The primary difference was that the regional campus surveys
42
were completed on paper while surveys for the School of Business and study abroad returnees
were completed online.
Institutional Review Board Approval
Since this research involved human subjects, it complied with federal law and relevant
University policies. Before survey participants started to fill in the assessment instrument, the
researcher was ensured that the selection of research subjects was equitable and an informed
consent was obtained either on paper or electronically from each survey participant. In addition,
all survey participants were at least 18 years old and no deception was involved in this study.
Since this was an anonymous survey, participants’ privacy and confidentiality were
protected. Participants were informed in writing as part of the consent form that research
participation was completely optional and voluntary. The consent form also explicitly informed
participants in writing that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty
or loss of benefits. In other words, students could leave questions blank and stop at any time for
any reason. In addition, the consent form also informed them that they were free to skip or
choose not to respond to any question that they did not wish to answer.
Data handling and safety monitoring were addressed by restricting access to the raw data to
the principal investigator and co-investigators. Furthermore, personal identification information
was not collected as part of the study. After students completed the survey, they were given
debriefing information.
In summary, the protection of human subjects has been strictly enforced throughout this
study. This study was approved by a Research Compliance Officer from Miami University’s
Office for the Advancement of Research and Scholarship. Please refer to Appendix B for IRB
approval documents.
43
CHAPTER 4 – DATA REDUCTION & ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the construct of the dependent and independent measures in this
research. After factor analyses and internal consistency tests, the dependent measures included
five of the six original GPI subscales together with the Global Citizenship subscale. The
independent measures consisted of students’ social locations, academic factors, curriculum, cocurriculum, sense of community, and study abroad. This chapter describes how data reduction
and analysis were used to construct the dependent and independent measures using factor
analyses and Cronbach’s α coefficients.
Dependent Measures
Factor analyses and internal consistency tests were performed to ensure that each
subscale was unidimensional and had an acceptable Cronbach’s α coefficient above .700 for all
measures with multiple items. From these tests, it was concluded that five of the original six GPI
subscales should be used. In addition, a group of items focused on Global Citizenship was
analyzed and subsequently added to these five original GPI subscales. Therefore, the dependent
measures in this research included the six subscales of Global Citizenship, Knowledge, Identity,
Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction.
The Original GPI Subscales
Although the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) is an established survey instrument
used by close to 100,000 U.S. college students (Braskamp, personal communication, August 3,
2013), in preparation for data analysis in the present study, the internal consistency test of
Cronbach’s α was performed. Both scholars and the related professional association suggested
estimating the reliability of the data used in each study, instead of solely relying on the reliability
tests from previous research (Vach-Hasses, Kogan, & Thompson, 2000; Thompson, 2004). The
Task Force on Statistical Interference, commissioned by the American Psychological
Association (APA), also recommended providing reliability coefficients for data before analyses
(Wilkinson, 1999).
44
For the data in this research, there were six subscales of the original GPI: Knowing,
Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction. Because of this
construction, factor analyses were conducted to examine whether each of these subscales was
unidimensional using the all-university dataset. After factor analyses, internal consistency tests
were performed using Cronbach’s α coefficients, which indicate the proportion of variance in the
data ranging from .00 (if no variances are consistent) to 1.00 (if all variances are consistent)
(Thompson, 2004).
When performing the factor analyses, the Promax rotation method was used instead of
Varimax, which is the default SPSS rotation method. The reason for not using the Varimax
rotation method was because of the interrelated nature of the GPI constructs and a relatively
large sample size.
First, Varimax classifies items into components with the assumption that resultant
components are orthogonal to each other, meaning there are no correlations among components
(Pett, 2003). However, “Arbitrarily forcing the components to be orthogonal may distort the
findings … if the dimension or sub-factors of the construct are indeed uncorrelated, such patterns
should emerge naturally out of the Promax rotation” (Matsunaga, 2010, p. 96). GPI’s theoretical
framework is based on the three interrelated dimensions, so Promax was preferred over the
Varimax rotation method.
Second, the Varimax rotation method is popular because it is more applicable to
relatively small sample sizes. Considering the sample size of 1,637, the Promax rotation method
was more appropriate for this research because utilizing a large sample should address the
concern of sample error associated with the Promax rotation method (Hetzel, 1996; Pett, 2003).
To summarize, considering GPI’s specific theoretical foundation of three interrelated
dimensions, the change from Varimax to Promax rotation method was appropriate for this
research. In addition, considering the sample size of 1,637 survey participants, sample size was
not a concern. Therefore, the Promax rotation method was used instead of the SPSS default
rotation method for this research.
45
In addition, “principal component” was changed to “principal axis” in the factor analysis
because of the differences between the two extraction mechanisms. When using SPSS,
“principal axis factoring zeros in on the common variance among the items and delineates the
latent factors underlying the data” (Matsunaga, 2010, p. 102), therefore “principal axis” was
preferred in this research.
Furthermore, the factor analyses used criterion that retains all factors that have
eigenvalues greater than 1, also known as the Kaiser-Guttman criterion rule. Eigenvalues are
helpful in deciding how many factors should be used in the analysis. An eigenvalue is the
amount of variance of the variables accounted for by a factor. An eigenvalue for a factor should
be greater or equal to zero and cannot exceed the total variance (Thompson, 2004).
After conducting initial factor analyses for each of six subscale, followed by the internal
consistency tests, the three subscales of Knowledge, Identity, and Social Responsibility were
unidimensional with acceptable Cronbach’s α against the following scale: “> .9 = Excellent, > .8
= Good, > .7 = Acceptable, > .6 = Questionable, > .5 = Poor, and < .5 = Unacceptable” (George
& Mallery, 2003, p. 231). Table 4.1 summarizes the original six GPI subscales with Cronbach’s
α coefficients and the number of factors loaded using the Promax rotation method.
Table 4.1
Initial Factor and Reliability Analyses of the Original Six GPI Subscales
GPI Dimensions
GPI Subscales
Cognitive
Knowing
Knowledge
Intrapersonal
Identity
Affect
Interpersonal
Social Responsibility
Social Interaction
Number of
Items
9
5
5
9
6
6
Number of
Factors Loaded
3
1
1
2
1
2
Cronbach’s
α
.546
.756
.792
.736
.729
.665
The other 3 subscales of Knowing, Affect, and Social Interaction would require further
analyses. The Knowing subscale resulted in three factors with a Cronbach’s α of .546, the lowest
among all subscales with possible multidimensionality. The Affect and Social Interaction
subscales were potentially unidimensional, but further data reduction techniques would be
46
required. The details of factor analyses for the six original GPI subscales can be found in
Appendix C - Tables 4 through 9.
Since the Knowing subscale included 3 factors resulting in the lowest Cronbach’s α, this
subscale will be addressed last in this section. The effort was then to examine the Affect and
Social Interaction subscales and make them unidimensional. The Affect subscale’s structure and
pattern matrix from factor analysis led to six items being loaded onto one factor, and the
remaining three items loaded onto a second factor. Upon further examination, these three items
were all negatively worded: Item 10 – “I feel threatened around people from backgrounds very
different from my own”, Item 20 – “I get offended often by people who do not understand my
point-of-view”, and Item 36 – “I constantly need affirmative confirmation about myself from
others.”
Removing these three items reduced the two factors to one factor and its test resulted in
Cronbach’s α being “Acceptable” (.715). When the test was conducted again, the one factor
accounted for 30.13% of the variance. This provided justification to remove Items 10, 20, and
36 from the original GPI Affect calculation to achieve unidimensionality for the Affect subscale.
For the modified Affect subscale, please see Appendix C – Table 10.
For the Social Interaction subscale, Item 4 was removed and the number of factors
reduced from two to one with Cronbach’s α improving from “Questionable” (.665) to
“Acceptable” (.737). The one factor accounted for 36.38% of the total variance. Therefore, item
4 – “Most of my friends are from my own ethnic background” was removed from the Social
Interaction subscale. For the modified Social Interaction subscale, please see Appendix C –
Table 11.
Using the data reduction techniques of factor analyses and internal consistency tests, five
of the six original GPI subscales maintained unidimensionality with acceptable Cronbach’s α as
follows: Knowledge (.756), Identity (.792), Affect (.715), Social Responsibility (.729) and Social
Interaction (.737). For details, please refer to Table 4.2.
47
Table 4.2
Factor and Reliability Analysis with Modified Subscales
GPI Dimensions
Cognitive
GPI Subscales
Knowing
Knowledge
Intrapersonal
Identity
Affect*
Interpersonal
Social Responsibility
Social Interaction*
* Modified subscales
Number of
Items
9
5
5
6
6
5
Number of
Factors Loaded
3
1
1
1
1
1
Cronbach’s
α
.546
.756
.792
.715
.729
.737
The Knowing Subscale
This section describes the process of attempting to achieve acceptable Cronbach’s α
of .700 for the Knowing subscale. The Knowing subscale had 9 items in version 5 of the GPI.
Among these 9 items, there were 3 factors. When examining its structure matrix in detail
(Appendix C - Table 4), four items were loaded onto one factor with factor loadings of Item 1
(.607), Item 7 (.400), Item 12 (.401) and Item 23 (.401) from the structure matrix. For the
remaining items, one item (Item 6, loading .808) loaded onto one factor and one item (Item 35,
loading .633) onto another factor. But three items (Items 18, 24 and 30) did not load onto any
factor loadings being less than .400. When examining the pattern matrix, two items (Items 1 &
12) loaded onto one factor, one item (Item 6) onto one factor, one item (Item 32) onto another
factor with the remaining items not loading onto any of the factors with loadings being less
than .400.
Several approaches were attempted to achieve subscale unidimensionality with an
“Acceptable” Cronbach’s α coefficient. First, a series of item analyses were conducted by
removing different items and item combinations. However, this effort did not lead to any
improvement, with the Cronbach’s α all being in the range of “Unacceptable” (.466) to “Poor”
(.580) (George & Mallery, 2003). For details, please see Appendix C – Table 12.
48
As a result, an email was sent to Braskamp, the author of GPI. He responded, “We still
do not have the reliability of the Knowing scale above .70” (Braskamp, 2013). In his response,
Braskamp further explained, “We have found this factor structure to hold up over different large
samples of undergraduates from many types of institutions” (Braskamp, 2013).
Second, based on Braskamp’s response, three more reliability analyses were conducted
among the three subgroups of this research with sample sizes of 326, 625 and 686. Although
these sample sizes are not large, they did represent a student population from varied
demographics with different experiences. However, the Cronbach’s α were all below .600 for
regional subgroup (.518), business subgroup (.445), and study abroad subgroup (.593). Please
refer to Table 4.3 for details.
Table 4.3
Reliability Tests of the Knowing Subscale with 3 Subgroups
Subgroup
Regional campus
No. of Survey Participants
326
Cronbach’s α
.518
School of business
Study abroad participants
625
686
.445
.593
Third, an alternative approach was considered to achieve an “Acceptable” Cronbach’s α
for the Knowing subscale. In light of Kegan’s (1994) three inter-related dimensions (cognitive,
intrapersonal, and interpersonal) which informed GPI’s theoretical foundation, three more factor
analyses were conducted. For example, the 9 items in the Knowing subscale and 5 items in the
Knowledge subscale were combined into one factor analysis. It was expected that together these
14 items would improve Cronbach’s α for the cognitive dimension. To make this alternative
approach more consistent, the same statistical tests were conducted by combining all items in the
intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions as well. For detailed analysis of this combined item
approach, please refer to Appendix C – Tables 13-15. Table 4.4 is a summary of the combined
subscales for each of the three original GPI dimensions.
49
Table 4.4
Alternative Approach of Combining Items within GPI Dimensions
GPI Dimensions
Cognitive
Intrapersonal
Interpersonal
Number
of Items
14
14
11
Combined GPI Subscales
Knowing & Knowledge
Identity & Affect
Social Responsibility &
Interaction
Number of
Factors Loaded
4
3
2
Cronbach’s
α
.659
.827
.808
Cronbach’s α did improve in this three dimension approach. The intrapersonal and
interpersonal dimensions achieved a “Good” Cronbach’s α of .827 and .808, respectively.
However, the underlying structure of the one-factor condition would not be maintained (see
Appendix C – Tables 14 and 15) if all the items in the two subscales were combined. More
important, after the items were combined, the cognitive dimension with Knowing and
Knowledge had a Cronbach’s α of .659, which was still below the “Acceptable” level of .700
(George & Mallery, 2003).
Based on Cronbach’s α formula of rk / [1 + (k -1) r], where k is the number of items
considered and r is the mean of the inter-item correlations, the size of α is determined by both the
number of items in the scale and the mean inter-item correlation (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).
According to this formula, the increase of intrapersonal and interpersonal scales might be caused
by the increased item numbers in those two dimensions. However, even with 14 items in the
cognitive dimension, its Cronbach’s α was still at the “Questionable” level of .659.
Because the cognitive dimension had two subscales of Knowing and Knowledge, from
the above analyses, the Knowledge subscale maintained unidimensionality with Cronbach’s α
being .756. Therefore, the conclusion was drawn that the root cause for this unacceptable
Cronbach’s α was related with the Knowing subscale. The test result also indicated the
alternative approach of combining all the items from the Knowing and Knowledge subscales did
not help achieve an acceptable Cronbach’s α (George & Mallery, 2003).
50
Fourth, to identify the correlation between GPI subscales, especially the correlation
between the Knowing and Knowledge subscales, a correlation test was conducted as the last
resort to reach a final decision about the Knowing subscale. A correlation matrix was used to
evaluate the correlation of the six GPI subscales, especially between the Knowing and
Knowledge subscales.
In order to make this correlation analysis more conclusive, national GPI data were
included for comparison purposes (Braskamp et al, 2012). Correlations among the six GPI
subscales for the all-university dataset and national data are in Table 4.5. Note that the subscales
for the all-university dataset consisted of the modified subscales as described above.
Table 4.5
GPI Subscale Correlations for the All-University Dataset and National Data
All-University Dataset
Knowing
Knowledge
Identity
Affect
Social Responsibility
National Data
Knowing
Knowledge
Identity
Affect
Social Responsibility
Social
Responsibility
Social
Interaction
.485
.528
.552
.239
.401
.537
.492
.415
.546
.399
.655
.447
.488
.404
.455
.224
.287
.427
.440
.331
.472
.337
.587
.419
Knowledge
Identity
Affect
.236
.152
.529
.178
.097
.428
From Table 4.5, some correlation coefficients deserve further study, which will be
addressed in Chapter 6 - Discussion & Conclusions. The objective of conducting the correlation
coefficient tests in this chapter was to study the correlation between subscales, especially
between the Knowing and Knowledge subscales, in order to inform decisions on how to deal
with the Knowing subscale’s multidimensionality with unacceptable Cronbach’s α (George &
Mallery, 2003).
51
The correlation coefficient tests indicated different results among the three original GPI
dimensions. While the correlation coefficients for intrapersonal (Identity vs. Affect) and
interpersonal (Social Responsibility vs. Social Interaction) were .552 and .447 respectively, the
correlation between Knowing and Knowledge was .236. Since the two subscales within the
intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions showed strong correlations (.552 and .447), it was
difficult to explain the modest correlation coefficient of .236 between the Knowing and
Knowledge subscales, both of which belong to the cognitive dimension. With respect to the
correlation coefficients between the two subscales with the national data, Braskamp explained,
“within each dimension are reasonably related to each other: .178, .455, .419. They reveal some
integration, but also some uniqueness” (Braskamp et al., 2012, p 11).
Even all three of the intra-dimension correlation coefficients (.236, .552, and .447) from
the all-university dataset were larger than the corresponding coefficients of .178, .455, and .419
in the national dataset, Braskamp’s explanation was not satisfactory. The conclusion was drawn
that from both the all-university and national datasets, the correlation coefficients between the
Knowing and Knowledge subscales did not support the alternative approach of combining all the
items in the two subscales due to low correlation coefficients, even though the theoretical
framework might have supported it. Therefore, the alternative approach did not work based on
the correlation coefficient tests.
To summarize, even though four different approaches were attempted to address the
Knowing subscales’ unidimensionality with the aim to achieve an acceptable Cronbach’s α, none
proved to be successful. Therefore, the Knowing subscale could not achieve an “Acceptable”
level of Cronbach’s α above .700 either with the national data (the Knowing subscale’s
Cronbach’s α was .627) or with the all-university dataset (the highest Cronbach’s α for the
Knowing subscale was .580 with various attempts). Furthermore, in light of the theoretical
foundation that combined all the items in the Knowing and Knowledge subscales into one
cognitive dimension did not work either with a Cronbach’s α still below .700. Therefore, the
Knowing subscale was most likely a multidimensional variable, with an unacceptable
Cronbach’s α (George & Mallery, 2003) with either direct data reduction or the alternative
approach suggested by its theoretical foundation.
52
It was ultimately decided to include the five subscales of Knowledge, Identity, Affect,
Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction as dependent variables in this study. The Knowing
subscale was omitted from analysis due to its multidimensionality. Furthermore, combining
subscales within the cognitive, interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions might not maintain
unidimensionality for each dimension. The major benefit of studying the subscales separately
allowed the present study to align with the national data and other research that has utilized the
full set of GPI subscales.
The Global Citizenship Subscale
In GPI version 5, there was a group of items under Global Citizenship, which included
the following 10 Items:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Item 5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to society.
Item 11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better understand myself.
Item 15. People from other cultures tell me that I am successful at navigating their
cultures.
Item 16. I work for the rights of others.
Item 17. I see myself as a global citizen.
Item 21. I am able to take on various roles as appropriate in different cultural and
ethnic settings.
Item 32. I can discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective.
Item 34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural backgrounds in my life.
Item 37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach me about our cultural
Item differences.
Item 38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.
The Global Citizenship subscale was analyzed to see whether it formed a coherent and
internally consistent subscale that could be researched together with the five GPI subscales of
Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction.
An advantage of the Global Citizenship subscale was its specific focus on students’ sense
of global citizenship, including getting outside one’s comfort zone, understanding others’
cultures, and being successful at navigating differences. This subscale captured one important
global aspect of GPI that could potentially provide higher education administrators with insights
for understanding what contributes to global citizenship. Therefore, this research explicitly
studied Global Citizenship together with the other five subscales.
53
The next step was to use factor analyses and internal consistency tests to see whether all
the items in the Global Citizenship subscale maintained unidimensionality. Two factor analyses
were conducted using different criteria. The first factor analysis used the criterion of eigenvalues
larger than 1. Then, two factors were identified that accounted for 41.33% of the total variance
with Cronbach’s α being .836 (see Appendix C - Table 16 for detailed structure and pattern
matrix). For most factors, the structure matrix and pattern matrix are usually not very different;
however, for this Global Citizenship subscale, the structure matrix and pattern matrix generated
quite different results. The pattern matrix represents “the variance in an observed item
accounted for by the factor, whereas the structure matrix contains coefficients made by both such
‘common’ factors and an idiosyncratic factor that uniquely affect the given item” (Matsunaga,
2010, p. 101).
The objective of adding this additional subscale was to solicit more information on this
Global Citizenship subscale. Therefore, removing items was not a good option in addition to the
fact that only 10 items were included in the Global Citizenship calculation. The second factor
analysis was conducted by defining one factor in this test to examine the Cronbach’s α
coefficient and total variable variance explanation. The result was that one factor accounted for
34.34% of the total variance with Cronbach's α being “Acceptable” (.759). Upon further
examination of the factor matrix, the 10 items all had loadings above .400
(.644, .470, .541, .562, .592, .611, .621, .606, .587, and .606). For details, please see Appendix C
– Table 17 Modified Global Citizenship Subscale.
From the statistical results, the factor analyses and reliability tests supported the inclusion
of Global Citizenship as a subscale. To summarize, six subscales of Global Citizenship,
Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction were examined as the
dependent variables for this research. Refer to Appendix C - Table 18 for details on the items
used to construct each of the dependent variables.
It is worth mentioning that in a few published papers that utilized the Global Perspective
Inventory, there are similar conclusions regarding the GPI’s construct and reliability tests.
Anderson (2011) eventually used the exact same six subscales as in this research of Global
Citizenship, Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction.
Although he did not address the rationale of adding the Global Citizenship subscale, out of the
54
same reason of a low Cronbach’s α of .44 from his research dataset, he chose not use the
Knowing subscale either. Samonte and Pastor (2011) conducted factor analyses and could not
find supportive structural validity evident for the GPI. As in this research, they conducted
exploratory factor analyses, regrouped items into subscales and removed 12 items from the
original GPI assessment tool. They further pointed out, “An instrument with questionable
structure validity can lead to inappropriate and unsubstantiated inferences” (Samonte & Pastor,
2011, p. 22). Using this same logic, the effort of testing for internal consistency for each of the
GPI subscales was not only necessary, but also critical before any descriptive and inferential
statistics were conducted for this research.
In summary, the dependent measures in this research include five of the original six GPI
subscales and Global Citizenship from GPI version 5. The next section addresses the construct
of independent measures in this research.
Independent Measures
At the beginning of this dissertation, I argued that three broad factors serving as
independent variables could potentially be related to students’ global perspective. They were
students’ social locations, academic factors and their 3C factors (curriculum, co-curriculum and
sense of community). This section discusses how factor and reliability analyses were used to
arrive at the construction of the independent measures of the 3C variable.
Curriculum
To measure students’ involvement in curriculum, three course-related items were
included in the survey instrument. These items asked students to indicate the number of courses
they had taken that included materials/readings on race and ethnicity issues, intensive dialogue
among students with different backgrounds and beliefs, and service learning opportunities.
These items were summed to form the factor of curriculum. This factor accounted for 42.84% of
the total variance with Cronbach’s α being .762. Thus, Items 64, 65 and 66 were summed to
form the curriculum independent measure.
Co-curriculum
To measure students’ related activities outside of the classroom, six related items
focusing on participating in different cultural events, attending campus organized activities on
55
diversity and involvement in leadership training focusing on collaboration and teamwork were
included in the survey instrument. After factor and reliability analyses, Item 62 - involvement
with religious or spiritual activities) did not load onto the co-curriculum factor, so it was
removed. This new factor accounted for 43.12% of the total variance with Cronbach’s α
being .765. Thus, Items 58, 59, 60, 61, and 63 were summed to form the co-curriculum
independent measure.
Sense of Community
The sense of community, according to Braskamp, focuses on “perceptions of the
character and identity of the campus, on the supportive community of its members” (Braskamp,
et al., 2012, p. 16). This measure included 8 items that assessed students’ sense of belonging to
the supportive community. After conducting factor and reliability analyses, two items were
removed (Item 42 – “I share personal feelings and problems with students and colleagues” and
Item 43 – “I have felt insulted or threatened based on my cultural/ethnic background at my
college/university”). This new factor accounted for 45.34% of the total variance with a
Cronbach’s α of .831. Thus, Items 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 were summed to form the sense of
community independent measure. Refer to Appendix C - Table 19 for details on the items used
to construct the 3C independent measures together with other independent variables used in this
research.
With the data reduction techniques of factor analyses and internal consistency tests, this
research arrived at the dependent measures (Global Citizenship, Knowledge, Identity, Affect,
Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction) and independent measures (3C factors of
curriculum, co-curriculum, and sense of community). All data reduction and analyses resulted in
unidimensionality for these measures with Cronbach’s α above .700. The next chapter will build
hierarchical multiple regression models and present results.
56
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS
This chapter is presented in four sections. The first section presents descriptive statistics.
The second section explains the hierarchical regression model with some key concepts applicable
to this research. The third section presents the results of using hierarchical multiple regression
models to examine the six subscales of Global Citizenship, Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social
Responsibility, and Social Interaction with the all-university dataset. The fourth section focuses
on the Global Citizenship subscale by applying similar hierarchical regression models to the
regional campus, business, and study abroad subgroups.
Descriptive Statistics
The six GPI subscales (Global Citizenship, Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social
Responsibility, and Social Interaction) were analyzed in light of the three broad factors of
students’ social locations, academic factors, as well as their curriculum, co-curriculum and sense
of community. Based on the means, non-traditional students who were older than 22 scored
higher across all six subscales. Students’ other social location factors, such as gender, ethnicity,
and geographical settings did not result in obvious patterns. While male students scored slightly
higher on the subscales of Knowledge (3.65), female students scored higher on Global
Citizenship (3.60), Affect (3.72), Social Responsibility (3.70), and Social Interaction (3.68).
Similarly, while European/White students scored higher on Identity (4.05) and Social
Responsibility (3.62), non-European/White students scored higher on Global Citizenship (3.64),
Knowledge (3.63), Affect (3.73), and Social Interaction (3.73). Regarding the geographical
settings, while students who lived in an urban area scored highest on Global Citizenship (3.68),
Knowledge (3.69), Affect (3.80), and Social Interaction (3.76), students who lived in a rural area
scored highest on the Social Responsibility (3.67). However, caution must be taken when
interpreting these differences, since tests of significance were not conducted yet.
Regarding students’ other social location factors of family income and parents’ education,
when students’ family income was above $120,000, their Knowledge (3.65) and Identity (4.10)
scores were higher. Interestingly, the students whose family income was below $50,000 scored
highest in Global Citizenship (3.63), Affect (3.78), Social Responsibility (3.67), and Social
57
Interaction (3.73). Regarding mother’s and father’s highest education, those students whose
mothers had above bachelor degrees evidenced the highest score across all six subscales.
However, this observation did not occur for father’s education data. Caution must be taken when
interpreting these differences, since tests of significance were not conducted.
Regarding students’ academic factors and the six subscale scores, the three subgroups of
students from regional campuses, school of business and study abroad participants were
compared. Study abroad returnees had the highest GPI scores compared to the regional campus
and business subgroups. Regarding students’ global perspective development through their
college years, seniors had the highest GPI scores across all subscales except the Affect (3.76)
subscale for sophomores. Regarding students’ GPA and their global perspective, there was no
clear pattern. It is worth mentioning that the business subgroup did not collect GPA data.
Caution must be taken in interpreting these differences, since tests of significance were not
conducted. Refer to Appendix C - Table 20 for mean differences with social locations and
academic factors across GPI dependent variables.
Students’ curriculum factors included attending courses involving race and ethnicity
issues (Item 64), courses on different backgrounds and beliefs (Item 65), and participation in
service learning courses (Items 66). From the descriptive statistics, there were differences
between those who registered for those courses and those who were not. For details, please refer
to Appendix C – Table 21 Mean Differences for Students' Curriculum across GPI Dependent
Variables.
Students’ co-curriculum factors included participation in campus-wide events and
activities, events reflecting students’ own cultural heritage (Item 58), events reflecting different
cultures (Item 59), community service (Item 60), diversity discussions (Item 61), and leadership
programs on collaboration and teamwork (Item 63). From the descriptive statistics, there were
differences between those who participated in those events and those who did not. For details,
please refer to Appendix C – Table 22 Mean Differences for Students' Co-curriculum across GPI
Dependent Variables.
Regarding students’ sense of community, survey items used the Likert-type scale which
was different from the curriculum and co-curriculum factors, so correlations were performed to
58
examine the relationship between the community factor and the GPI subscales. The correlation
coefficient indicates the degree that two variables are related within the range of -1 to +1 (Green,
Salkind, & Akey, 2000). For this research, the correlation coefficients between items in the
sense of community factor and the six GPI subscales ranged from .12 to .88. These correlation
tests were conducted with a sample size of 1,637 for the all-university dataset. For details,
please refer to Appendix C - Table 23 Correlations between the Community Survey Items and
GPI Subscales.
In addition to students’ 3C factors, participation in study abroad was also studied.
Students who participated in study abroad scored higher than those who did not participate in
study abroad. For details, refer to Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Mean Differences with Study Abroad Participation Frequency
No study abroad
Study abroad
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
N
773
831
664
92
41
34
Global
Citizen.
3.46
3.65
3.62
3.72
3.92
3.78
Knowledge
3.53
3.65
3.64
3.62
3.76
3.75
Identity
4.00
4.08
4.06
4.10
4.23
4.19
Affect
3.62
3.74
3.72
3.77
3.99
3.76
Social
Resp.
3.59
3.64
3.61
3.68
3.78
3.82
Social
Inter.
3.53
3.75
3.72
3.78
3.95
3.85
In summary, based on descriptive statistics, students’ global perspective did not appear to
have a relationship with their socio-economic background or their academic factors. However,
students’ global perspectives appeared to have a relationship with their curriculum, cocurriculum, sense of community belongingness, and study abroad participation. The rest of this
chapter uses hierarchical multiple regression models to test these statements.
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Models
Hierarchical multiple regression models rely on creating a cumulative sequence of steps
for entering the independent variables into the regression equation. Rather than entering all
variables together in the same step, a hierarchical regression enters predictors in a preconceived
59
order (Denis, 2011). Cohen (1983) concluded, “One of the most useful tools for extracting
information from a data set is hierarchical analysis” (p. 120). Unlike other regressions where no
predetermined order is specified, hierarchical regression requires the researcher to use previous
research and theory to create an a priori sequence of data entry.
At the beginning of this dissertation, I argued that three types of factors are related to
students’ global perspective: students’ social locations, academic factors and their curriculum,
co-curriculum and sense of community (3C) factors. To make sure that social locations and
academic factors did not explain away the association between students’ 3C involvement and
their global perspective, the social locations and academic factors were entered into the model as
the first and second steps. This ensured that variability in global perspective related to the social
locations and academic factor variables were taken into account first before entering the 3C
variables during the third step. By doing this, any observed effect of students’ 3C factors would
be above and beyond the effect of social locations and academic factor variables. In order to
conduct hierarchical multiple regression analysis, certain conditions had to be met. The
following sections address important assumptions in this research which include dummy coding,
collinearity, and missing data.
Dummy Coding
It would make no sense to enter numeric data directly from categorical variables such as
gender, ethnicity, and geographic settings into a regression model. Therefore, an important first
step was to convert categorical variables into dichotomous variables. The process of creating
dichotomous variables with categorical variables is called dummy coding (Stockburger, 1998).
Dummy variables are also called indicator variables, which indicate whether a specific
case belongs to a category or not. Any categorical variable with k levels needs to be transformed
into k-1 variables. The reason for k-1 variables is to avoid perfect multicollinearity, in this way,
the k-1 variables would maintain two levels of dichotomous coding of either 0 or 1, with a value
of 1 indicating that the attribute is present (Allison, 1999).
The interpretation of regression with dummy variables is different from regular
regression. Regression analysis with dummy variables is interpreted as how much more the
dependent variable increases (or decreases if β is negative) when the dummy variable increases
60
by one unit compared to the reference category. The dummy variables used in this research and
their calculations appear in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2
Dummy Coding for Categorical Variables
Variable
Gender
Ethnicity
Geographical settings
Student divisions:
Regional
Business
Dummy Coding
1= Women, 0 = Other
1= Ethnic Minorities, 0 = Other
1= Living in Urban Area, 0 = Other
1= Regional Students, 0 = Other
1= Business Students, 0 = Other
Collinearity
Collinearity, also called multicollinearity is defined as a strong correlation between two
or more independent variables (Galloway, 2004). The collinearity issue is especially important
during regression analysis, because regression research assesses the unique, individual variable’s
contribution to the dependent variable while keeping other variables constant (Galloway, 2004).
Therefore, the independent variables are not supposed to have too strong a correlation in multiple
regression analysis.
Collinearity is commonly expressed as the VIF (Variance Inflation Factor), which
provides an estimate of how much smaller the variance of each model’s estimated coefficient
would be if all the variables were perfectly uncorrelated (Galloway, 2004). VIF values vary
based on different literature; however, as long as VIF is less than 10, it should not cause concern
(Cohen, 1983; Galloway, 2004). For this research, collinearity analyses were performed to
ensure no violations existed, especially among family income, mother’s education and father’s
education, which were presumed to be correlated. After running the collinearity analyses, all the
VIF values were below 2 in this research.
Missing Data
There are three possible solutions to address missing data: dropping the missing
observations, using the sample means, and using sophisticated modes to predict the missing
observations (Galloway, 2004). All three of these solutions were used in this research depending
on specific variables and dataset.
61
Dropping missing observations is usually called listwise deletion. This procedure entails
omitting the missing data (Galloway, 2004). Using listwise deletion would not be as precise as if
all the data were included, because it can result in a substantial decrease in the sample size
available. However, considering the relatively large sample size of this research, there would
still be enough observations left to allow for listwise deletion.
The second approach of using the sample mean is more appropriate for a homogeneous
dataset. As summarized by Galloway, this technique is not appropriate for dealing with a crosssectional database with lots of variation (Galloway, 2004). Considering the differences among
the subgroups of this research, this approach could only be used in the subgroups, but not across
the subgroups in the all-university dataset.
The third approach involves sophisticated modeling. Although there are three approaches
for processing missing data, the most common and easier one is listwise deletion. Oftentimes,
after all the complicated modeling, “We may be better off to ‘bite the bullet’ and fall back on
listwise deletion” (Howell, 2012, section 1.2). Therefore, this research used listwise deletion to
process missing data, except for the following specific situations.
First, regarding age, although the regional subgroup had 2.5% and the study abroad
subgroup had 1.5% missing data, the business subgroup had 28% missing data. Since the
business subgroup was relatively homogeneous with the great majority being traditional students,
the business subgroup’s sample mean was used to replace missing age data.
Second, among the business subgroup, class status also had a high percentage of missing
data close to 10%. The expectation maximization (EM) modeling method instead of the sample
mean was used to account for missing data in conjunction with the age variable for better
estimates.
In addition, family income and GPA had missing data that needed to be addressed. First,
the family variable had a high level of missing data with percentages 27.6%, 18.7% and 21.6%
respectively for the regional, business, and study abroad subgroups. Therefore, family income
was removed from the regression model analysis. Second, the business subgroup did not collect
GPA data. In addition, the study abroad subgroup had missing GPA data close to 60% of its
62
total sample size. Therefore, the GPA variable was removed from the business, study abroad
group and all datasets, but was included for the regional subgroup which had 4% missing data.
It is worth mentioning that the two non-listwise methods used to handle missing data for
the business subgroup were not only beneficial for the subgroup, but was also beneficial for the
all-university dataset. Otherwise, the regression model would have had two fewer variables.
Table 5.3 summarizes the handling of missing data for the all-university dataset and the three
subgroups.
Table 5.3
Missing Data Solutions for the All-University Dataset and Three Subgroups
Dataset
All-University
Missing Data Solutions
Removed family income and GPA
Remaining variables used listwise deletion
Regional Campus subgroup
Removed family income
Remaining variables used listwise deletion
School of Business subgroup
Removed family income and GPA
Used mean for missing age values
Used maximization expectation for missing class status values
Remaining variables used listwise deletion
Study Abroad subgroup
Removed family income and GPA
Remaining variables used listwise deletion
The primary research question of this study was what factors contribute to students’
global perspective development. With the hierarchical regression model focusing on students’
curriculum, co-curriculum, and sense of community, the model tested whether students’ 3C
factor accounted for a significant amount of variability in students’ global perspective over and
above that accounted for by their social locations (age, gender, ethnicity, geographical settings,
mother’s and father’s education) and academic factors (academic division and class status).
63
The test results indicated variability in the dependent variables that could be accounted
for by all the predictors together, including both control and predictor variables. Thus, in
addition to the usual unstandardized regression coefficients (t-value, F-test, and p-value), the
adjusted R², R² change, and standardized β coefficients were examined in detail. The adjusted R²
indicates the strength of the relationship between the independent variables and dependent
variables. In hierarchical regression analysis, R² change is emphasized as well, since R² change,
will usually increase when the predicting variables are added. By adding the predicting set, the
new model explains something about the dependent variable that was not explained before. Thus,
the predictive power increases as indicated through the R² change. Regarding regression
coefficients, while unstandardized coefficients depend greatly on the units of measure for the
independent and dependent variables, standardized βs put everything into a common metric of
standard deviation. The standardized β measures how many standard deviations the dependent
variable changes with an increase of one standard deviation in the independent variable. Allison
(1999) commented, “By comparing standardized coefficients across different variables, we can
get some idea of which variables are more or less ‘important’” (p. 30). After controlling for all
the other variables in the model, the higher the standardized β, the stronger the relationship
between an independent variable and a dependent variable.
The following section presents the results after hierarchical regression models were
performed. These results are discussed in the subscale sequence of Global Citizenship,
Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction.
Global Citizenship
To examine the unique contribution of students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of
community (3C), and study abroad participation to explain the Global Citizenship score, a
hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed. Students’ social locations, academic
factors, curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of community, and study abroad participation were the
independent variables and the Global Citizenship subscale was the dependent variable.
Variables representing students’ social locations were entered in the first step of the
model. These variables included students’ age, gender, ethnicity, geographical settings, mothers’
64
and fathers’ education. The results of Step 1 indicated that there was a significant relationship
between the social location variables and the Global Citizenship subscale, (F(6, 1547)=8.56,
p<.001). The adjusted R² was .03, which indicated that 3% of the variation in Global Citizenship
could be explained by the social location variables. Age (β=.12, p<.001), gender (β=.09, p<.01),
ethnicity (β=.05, p<.05), living in an urban area (β=.06, p<.05) and father’s education (β=.08,
p<.01) all had statistically significant β coefficients.
Variables representing students’ academic factors were entered in the second step of the
model. These variables included their class status and academic divisions. The results of Step 2
indicated that there was a significant relationship between the academic variables and the Global
Citizenship subscale, (F(3, 1544)=11.63, p<.001) and R2 change was .02. The adjusted R² was .05,
which indicated that 5% of the variation in Global Citizenship could be explained by the model.
Age (β=.08, p<.01), gender (β=.06, p<.05), ethnicity (β=.06, p<.05), living in an urban area
(β=.07, p<.01) and fathers’ education (β=.08, p<.01) had statistically significant β coefficients.
The third and last step of the model included 3C variables and study abroad factors. The
results of Step 3 indicated that there was a significant relationship between the 3C variables and
Global Citizenship, (F(4, 1540)=69.25, p<.001) and R2 change was .14. The adjusted R² was .19,
which indicated that 19% of the variation in Global Citizenship could be explained by the model.
Age (β=.07, p<.01), ethnicity (β=.06, p<.05), and living in an urban area (β=.08, p<.01) were
statistically significant. In addition, the regional subgroup had negative standardized coefficients
(β=-.16, p<.001), which indicated that compared to business and study abroad returnees, the
regional subgroup was .16 unit lower in the Global Citizenship score when other variables were
controlled. Furthermore, 3C factors of curriculum (β=.15, p<.001), co-curriculum (β=.13,
p<.001) and community (β=.26, p<.001) were significant predictors for Global Citizenship
scores. The community variable had the highest standardized β of .26, which indicated that this
variable had a strong relationship with the Global Citizenship subscale. Interestingly,
participation in study abroad was not a significant predictor for Global Citizenship.
65
Knowledge
To examine the unique contribution of students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of
community and study abroad in the explanation of the Knowledge subscale, a hierarchical
multiple regression analysis was performed using students’ social locations, academic factors,
curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of community, and study abroad participation as independent
variables, with the Knowledge subscale as the dependent variable.
Variables representing students’ social locations were entered in the first step of the
model. These variables included students’ age, gender, ethnicity, geographical settings, family
annual income, mothers’ education, and fathers’ education. The result of Step 1 indicated that
there was a significant relationship between the social location variables and the Knowledge
subscale, (F(6, 1547)=5.24, p<.001). The adjusted R² was .02, which indicated that 2% of the
variation in Knowledge could be explained by the social location variables. Age (β=.08, p<.01),
gender (β=-.07, p<.01), and fathers’ education (β=.09, p<.01) were statistically significant.
Variables representing students’ academic factors were entered in the second step of the
model. These variables included their class status and academic divisions. The results of Step 2
indicated that there was a significant relationship between the academic factors and the
Knowledge subscale, (F(3, 1544)=4.23, p<.01) and R2 change was .01. The adjusted R² was .02,
which indicated that 2% of the variation in Knowledge could be explained by the model. Gender
(β=-.08, p<.01), fathers’ education (β=.10, p<.01), and being a regional student (β=-.07, p<.05)
had statistically significant β coefficients.
Variables representing students’ 3C and study abroad factors were entered in the third
and last step of the model. These variables included students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, and
sense of community. The results of Step 3 indicated that there was a significant relationship
between the 3C variables and the Knowledge subscale, R² change was .10, and (F(4, 1540)=43.62,
p<.001). The adjusted R² was equal to .12, which indicated that 12% of the variation in the
Knowledge subscale could be explained by the model. Gender (β=-.12, p<.001), living in the
urban area (β=.06, p<.05), fathers’ education (β=.09, p<.01), and being regional student (β=-.09,
p<.01) had statistically significant β coefficients. Most importantly, 3C factors of curriculum
66
(β=.12, p<.001), co-curriculum (β=.08, p<.05) and community (β=.25, p<.001) were significant
predictors of Knowledge scores. Interestingly, participation in study abroad was not a significant
predictor for Knowledge.
Identity
To examine the unique contribution of students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of
community and study abroad in the explanation of the Identity subscale, a hierarchical multiple
regression analysis was performed using students’ social locations, academic factors, curriculum,
co-curriculum, sense of community, and study abroad participation as independent variables,
with the Identity subscale as the dependent variable.
Variables representing students’ social locations were entered in the first step of the
model. These variables included students’ age, gender, ethnicity, geographical settings, mothers’
education and fathers’ education. The results of Step 1 indicated that there was no significant
relationship between the social location variables and the Identity subscale, (F(6, 1547)=2.06,
p>.05). Because of the statistically insignificant results, no further analysis was necessary.
Variables representing students’ academic factors of class status and academic divisions
were entered in the second step of the model. The results of Step 2 indicated that there was no
significant relationship between the academic factors and the Identity subscale, (F(3, 1544)=.43,
p>.05). Because of the statistically insignificant results, no further analysis was necessary.
Variables representing students’ 3C and study abroad factors were entered in the third
and last step of the model. These variables included students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense
of community, and study abroad participation. The results of Step 3 indicated that there was a
significant relationship between the 3C variables and the Identity subscale, R² change was .20,
(F(4, 1540)=95.50, p<.001). The adjusted R² was .20, which indicated that 20% of the variation in
the Identity subscale could be explained by the model. The community factor (β=.43, p<.001)
was a statistically significant independent variable in the model. Interestingly, participation in
study abroad was not a significant predictor for Identity.
67
Affect
To examine the unique contribution of students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of
community and study abroad in the explanation of the Affect subscale, a hierarchical multiple
regression analysis was performed. Students’ social locations, academic factors, curriculum, cocurriculum, sense of community, and study abroad participation were used as independent
variables, with the Affect subscale as the dependent variable.
Variables representing students’ social locations were entered in the first step of the
model. These variables included students’ age, gender, ethnicity, geographical settings, mothers’
education and fathers’ education. The results of Step 1 indicated that there was a significant
relationship between the social location variables and the Affect subscale (F(6, 1547)=5.91, p<.001).
The adjusted R² was .02, which indicated that 2% of the variation in the Affect subscale could be
explained by the social location variables. Age (β=.09, p<.01), gender (β=.09, p<.01), and living
in an urban area (β=.07, p<.05) were statistically significant.
Variables representing students’ academic factors were entered in the second step of the
model. These variables included class status and academic divisions. The results of Step 2
indicated that there was a significant relationship between the academic factors and the Affect
subscale, R² change was .01, and (F(3, 1544)=4.04, p>.01). Age (β=.06, p<.05), gender (β=.07,
p<.01), living in an urban area (β=.07, p<.01) and being a regional campus student (β=.09, p<.01)
had statistically significant β coefficients.
Variables representing students’ 3C and study abroad factors were entered in the third
and last step of the model. These variables included students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense
of community, and study abroad factors. The results of Step 3 indicated that there was a
significant relationship between the 3C variables and the Affect subscale, R² change was .12, and
(F(4, 1540)=53.77, p<.001). The adjusted R² was .14, which indicated that 14% of the variation in
the Affect subscale could be explained by the model. Living in an urban area (β=.08, p<.01) was
statistically significant. In addition, the regional subgroup had a significant negative
standardized coefficient (β=-.11, p<.001). Furthermore, 3C factors of curriculum (β=.15, p<.001)
and community (β=.27, p<.001) were significant predictors for Affect scores. The community
68
variable had the highest standardized β of .27. Interestingly, participation in study abroad was
not a significant predictor.
Social Responsibility
To examine the unique contribution of students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of
community and study abroad participation in the explanation of the Social Responsibility
subscale, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed using students’ social
locations, academic factors, curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of community, and study abroad
participation as independent variables, with the Social Responsibility subscale as the dependent
variable.
Variables representing students’ social locations were entered in the first step of the
model. These variables included students’ age, gender, ethnicity, geographical settings, mothers’
education and fathers’ education. The results of step 1 indicated that there was a significant
relationship between the social location variables and the Social Responsibility subscale (F(6,
1547)=10.19,
p<.001). The adjusted R² was .03, which indicated that 3% of the variation in the
Social Responsibility subscale could be explained by the social location variables. Age (β=.06,
p<.05) and gender (β=.18, p<.001) had statistically significant β coefficients.
Variables representing students’ academic factors were entered in the second step of the
model. These variables included their class status and academic divisions. The results of Step 2
indicated that there was a significant relationship between the academic factors and the Social
Responsibility subscale, R² change was .01, and (F(3, 1544)=3.99, p<.01). Gender (β=.18, p<.001)
and being regional students (β=.07, p<.05) had statistically significant β coefficients.
Variables representing students’ 3C and study abroad factors were entered in the third
and last step of the model. These variables included students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense
of community, and study abroad participation. The results of Step 3 indicated that there was a
significant relationship between the 3C variables and the Social Responsibly subscale, R²
change was .11, and (F(4, 1540)=49.55, p<.001). The adjusted R² was .15, which indicated that 15%
of the variation in the Social Responsibility subscale could be explained by the model. Gender
(β=.14, p<.001) was statistically significant. In addition, the regional subgroup had negative
69
standardized coefficients (β=-.09, p<.01), which indicated that compared to study abroad
returnees, the regional subgroup was .09 unit lower in the Social Responsibility score. The
school of business students had a higher score in Social Responsibility (β=.07, p<.05).
Furthermore, 3C factors of curriculum (β=.11, p<.01), co-curriculum (β=.13, p<.001) and
community (β=.24, p<.001) were significant predictors of Social Responsibility scores. The
community variable had the highest standardized β of .24, which implied that this variable was
more “important” to the overall regression model compared to other variables. Interestingly,
participation in study abroad was not a significant predictor.
Social Interaction
To examine the unique contribution of students’ curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of
community and study abroad participation in the explanation of the Social Interaction subscale, a
hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed using students’ social locations,
academic factors, curriculum, co-curriculum, sense of community, and study abroad participation
as independent variables, with the Social Interaction subscale as the dependent variable.
Variables representing students’ social locations were entered in the first step of the
model. These variables included students’ age, gender, ethnicity, geographical settings, mother’s
education and father’s education. The results of step 1 indicated that there was a significant
relationship between the social location variables and the Social Interaction subscale with (F(6,
1547)=6.67,
p<.001). The adjusted R² was .02, which indicated that 2% of the variation in the
Social Interaction subscale could be explained by the social location variables. Age (β=.09,
p<.001), gender (β=.08, p<.01), ethnicity (β=.06, p<.05), and living in an urban area (β=.06,
p<.05) all had statistically significant β coefficients.
Variables representing students’ academic factors were entered in the second step of the
model. These variables included their class status and academic divisions. The results of Step 2
indicated that there was a significant relationship between the academic factors and the Social
Interaction subscale with R² change of .02, and (F(3, 1544)=9.46, p<.001). The adjusted R² was .04,
which indicated that 4% of the variation in the Social Interaction subscale could be explained by
the model. Age (β=.06, p<.05), gender (β=.05, p<.05), ethnicity (β=.07, p<.05), and living in an
70
urban area (β=.06, p<.05) had statistically significant β coefficients. Compared to the study
abroad subgroup, the regional campus subgroup scored lower (β=-.13, p<.001), but the business
subgroup scored higher (β=.08, p<.05).
Variables representing students’ 3C factors and study abroad were entered in the third
and last step of the model. The results of Step 3 indicated that there was a significant
relationship between the 3C variables and the Social Interaction subscale with R² change of .13
and (F(4, 1540)=62.51, p<.001). The adjusted R² was .17, which indicated that 17% of the variation
in Social Interaction could be explained by the model. Age (β=.05, p<.05), ethnicity (β=.07,
p<.01), and living in an urban area (β=.07, p<.01) were statistically significant. In addition, the
regional subgroup had a significant negative standardized coefficient (β=-.13, p<.001), which
indicated that compared to study abroad returnees, the regional subgroup was .13 unit lower in
the Social Interaction score. Furthermore, 3C factors of curriculum (β=.11, p<.01), cocurriculum (β=.13, p<.001), and community (β=.27, p<.001) were significant predictors for
Social Interaction scores. Interestingly, participation in study abroad was not a significant
predictor.
To summarize the all-university dataset, some social factors and academic factors were
statistically significant. But the adjusted R², R² change, and standardized βs were small. In
contrast, students’ global perspective development was closely related to their curriculum, cocurriculum and sense of community. Furthermore, the community variable had the highest
standardized coefficient β across the six subscales, thus the community factor was more
“important” regarding contribution to the hierarchical regression model. Interestingly,
participation in study abroad was not a significant predictor in any of the six subscales. Table
5.4 summarizes the hierarchical multiple regression models with the all-university dataset.
Table 5.4
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Models with the All-University Dataset
Step 1 (Social Locations)
Adjusted R²
F change
Global
Citizen.
Knowledge
Identity
Affect
Social
Resp.
Social
Inter.
.03
8.56***
.02
5.24***
.00
2.06
.02
5.91***
.03
10.19***
.02
6.67***
71
(df=6, df2=1547)
Stand. coefficient β
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Urban
Mother’s Education
Father’s education
Step 2 (Academic Factors)
Adjusted R²
R² change
F change
(df1=3, df2=1544)
Stand. coefficient β
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Urban
Mother’s Education
Father’s Education
Class Status
Regional Students
School of Business
Step 3 (3C Involvement)
Adjusted R²
R² change
F change
(df1=4, df2=1540)
Stand. coefficient β
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Urban
Mother’s Education
Father’s education
Class Status
Regional Students
School of Business
Curriculum
Co-curriculum
Community
Study Abroad
.12***
.09**
.05*
.06*
.08**
-.07**
.08**
.09**
.05
.02
11.63***
.02
.01
4.23**
.08**
.06*
.06*
.07**
.09**
.09**
.06*
.18***
.09***
.08**
.06*
.06*
.02
.01
4.04**
.04
.01
3.99**
.04
.02
9.46***
.06*
.07**
.18***
.07*
.00
.00
.43
-.08**
.07**
.08**
.10**
-.16***
-.07*
.19
.14
69.25***
.12
.10
43.62***
.20
.20
95.50***
-.09**
-.07*
-.13***
.08*
.14
.12
53.77***
.15
.11
49.55***
.17
.13
62.51***
.07**
.05*
-.12***
.06*
.08**
.06*
.05*
.07*
.06*
.14***
.06*
.07**
.07**
.08**
.09**
-.16***
-.09**
-.11***
.15***
.13***
.26***
.12***
.08*
.25***
.15***
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
72
.43***
.27***
-.09**
.07*
.11**
.13***
.24***
-.13***
.11**
.13***
.27***
The results of Table 5.4 proved that 3C factors are closely related to students’ global
perspectives with the three statistics of adjusted R², R² change and standardized coefficients β.
First, the adjusted R² for all variables including social locations and academic factors were
from .00 to .05. However, when 3C and study abroad factors were added, the R² change was
from .10 to .20, which indicated an approximate ratio of 10 to 20. This implied that Step 3 of the
model helped to explain much more variance. Third, the individual standardized β for 3C had
strong standardized coefficients β in the range of .08 to .43. This implied that 3C had a much
stronger relationship to students’ global perspectives than social location and academic factors.
To summarize, students’ global perspectives were overall closely related to and had a strong
relationship with their curriculum, co-curriculum, and sense of community, but only related to
certain variables in social locations and academic factors, and with no statistically significant
relationship with study abroad participation.
Exploratory Analyses with the Three Subgroups
Since the all-university dataset was comprised of three diversified subgroups, the same
hierarchical multiple regression analyses were applied to the three subgroups of regional
campuses, school of business and study abroad participants to examine the disaggregated
predictability of the hierarchical multiple regression models. Since these were exploratory
analyses, only the Global Citizenship scale was examined. Limiting the analysis to the Global
Citizenship subscale also helped to reduce the likelihood of Type I errors, since examining the
other five subscales for each of the three groups would have resulted in performing 15 additional
models. For the summary, please refer to Table 5.5 below.
Table 5.5
Explorative Analyses for Global Citizenship with the Three Subgroups
Step 1 (Social Locations)
Adjusted R²
F change
Regional
Campus
School of
Business
Study
Abroad
Participants
.04
2.95**
df=6, 291
.03
4.25***
df=6,606
.02
2.86**
df=6.626
73
Stand. coefficient β
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Urban
Mother’s Education
Fathers’ Education
Step 2 (Academic Factors)
Adjusted R²
R² change
F change
Stand. coefficient β
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Urban
Mother’s Education
Fathers’ Education
Class Status
Step 3 (3C Involvement)
Adjusted R²
R² change
F change
Stand. coefficient β
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Urban
Mother’s Education
Father’s Education
Class Status
Curriculum
Co-curriculum
Community
Study Abroad
* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
.16**
.09*
.12**
.12**
.09*
.12*
.03
.00
.46
df = 2,289
.04
.01
3.95*
df =1,605
.02
.00
1.66
df=1,624
.11**
.11*
.09*
.17
.14
12.67***
df =4,285
.19
.16
30.34***
df=4,601
.17
.16
30.24***
df=4,620
.12*
.13*
.10*
.09*
.09*
.22**
.13*
.18**
74
.23***
.32***
.17***
.11*
.20***
.14***
Regional Campus Subgroup
For the Regional subgroup, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed
with the GPI subscale of Global Citizenship as the dependent variable and social locations,
academic factors, 3C involvement, and study abroad as independent variables. These were
entered in the following order: students’ social locations entered as the first step, academic
factors entered as the second step, then 3C and study abroad factors entered as the third and last
step.
For the first step, results indicated that there was a significant relationship between the
social location variables and the Global Citizenship subscale, (F(6, 291)=2.95, p<.01). The
adjusted R² was .04, which indicated that 4% of the variation in Global Citizenship could be
explained by the social location variables. Age (β=.16, p<.01) was the only statistically
significant coefficient β.
The results of Step 2 indicated that there were no significant relationships between the
academic factors and the Global Citizenship subscale, R² change was .00, and (F(2, 289)=.46,
p>.05). Because of the statistically insignificant results, no further analysis was necessary.
The results of Step 3 indicated that there was a significant relationship between the 3C
variables and the Global Citizenship subscale, R² change was .14, and (F(4, 285)=12.67, p<.001).
The adjusted R² was equal to .17, which indicated that 17% of the variation in the Global
Citizenship subscale could be explained by the 3C variables. The standardized coefficients β for
statistically significant variables were: age (β=.12, p<.05), being minority (β=.13, p<.05),
curriculum (β=.22, p<.01), co-curriculum (β=.13, p<.05) and community (β=.18, p<.01).
Interestingly, participation in study abroad was not a significant predictor.
To summarize the regional subgroup, as with the all-university dataset, regional campus
students’ global perspective development in general followed the all-university dataset pattern.
However, it had one unique result. For the regional subgroup, the social location factors were
not related to global citizenship with the exception of age, whereas for the all-university dataset,
age, gender, ethnicity, growing up in an urban setting, and father’s education contributed to the
75
model. Ultimately, the overall statement was still true that students’ global citizenship was most
strongly related to their curriculum, sense of community and co-curriculum.
School of Business Subgroup
For the school of business subgroup, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was
performed with the Global Citizenship subscale as the dependent variable and social locations,
academic factors, 3C involvement, and study abroad participation as independent variables.
These were entered in the following order: students’ social locations entered as the first step,
academic factors entered as the second step, then 3C and study abroad participation as third and
last step.
For the first step, the results indicated that there was a significant relationship between
the social location variables and the Global Citizenship subscale, (F(6, 606)=4.25, p<.001). The
adjusted R² was .03, which indicated that 3% of the variation in Global Citizenship could be
explained by the social location variables. Age (β=.09, p<.05), being minority (β=.12, p<.01)
and fathers’ education (β=.12, p<.05) were the statistically significant coefficients β.
The results of Step 2 indicated that there was a significant relationship between the
academic factors and the Global Citizenship subscale, R² change was .01, and (F(1, 605)=3.95,
p<.05). The adjusted R² was .04, which indicated that 4% of the variation in Global Citizenship
could be explained by the model. Being minority (β=.11, p<.01), fathers’ education (β=.11,
p<.05), and class status (β=.09, p<.05) were the statistically significant coefficients β.
The results of Step 3 indicated that there was a significant relationship between the 3C
and Global Citizenship subscale, R² change was .16, and (F(4, 601)=30.34, p<.001). The adjusted
R² was equal to .19, which indicated that 19% of the variation in the Global Citizenship subscale
could be explained by the 3C and study abroad factors. The standardized coefficients β for the
three statistically significant variables were: being minority (β=.10, p<.05), fathers’ education
(β=.09, p<.05), co-curriculum (β=.23, p<.001), and community (β=.32, p<.001).
To summarize the school of business subgroup, as with the all-university dataset,
business students’ global citizenship generally followed the all-university dataset pattern.
76
However, there were some unique results. First, it was the only subgroup in which class status
had statistical significance in Step 2. This implied that as business students progressed through
their academic years, their global citizenship score increased. Second, the business subgroup
was the only subgroup that had a significant relationship between fathers’ education and students’
global citizenship. Third, the curriculum factor was not significant for the business subgroup
Step 3. In summary, the business subgroup had some unique characteristics regarding how its
students developed their global perspective. However, the overall statement was still true
regarding students’ global perspective development being closely related to their co-curricular
involvement and sense of community.
Study Abroad Participant Subgroup
For the study abroad participant subgroup, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was
performed with the global citizenship subscale as the dependent variable and social locations,
academic factors, 3C involvement, and study abroad as independent variables. These were
entered in the following order: students’ social locations as the first step, academic factors
entered as the second step, then 3C and study abroad participation as the third and last step.
For the first step, results indicated that there was a significant relationship between the
social location variables and the Global Citizenship subscale, (F(6, 625)=2.86, p<.01). The
adjusted R² was .02, which indicated that 2% of the variation in Global Citizenship could be
explained by the social location variables. Gender (β=.12, p<.01) and living in an urban area
(β=.09, p<.05) were the statistically significant coefficients β.
The results of Step 2 indicated that there was no significant relationship between the
academic factors and the Global Citizenship subscale, R² change was .00, and (F(1, 624)=1.66,
p>.05). Because of the statistically insignificant results, no further analysis was necessary.
The results of Step 3 indicated that there was a significant relationship between the 3C
and study abroad variables and the Global Citizenship subscale, R² change was .16, and (F(4,
620)=30.24,
p<.001). The adjusted R² was equal to .17, which indicated that 17% of the variation
in the Global Citizenship subscale could be explained by the 3C and study abroad variables. The
standardized coefficients β for the statistically significant variables were: living in an urban area
77
(β=.09, p<.05), curriculum (β=.17, p<.001), co-curriculum (β=.11, p<.05), community (β=.20,
p<.001), and study abroad (β=.14, p<.001).
To summarize the study abroad subgroup, as with the all-university dataset, study abroad
returnees in general followed the all-university dataset pattern regarding development of their
global citizenship. It is interesting that this was the only model where study abroad participation
tested significant for students’ global perspective development.
78
CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Major Findings of the Study
This chapter synthesizes the major findings, draws attention to the limitations of this
research, and highlights methodological and theoretical issues for future GPI (Global Perspective
Inventory) revisions. Furthermore, it recommends implementation strategies using GPI and
summarizes general implications for higher education leaders regarding developing students’
global perspectives.
This dissertation began by defining students’ global perspectives, describing the need to
assess related learning outcomes, and stating the purpose of this research was to assess students’
global perspectives. In order to accomplish this goal, quantitative empirical research was
conducted using Braskamp’s GPI survey instrument. GPI was informed by the holistic human
development theories of Kegan (1994) as well as Baxter Magolda and King (2005). The survey
assessed U.S. undergraduate college students’ global perspectives through the six subscales of
Global Citizenship, Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction
after GPI’s reliability test. The all-university dataset was comprised of three different subgroups
of regional campus, business, and study abroad students from a liberal arts university in Midwest
U.S. In addition to testing all six subscales with the all-university dataset, exploratory analyses
were conducted for Global Citizenship among the three subgroups.
Using a hierarchical multiple regression model to control for students’ social locations
and academic factors, the findings were consistent across the all-university dataset and three
subgroups. The conclusion was that students’ global perspectives had strong relationships to
curriculum, co-curriculum, and sense of community (3C), but not to most of the socio-economic
background and academic factors. Furthermore, the sense of community, showed a strong
relationship to global perspectives. Interestingly, participation in study abroad did not predict
global perspective development from the all-university dataset, business, and regional subgroups.
Social Locations and Academic Factors
Neither students’ social locations nor their academic factors were strongly related to their
global perspective. Social locations included gender, ethnicity, geographical settings, and
parents’ education, which were added in Step 1 of the hierarchical multiple regression model.
79
Academic factors included class status and their academic division of regional campus, school of
business or the study abroad unit, which were added in Step 2 of the model building.
Age was significantly related to the subscales of Global Citizenship, Knowledge, Affect,
Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction when only social locations were included in Step 1
of the hierarchical multiple regression models. When academic factors were added to Step 2, the
age variable was significant for the Global Citizenship, Affect, and Social Responsibility
subscales. When the test was significant, the standardized coefficients β were positive, which
indicated that the older students were at a more advanced level of development on those
measured subscales. This was in agreement with Braskamp’s conclusion that students aged 25
and older have higher scores on the subscales of social responsibility, identity, and affect
(Braskamp, 2011).
Gender was positively related to the Global Citizenship, Affect, Social Responsibility,
and Social Interaction subscales when only social locations were included in Step 1. However,
the standardized coefficient β on the Knowledge subscale was negative. Since the hierarchical
multiple regression models highlighted female students, the results indicated that female students
had less development on the Knowledge subscale compared to male students. This conclusion
was consistent with the study by Engberg and Fox (2011) where female students scored
significantly lower, especially in the Knowledge subscale. The remaining coefficients β had
positive numbers, which means that females generally had higher scores on Global Citizenship,
Knowledge, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction. Among the subscales, Social
Responsibility was most related to gender (β=.18, p<.001) in Step 2, so this research was
consistent with previous research that females are strong advocates of civic responsibility
(Myers-Lipton, 1998).
Race was significantly related to the Global Citizenship and Social Interaction subscales
with higher scores for minorities in Step 1 and 2 when students’ social locations and academic
factors were considered. In Engberg & Fox’s research (2011), Blacks and Hispanics were
associated with higher development across the intra- and interpersonal dimensions. Regarding
geographic settings where students spent most of their lives, this research discovered that living
in an urban area was related to Global Citizenship, Affect, and Social Interaction. Regarding
parents’ highest education, there was a relationship between father’s education and Global
Citizenship and Knowledge. On the contrary, mother’s education was not statistically significant
80
in any of the statistical tests. For students’ academic division, regional campus students were
less developed on five of the six subscales, while business students were more developed on the
Social Responsibility subscale.
While both Braskamp and Engberg found that class status had a relationship to students’
global perspective development as they moved from freshmen to senior status, this research did
not find this to be statistically significant. Upon closer examination, Braskamp stated
conditionally, “Traditionally-aged students had higher average scores on all six subscales as their
class status increased” (Braskamp, 2011, p. 36). Considering that 39% of the regional campus
subgroup was not classified as being traditional-aged students, this might account for the
difference with this study.
Overall, although there were some variables within the two broad categories of social
locations and academic factors that were related to students’ global perspective, their
contribution to the interpretation of the model is limited because of the adjusted R2 value. The
adjusted R2 for both social locations and academic factors ranged from .00 to .05. This range
indicated that the best model could only explain 5% of the total students’ global perspective
scores. Therefore, social locations and academic factors did not provide strong explanations for
the global perspective regression models, meaning that social locations and academic factors
contributed little, if any, towards students’ global perspective development.
Curriculum, Co-Curriculum, and Community Factors
Students’ global perspectives were closely related to their curriculum, co-curriculum, and
sense of community factors. These 3C factors were added during Step 3 when the most
comprehensive hierarchical multiple regression models were built. The conclusion was
supported by the adjusted R2, changes in R2, and individual variables’ standardized coefficients
β. First, adjusted R2 for 3C factors ranged from .12 to .20 for the six subscales, thus 12% to 20%
of students’ global perspectives could be explained by adding Step 3. Second, with the addition
of 3C factors, the R2 change ranged from .11 to .20 for the subscales, which was a relatively
substantial increase in the model’s predictability. Third, the individual standardized βs for 3C
factors were much larger than any other individual variable that did not belong to the 3C factors,
which indicated a strong relationship between these individual 3C variables and students’ global
perspectives.
81
The curriculum factor. The curriculum factor had a strong relationship with five of the
six GPI subscales: Global Citizenship, Knowledge, Identity, Social Responsibility, and Social
Interaction. The curriculum factor included courses that involved diversity discussions, courses
with a multi-cultural component, and service learning opportunities. The standardized
coefficients β ranged from .12 to .15 for Global Citizenship, Knowledge and Affect, which were
statistically significant at p<.001, indicating a strong relationship. For Social Responsibility and
Social Interaction, both of their standardized coefficients β were .11, p< .01, which also indicated
a significant relationship.
The curriculum relationship to global perspective development was also supported by
multiple researchers. Engberg and Fox’s research (2011) concluded significant associations
between taking service-learning courses and cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal
development using the same GPI instrument. Braskamp (2011) concluded that students involved
in global-related curriculum preferred cross-cultural interactions and were willing to make a
difference in society.
The co-curriculum factor. Engagement in co-curricular activities had a strong
relationship with same five GPI subscales: Global Citizenship, Knowledge, Identity, Social
Responsibility, and Social Interaction. The co-curriculum factor included participation in
campus cultural events, joining discussions on diversity, as well as leadership programs that
involved collaborative teamwork. The three subscales of Global Citizenship, Social
Responsibility, and Social Interaction all had standardized coefficients (β =.13, p< .001), which
indicated a strong relationship to the co-curriculum factor.
The strong correlation between students’ co-curriculum and their global perspective was
also supported by Braskamp’s research. Attending culture-related events, especially ones
different from students’ own cultural heritage, “lead to greater openness toward and comfort in
interaction across cultures … and acceptance for others with different views and values”
(Braskamp, 2011, p. 37).
The sense of community factor. The sense of community factor showed the strongest
relationship to students’ global perspectives. According to Braskamp, the community factor
“focuses on students’ perception of the character and identity of the campus, on the supportive
community of its members, and on the extent one is encouraged to develop one’s strengths and
talents” (Braskamp et al., 2012, p. 16).
82
The community factor in this research had a strong relationship with all six GPI
subscales. The standardized coefficients β for the community factor ranged from .24 to .43 for
the six subscales, which were the strongest βs among all factors, and they were also statistically
significant at p<.001 level for all six subscales.
It is worth mentioning that the community factor became the only significant factor
(β=.43, p< .001) in the Identity subscale model, while all the social locations, academic factors,
curriculum and co-curriculum factors were not significant. Braskamp’s research was consistent
with this conclusion. He further explained the continuous role that a community plays through a
students’ development stating, “Since the beginning of recorded time, communities have been
grounded in family, tribe, and place. Today’s communities, which include neighborhoods,
churches, schools, clubs, and local network, are more diverse and pluralistic” (Chickering &
Braskamp, 2009, p. 28). Therefore, the community factor is the specific environment that
individuals belong to and this environment can encourage students to explore and learn. This
specific environment could also help students form their own identity and interact with others
who are different. Ortiz summarized that on campuses where there is a sense of community,
students can integrate their ethnicity into their identity, thus forming the “us” beyond the self
(Ortiz, 1997).
The Study Abroad Factor
The relationship of study abroad with global perspective was not significant for any of
the six subscales using the all-university dataset. Based on this conclusion, it was worth
examining the composition of the all-university dataset to understand the conclusion. The alluniversity dataset was comprised of the three subgroups of regional campus, business, and study
abroad participants. The study abroad subgroup included study abroad returnees from all
divisions of the University’s main campus, including the School of Business. The business
subgroup included all students who attended courses at the School of Business. The regional
subgroup included all those students who were taking courses on a regional campus. Students
were categorized into only one subgroup.
The relationship between study abroad experience and students’ global perspective is
worth researching, as the literature presents different conclusions on this topic. Braskamp used
GPI to survey 250 students who completed pre-test and post-test assessment. He concluded,
“Education abroad is an effective educational experience for students, if the desired goals of
83
education abroad experience is to help students to develop holistically and globally” (Braskamp,
Braskamp, & Merrill, 2009, p. 110). The National Survey of Student Engagement (2007) found
that an education abroad experience is moderately correlated with higher order thinking. The
University System of Georgia concluded that in addition to improved academic performance,
study abroad improved cultural related knowledge and practice (Redden, 2010). Vande Berg and
his colleagues commented that study abroad has been tested as a powerful influence on students’
attitude, intercultural skills, and specific knowledge (Vande Berg, Balkcum, Scheid, & Whalen,
2004).
While study abroad impacted specific dimensions on attitude, knowledge and even skills,
there was no consensus that study abroad contributed to the development of students’ cognitive,
intrapersonal, and interpersonal dimensions. King and Baxter Magolda concluded that there was
little evidence that study abroad influenced students’ global perspective development (King &
Baxter Magolda, 2005). Steinberg (2002) wrote, “The study abroad field needs to develop
instruments that measure students’ overall growth holistically” (p. 12).
It is reasonable to believe that study abroad could impact students’ global perspective, but
only if those programs were properly designed. Otherwise, study abroad experiences could well
be a glorified vacation. After their research with 245 undergraduate students from various
centers and programs before and after their semester-long study abroad program, Chickering and
Braskamp (2009) concluded, “Some programs are more effective than others in influencing
students to develop a greater sense of social responsibility while studying abroad for a semester”
(p. 29).
With respect to study abroad program quality, metaphors of colonial observers, safety
nets and a swimming pool (Vande Berg, Paige & Lou, 2012) vividly described poorly designed
study abroad programs. Study abroad participants as colonial observers were portrayed as
sipping coffee on the veranda and commenting on the locals with indifference (Ogden, 2007).
Study abroad students expected safety nets (Citron, 1996) in which they traveled with their U.S.
group, lived in U.S. “ghettos” overseas, and “reading edifying works, and attending university
lectures at the summits of human civilization” (Vande Berg, Paige, & Lou, 2012, p. 6). Study
abroad programs associated with the swimming pool metaphor would often use the pretext that it
is not bad or good, it is just different. Therefore, study abroad leaders could quickly leave the
deep cultural pool to avoid unpleasant or threatening situations of the new and unfamiliar (Lou &
84
Bosley, 2009; Vande Berg, 2007, 2009; Vande Berg et al., 2012). Extrapolating from my results,
any study abroad program design associated with these metaphors will not lead to global
perspective development for students. Bennett (2012) supported this conclusion by criticizing
those study abroad programs “assuming that an awareness of perspective translates into ability to
shift perspective” (p. 99). Braskamp and Braskamp (2012) concurred, “Formal practice
classroom instruction or experiences such as travel and social encounters alone may be
insufficient in guiding students to think with more complexity and to view themes as global
citizens with a sense for reasonability” (p. 110).
This research from the all-university dataset resulted in the conclusion that study abroad
was not necessarily linked to students’ global perspective development. However, it may be
linked directly to the factors discussed above: study abroad program design, travel and social
encounters, as well as reflection and ability to shift perspective. In addition, two specific
conditions relevant to the all-university dataset were worth mentioning. First, while this research
comprised business students and study abroad returnees, it also included the subgroup of regional
campus students, the data from whom may have influenced the all-university dataset’s results
regarding study abroad. Second, while Braskamp’s conclusion was based on participants
associated with a semester-long study abroad program, most of the study abroad programs at the
University ranged from 10 - 14 days. These short-term study abroad programs may have
generated different results compared to full semester-long study abroad programs.
From descriptive statistics, compared to students who had not participated in study
abroad, the students with study abroad experience did have higher global perspective scores.
However, regression analysis did not prove statistical significance in any of the six subscales
with the all-university dataset, regional and business subgroups when the study abroad factor was
focused on as an individual factor. Although this conclusion was hardly conclusive, it implied
that if study abroad was related to students’ global perspective development, it only occurred
within the specific subgroup of study abroad returnees, but not with the other subgroups. Since
these data are correlational, caution must be made when asserting directional statements; for
example, students with a more advanced level of global perspectives may be motivated to engage
in more study abroad participation.
85
Regional Campus and Business Subgroups
While regional campus students often came from socio-economically challenged
backgrounds with many being first generation college students, the business students came from
more affluent family backgrounds. Because of the diversity of the subgroups, exploratory
models were performed on the Global Citizenship subscale.
Regarding the regional subgroup, certain social location factors had a relationship to
students’ global perspective, but not with their class status or GPA. Age was positively
correlated with Global Citizenship and minority students demonstrated a higher score in Global
Citizenship. Unlike the other subgroups, the curriculum factor appeared to be critical for
regional students in predicting Global Citizenship (β=.22, p<.01).
The business subgroup was the only subgroup in which adding academic factors
generated statistically significant tests. This was especially true for Global Citizenship: with
more college years, there was a more advanced level of Global Citizenship. While the class
status variable contained 10.2% missing data, solutions for handling missing data were employed
prior to using the hierarchical multiple regression models. An estimated value was entered for
the missing data using the maximization expectation method, so caution was taken with this
estimation. Other than the class status factor, the business subgroup was consistent with the alluniversity dataset in that sense of community had its strongest relationship with students’ global
perspectives. In addition, the business subgroup also evidenced a correlation between students’
co-curriculum and the Global Citizenship subscale.
Limitations of the Study
In addition to methodological issues with the Global Perspective Inventory survey
instrument, there are other limitations specific to this research.
A Cross-sectional Study with a Convenience Sample
Although feedback from the study abroad subgroup was captured after their study abroad
experience, it did not include administration of pre-trip surveys as the baseline, which could have
been compared to the post-trip surveys. Similarly, for the regional and business subgroups, there
were no baseline data to compare to. Therefore, this study is a single snapshot cross-section
86
research that assesses global perspective at one point in time instead of a longitudinal study over
a multi-year college experience.
In addition, although the all-university dataset had 1,637 survey participants representing
the three subgroups, this research was a convenience sample collected at a liberal arts university
in Midwest U.S. Three divisions participated because of their administrators’ support.
Therefore, instead of random sampling across the entire student population, a convenience
sample was used. Addressing these two limitations could lead to deeper insights into students’
global perspective development.
Measurement Precision and Robust statistical Tests
The majority of GPI survey items used a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 to indicate
students’ responses to survey items. The Likert-type scale assumes that there is an equal
distance from 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5. However, in reality, the distance between those ranges may
not be equal. As Boone, Townsend, and Staver (2011) pointed out, “The measurement
characteristics (nonequal-interval, nonlinear) of ordinal data from Likert-type instruments do not
meet all of the assumptions of parametric statistical tests, which assume that data are equalinterval (linear), normally distributed, and exhibit equal variance” (p. 259). Rasch measurement
addresses this issue to “establish equal interval units to quantify such constructs” (Doyle, 2005,
p. 1415), because unlike other statistical models, Rasch measurement theory is based on a
probabilistic model (Boone et al., 2011). Therefore, it was especially valuable to “evaluate
different and diverse datasets” (Boone & Scantlebury, 2006, p. 255), as it requires reflection both
quantitatively as well as qualitatively with the capability of improving item reliability and person
reliability through the two Rasch indices of item fit and person fit (Boone et al., 2011).
Considering the three different subgroups in this research, Rasch measurement would help to
increase measurement precision and improve model predictability.
In addition to the Rasch model, other statistical tests could also be used to make this
research more in-depth, such as more sophisticated data processing strategies to account for
missing data values. In addition, different types of regression models could have been
employed, especially for the community factor, which is currently categorical data. Furthermore,
considering the large sample size, an alternative approach of effect size could also be performed,
so as to compare results with the significance tests conducted in this research.
87
Limited Data Fields for Study Abroad Participation
From the all-university dataset, regional and business subgroups, this research did not
statistically prove that study abroad participation was related to students’ global perspective
development. According to The Institute for the International Education of Students, study
abroad could accomplish the following goals: cultural and academic learning, internationalizing
the undergraduate experience, intercultural development, learning inside and outside the
classroom, developing more culturally sensitive citizens in the global community, and enhancing
international awareness and understanding (Luzader & Rader, 2010). Several dimensions listed
above would overlap with the subscales that GPI assesses, so GPI could be used for assessing
study abroad impact (Luzader & Rader, 2010; Braskamp, 2011) with proper planning, execution,
and data analysis strategies.
One of the critical limitations of this research was the way in which study abroad was
measured. The data lacked information such as how many semesters students participated in
study abroad, how study abroad programs were designed, and how pertinent were students’
overseas experiences to their global perspective development? What geographical locations did
they travel to and what kind of learning activities did they participate in? This additional data
could have significantly influenced the outcomes of this research.
In-depth Research with Three Subgroups
Data collected from the three subgroups provide opportunities for additional research.
From the overall design, there could be horizontal comparisons between the subgroups. In
addition, further analysis could be done focusing within each of the subgroups. From the
specific statistical tests, there could be more sophisticated statistical models relevant to each
subgroup considering the characteristics of the homogeneous business subgroup and the
heterogeneous regional subgroup.
Even mixed methods could have been applied to the study abroad subgroup to understand
the essence and impact of study abroad. For example, within the business subgroup, a segment
of students specified that they did not intend to study abroad, even though they were in a
favorable environment. For example, they may have come from a family whose average annual
family income was $210,000, 70% of their peers participated in study abroad programs, and the
division’s future study abroad goal is 100% participation. In addition, the School of Business
provides various scholarships and financial aid to encourage 100% study abroad participation.
88
Even in this environment, some business students claimed that they did not intend to participate
in study abroad. Thus, it would be fascinating to employ mixed methods out of postpositivism to
integrate students’ class status and concerns for participating in study abroad with in-depth
interviews to research this segment of students.
GPI Issues and Recommendations
Although the GPI survey has been completed by over 100,000 students through the years
at different higher educational institutions (Braskamp, 2013), this research discovered the
following issues. This section addresses GPI’s methodological and conceptual issues as well as
providing recommendation.
Methodological Issues
Internal consistency. The Knowing subscale was unable to reach internal consistency
with both the all-university dataset (the highest Cronbach’s α was .580 after various attempts)
and the national data collected by Braskamp. Among available literature, including personal
communication with Braskamp, the Knowing subscale has never reached a satisfactory level of
Cronbach’s α above .700. For example, in Engberg and Fox’s research, the Knowing subscale’s
Cronbach’s α was .557 (Engberg & Fox, 2011). In Anderson’s research, the Knowing subscale’s
Cronbach’s α was .440 (Anderson, 2011). No published GPI related research has achieved a
satisfactory Cronbach’s α above .700. Therefore, the Knowing subscale’s internal consistency
with unidimensionality must be carefully addressed when using GPI.
Strongly correlated subscales. Correlation analysis of the six subscales indicated that
many of the subscales were strongly related to one another. When factor analyses were
performed, the great majority of items loaded onto a single factor. The implication was whether
GPI measured all these different constructs or one major construct. Therefore, it is suggested
that researchers using GPI address this issue.
Format consistency of 3C items. The GPI survey instrument bundled curriculum, cocurriculum, and community factors together as 3C. However, the survey items associated with
the community factor were structured differently from the survey items associated with the
curriculum and co-curriculum factors. While the community items were structured with Likerttype scale questions, the curriculum and co-curriculum items were more categorical questions
89
such as, “How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in the following since your
enrolled at the University?” Students were given options of none, one term, two terms, three
terms, and four or more terms. In a strict sense, these were categorical data, which were
different from the continuous community data. However, the community factor was treated in
the same way as curriculum and co-curriculum factors, even though the measures were not of the
same type. If 3C variables were treated in the same way, they should share a same data format,
either both continuous or both categorical, but not different as in the current GPI survey.
GPI’s Conceptualization
The theoretical framework. Since it appears that the GPI instrument measures a single
broad construct, it is unclear what this means for the future development of GPI with respect to
the three dimensions of cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal. Is it necessary to
differentiate between the intercultural maturity and intercultural communication in each of these
three dimensions? It was difficult to put a specific survey item into a specific category,
especially between intercultural maturity and intercultural communication.
Conclusive 3C items. In addition, the curriculum and co-curriculum items asked very
broad questions, such as number of courses that included materials/readings on race and ethnicity
issues, courses that included opportunities for intensive dialogue among students with different
backgrounds and beliefs, as well as courses that included service learning opportunities. These
items are a good start; however, for the curriculum factor to be more comprehensive, it will need
a more systematic review by linking the curriculum items to the global perspective definition.
Collectivism vs. individualism. The GPI survey instrument was created from the angle
of the developed world rooted in an individualistic society. Its theoretical foundation of “selfauthorship” was based on individualistic Western culture. Therefore, GPI was designed more for
students in individualistic societies from the developed world. In contrast, collectivism is
dominant in many developing countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa, which characterize
different dynamics when dealing with cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal situations.
Because the GPI assessment tool and its theoretical foundation were both based on individualism
in developed countries, it may have missed important aspects of group-oriented collectivism
from the developing world. In this regard, the self-concept theory of cognitive, intrapersonal and
interpersonal may still be valid; however, the significance of each component may be different
between individualist and collectivist cultures, developed and developing societies. In a
90
collectivist society, interpersonal instead of intrapersonal considerations may carry much more
weight for social encounters which deal with global, international, and intercultural issues.
Similarly, in a collectivist society, cognitive knowing emphasizes conformity in contrast to an
individualist society where creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship are encouraged. Since
the theoretical framework that shaped GPI and the survey instrument itself were more
appropriate for students from an individualistic culture, the interpretations may also need
modifications for those results from the group-oriented collectivism society.
In the study using GPI that involved 1,909 international students from 10 countries, low
social interaction scores on the community factors were discovered among the three very
collectivist-oriented cultures of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea (Glass, Buus, & Braskamp,
2013). However, this should not lead to the conclusion that international students from these
countries have a lower level of global perspective development. All in all, the interpretation of
students’ global perspective has to be in consideration of the cultural influence. Thus, the
theoretical framework may need to be modified when interpreting the results from grouporiented collectivist societies.
When revisiting the global perspective definition, I believe that although there are
common components, there are also some fundamental differences between developed and
developing societies with respect to emphasis, approach and resolution related to global
perspective. This makes the research of global perspective more complicated, because if
everybody from the developing and developed world maintains the same perspective, then there
is no need to study global perspective.
As the gap between developing and developed society narrows, eventually the global
perspective definition could simply be that global perspective is a viewpoint influenced by
cultural heritage and personal choice when dealing with global, international and intercultural
issues.
Recommendations
Over 100,000 students and 170 institutions have used GPI, but most of these institutions
used GPI to generate reports without examining its reliability. If higher education institutions
plan to develop global learning initiatives based on GPI reports, it is imperative to address the
issues listed above.
91
In addition, since GPI is widely used, it is important to address some practical issues on
how exactly to conduct assessment, especially considering that GPI did not pass the internal
consistency tests for its Knowing subscale. In other words, if students take and re-take GPI, the
Knowing subscale will not yield consistent results. Therefore, any assessment effort using GPI
has to address how to deal with the Knowing subscale.
Accordingly, my first recommendation is to remove the Knowing subscale from the
assessment effort. The Knowing subscale includes 9 items (Items 1, 6, 7, 12, 18, 23, 24, 30, and
35), so by removing 9 of the 40 items, it will take less time for students to complete the survey.
In practice, I recommend removing these items, but not changing the numbering among
the remaining items so that the items can easily be matched for comparison purposes with
national data. In order to avoid student confusion of skipped survey item numbers, it is
recommended to include an explanation such as “some questions are intentionally missing from
this survey.”
My second recommendation is to include the Global Citizenship subscale. This subscale
included 10 existing GPI items (Items 5, 11, 15, 16, 17, 21, 32, 34, 37, and 38), which were used
in calculating the other five GPI subscales. After factor analyses and internal consistency test,
these 10 items formed a unidimensional factor to measure students’ cultural diversity and global
citizenship. Therefore, if the goal is to assess students’ learning outcomes in these two aspects,
the Global Citizenship subscale could serve this purpose.
My third recommendation is to use each of the remaining five GPI subscales separately.
Theoretically, GPI is based on the three interrelated dimensions of cognitive, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal development. However, GPI national reports, which provide benchmarking data,
have never combined the GPI subscales. Therefore, each of the above five original GPI
subscales of Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction can be
studied individually together with the Global Citizenship subscale. By studying these subscales
individually, more specific information in the global context could be measured.
In summary, when using GPI, my recommendation is to remove the Knowing subscale
and add the Global Citizenship subscale. This results in the six subscales of Global Citizenship,
Knowledge, Identity, Affect, Social Responsibility, and Social Interaction, which could be
studied individually. These recommendations make comparison of assessment data feasible,
while maintaining GPI’s reliability.
92
Implications for Higher Education Leaders
To Create the Specific Environment
The first implication from this study is that educators can play a crucial role by helping to
establish a certain community or environment that promotes students’ global perspective
development. Braskamp linked this community to the local, national, and international
environment (Chickering & Braskamp, 2009). In this specific environment, global perspectives
can be nurtured so as to cultivate a sense of safety, belongingness, and aspiration for making a
difference. The ACE Report also called for engaging the campus community to create
experiences for students (Eckel, Green, Hill, & Mallon, 1999). When students are in a very
supportive, encouraging and nurturing environment, they are willing to explore something with
which they may not be familiar. This spirit of exploration towards uncertainty, unfamiliarity and
flexibility “to know the other” is central to global perspective (Lovett, 2008).
Sanford (1966) proposed the three development conditions of readiness, challenge, and
support to instill educational opportunities through the environment. If readiness was students’
internal drive, then challenge and support are the “environment” factors that the campus can
provide. John Dewey defined challenge, “A situation in which there is experienced obscurity,
doubt, conflict, disturbance of some sort, into a situation that is clear, coherent, settled,
harmonious” (as cited in Boydston, 1970, p. 265). Thus, educators have to support students to
ensure that they do not become too overwhelmed and can transition to the next phase.
Schlossberg’s (1984) transition process of moving in, moving through and moving out detailed
transition events, which incorporate with the 4 S’s of situation, support, self, and strategy that the
campus environment can provide. In this way, educators can help students deal with the new,
unfamiliar and different, so as to enable the transition towards a more advanced level of global
perspective.
To Aim for Long-term Effects
The second implication from this research is that global perspective development is to
aim for long-term effects. Students’ global perspective has a positive relationship to age: the
older the age, the greater the global perspective development. Thus, global perspective
development is a life long journey with intertwined processes: the more cultural events that
students participate in, the greater global perspective they will develop; the more global
93
perspective they have, the more likely they will tend to acquire more global knowledge; the more
global knowledge they have, the more they want to participate in international events. It is a
journey towards a destination.
Such a journey implies going through phases or stages. Bennett categorized the
development journey as the two phases of progressing from ethnocentric to ethnorelative. The
ethnocentric phase involves Denial, Defense, and Minimization, meaning that one’s own culture
is experienced as central to reality in some way. The second phase is ethnorelative, which is
characterized by acceptance, adaptation, and integration (Bennett, 2004). Kohlberg (1969)
claimed that students must fully complete one stage before proceeding to the next stage.
Students proceed through pre-conventional (fear of punishment and gratification of one’s own
needs), to conventional (a respect for the law to adherence), then to post-conventional stages
(chosen ethical principles or universal ethical principles) (Kohlberg, 1976). During this staged
process, there are incidents along the way that trigger the preconventional, conventional, and
post-conventional transitions dealing with global, international, and intercultural issues. The
crossroads come when students find no clear formula to follow, and then the next phase is when
students reconstruct “their beliefs about knowledge, themselves, and themselves in relation to
others” (Pizzolato, 2005, p. 625). The ultimate phase of internal foundations “represented a shift
from constructing to enacting beliefs, goals, and values in a way that recognized and engaged
multiplicity” (Pizzolato, 2005, p. 625), therefore, students’ global perspective development
should aim for long-term effects.
To Focus on Quality
The third implication from this research is that students’ global perspectives should be
quality-focused rather than quantity-focused. Many quantitative factors, such as GPA, number
of years in college, and even the number of study abroad trips taken were not statistically
significant with respect to students’ global perspective development. Furthermore, participation
in study abroad did not equate to learning outcomes. Deliberate efforts must be made to plan,
design, and create a specific environment for students to feel both supported and challenged.
With a quality focus, when designing 3C initiatives, strive to make 3C designs more
meaningful to participants. Accordingly, encourage students to join a diversified club that they
feel they belong to, propose more courses with a global perspective, organize cultural events that
appeal to students, initiate diversity dialogues that students can relate to, and build a campus
94
atmosphere where students are encouraged to explore and make a difference. Thus, higher
education leaders can aim for quality learning experiences that foster students’ global perspective
development.
95
References
Alger, C. F. (1986). Implications of microelectronically transmitted information for global education.
In A. Culbertson & L. L. Cunningham (Eds.), Microcomputers and education. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Alger, C. F., & Harf, J. E. (1986). Global education: Why? For whom? About what? In R. E. Freeman
(Ed.), Promising practices in global education: A handbook with case studies (pp. 1–13). New
York: The National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies.
Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press.
Altinay, H. (2009, November 13). Altinay: A duty to humanity. Yale Daily News. Retrieved from
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2009/11/13/altinay-a-duty-to-humanity/
Anderson, L. F. (1968). An examination of the structure and objectives of international education.
Social Education, 32, 639–647.
Anderson, P. H. (2006). Short-term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity: A pilot study.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(4), 457–469.
Anderson, P. H. (2011). Intercultural development: Study abroad vs. on-campus study. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 21, 86–108.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2013). Global learning VALUE rubric.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/value/index.cfm
Association of American Colleges and Universities, & National Leadership Council (U.S.). (2007).
College learning for the new global century: a report from the National Leadership Council for
Liberal Education & America’s Promise. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges
and Universities.
Becker, J. (1975). Guidelines for world studies: Mid-American program for global perspectives in
education. Indiana University.
Becker, J. M. (1982). Goals for global education. Theory into Practice, 21(3), 228–233.
Bennett, J., Brown, K., Cartwright, C., Davis, M., Deardorff, D., Hearn-Chung Gin, D., … Smith, D.
G. (2009). Intercultural knowledge and competence VALUE rubric. Washington, D.C.:
Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/index_p.cfm?CFID=41339661&CFTOKEN=69849038
96
Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward
multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corp.
Bennett, M. J. (2012). Paradigmatic assumptions and a developmental approach to intercultural
learning. In Michael Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 90–114).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Benson, P. G. (1978). Measuring cross-cultural adjustment: The problem of criteria. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 21–37.
Bhawuk, D., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of
individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(4), 413–436.
Boone, W. J., & Scantlebury, K. (2006). The role of Rasch analysis when conducting science
education research utilizing multiple-choice tests. Science Education, 90(2), 253–269.
doi:10.1002/sce.20106
Boone, W. J., Townsend, J. S., & Staver, J. (2011). Using Rasch theory to guide the practice of survey
development and survey data analysis in science education and to inform science reform efforts:
An exemplar utilizing STEBI self-efficacy data. Science Education, 95(2), 258–280.
doi:10.1002/sce.20413
Bornstein, R. F., Rossner, S. C., Hill, E. L., & Stepanian, M. L. (1994). Face validity and fakability of
objective and projective measures of dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(2),
363–386.
Bose, K. S., & Sarma, R. H. (1975). Delineation of the intimate details of the backbone conformation
of pyridine nucleotide coenzymes in aqueous solution. Biochemical and biophysical research
communications, 66(4), 1173–1179.
Boydston, J. A. (Ed.). (1970). Guide to the works of John Dewey. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Braskamp, L. A. (2006). Putting students first: how colleges develop students purposefully. Bolton,
Mass: Anker Pub. Co.
Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., Carter Merrill, K., & Engberg, M. (2009). Global Perspective
Inventory (GPI): Its purpose, construction, potential uses, and psychometric characteristics.
Global Perspective Institute, Inc.
97
Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., & Merrill, K. C. (2009). Assessing progress in global learning and
development of students with education abroad experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 101–118.
Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., Merrill, K. C., & Engberg, M. E. (2012). Global Perspective
Inventory (GPI). Global Perspective Inventory. Retrieved from https://gpi.central.edu
Braskamp, L. A., & Engberg, M. E. (2011). How colleges can influence the development of a global
perspective. Liberal Education, 97(3), 34–39.
Butto, J., & Davis, G. (2010, February 4). At home in the world: Educating for global connections
and local commitments. Pre-Conference Workshop presented at the American Council on
Education. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/At-Home-Pre-ConfWorkshop-IC2010.pdf
Cambridge, J., & Thompson, J. J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for
international education. Compare, 34(2), 161–175.
Carmines, E. G. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
Case, R. (1993). Key elements of a global perspective. Social Education, 57(6), 318–325.
Chickering, A., & Braskamp, L. A. (2009). Developing a global perspective for personal and social
responsibility. Peer Review, 11(4), 27–30.
Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-scale assessment of student attitudes after a short-term study
abroad program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 165–177.
Citron J. L. (1996). Short-term study abroad: Integration, third culture formation, and re-entry.
Presented at the Annual NAFSA conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Clarke, V. (2004). Students’ global awareness and attitudes to internationalism in a world of cultural
convergence. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(1), 51–70.
doi:10.1177/1475240904041461
Cohen, J. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design & analysis issues for field
settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Council for International Exchange of Scholars. (n.d.). Fulbright - Program history. Retrieved from
http://www.cies.org/fulbright/
98
Cummings, W. (2001). Current challenges of international education (No. ERIC No. 464523).
Washington, D.C.
Deardorff, D. K. (2005). A matter of logic? International Educator, XIV(3), 26–31.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266.
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Implementing intercultural competence assessment. In The SAGE handbook
of intercultural competence (pp. 477–491). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denis, D. J. (2011). Multiple linear regression using SPSS - Part II. University of Montana. Retrieved
from
http://psychweb.psy.umt.edu/denis/datadecision/front/stat_II_2011/psyx_521_multiple_regressio
n_part_II.pdf
Diaz, C. F. (1999). Global perspectives for educators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Donnelly, L. (2010, September 6). Cartoon. The New Yorker, p. 64.
Doyle, D. (2009). Holistic assessment and study abroad experience. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 143–155.
Doyle, P. J. (2005). An Application of Rasch Analysis to the Measurement of Communicative
Functioning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1412–1428.
doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/098)
Eckel, P., Green, M., Hill, B., & Mallon, W. (1999). On change III - Taking charge of change: A
primer for colleges and universities (pp. 35–43). Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education.
Engberg, M. E., & Fox, K. (2011). Exploring the relationship between undergraduate service-learning
experiences and global perspective-taking. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
48(1), 85–105.
Engle, J., & Engle, L. (2002). Neither international nor educative: Study abroad in the age of
globalization. In W. Grünzweig & N. Rinehart (Eds.), Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical
approaches to international education in the age of cyberculture (pp. 25–39). Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
99
Fantini, A. E. (2006). Assessment tools of intercultural communicative competence. Retrieved from
http://www.sit.edu/SITOccasionalPapers/feil_appendix_f.pdf
Galloway, F. J. (2004, January). A methodological primer for conducting quantitative research in
postsecondary education at Lumina Foundation for Education. CAP - Council for Accelerated
Programs. Retrieved from
http://www.capnetwork.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=UpDownload&file=index&req=g
etit&lid=77
Gardner, P., Gross, L., & Steglitz, I. (2008). Unpacking your study abroad experience: Critical
reflection for workplace competencies. CERI Research Brief, I(1), 1–10.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 11.0
update. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Glass, C. R., Buus, S., & Braskamp, L. A. (2013). Uneven experiences: What’s missing and what
matters for today’s international students. Chicago, IL: Global Perspective Institute, Inc.
Retrieved from http://ww2.odu.edu/~crglass/Report-on-International-Students.pdf
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Presented at the 2003 Midwest Research to Practice
Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/344
Goodman, A. E. (2008). Expanding education abroad at U.S. community colleges. New York:
Institute of International Education.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gunesch, K. (2004). Education for cosmopolitanism? Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity
model for and within international education. Journal of Research in International Education,
3(3), 251–275.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The
intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4),
421–443.
Hanvey, R. G. (1976). An attainable global perspective (pp. 1–28). Denver, CO: Center for Teaching
International Relations.
100
Hathaway, R. S. (1995). Assumptions underlying quantitative and qualitative research: Implications
for institutional research. Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 535–561.
Hayden, M. C., Rancic, B. A., & Thompson, J. J. (2000). Being international: Student and teacher
perceptions from international schools. Oxford Review of Education, 26(1), 107–123.
Hayden, M. C., & Thompson, J. J. (1995a). International education: The crossing of frontiers.
International Schools Journal, 15(1), 13–20.
Hayden, M. C., & Thompson, J. J. (1995b). International schools and international education: A
relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education, 21(3), 327–345.
Hetzel, R. D. (1996). A primer on factor analysis with comments on patterns of practice and reporting.
In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (Vol. 4, pp. 175–206).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty Years of Global Education: A reminder of key principles and precedents.
Educational Review, 55(3), 265–275. doi:10.1080/0013191032000118929
Hovland, K. (2006). Shared futures: Global learning and liberal education. Washington, D.C.:
Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/SharedFutures/documents/Shared_Futures.pdf
Howell, D. C. (2012, December 9). Treatment of missing data - Part 1. Retrieved from
http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/StatPages/More_Stuff/Missing_Data/Missing.html
Hunter, W. (2004, July). Knowledge, skills, attitudes, and experiences necessary to become globally
competent (Dissertation). Lehigh University, Lehigh University.
Institute of International Education. (2012, November). Open Doors® 2012 - Report on international
educational exchange. Open Doors®.
James, K. (2005). International education: The concept, and its relationship to intercultural education.
Journal of Research in International Education, 4(3), 313–332.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1995). Cross cultural adaptability inventory (CCAI). Retrieved from
http://ccaiassess.com/CCAI_Tools.html
Kerr, C. (1979). Education for global perspectives. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 442, 109–116.
101
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity.
Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592.
Kirkwood, T. F. (2001). Our global age requires global education: Clarifying definitional ambiguities.
The Social Studies, 92(1), 10–15.
Kniep, W. M. (1987). Next steps in global education: A handbook for curriculum development. New
York: American Forum.
Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. IAU Survey Report.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In T.
Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 31–
53). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Lamy, S. L. (1987). The definition of a discipline: The objects and methods of analysis in global
education. New York: Global Perspectives in Education.
Life Long Learning. (2012). Education abroad global competencies assessment project. Miami
University.
Lou, K., & Bosley, G. (2009). Dynamics of cultural contexts. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing
intercultural competence and transformation (pp. 276–296). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Lovett, C. M. (2008, April 8). We need a new model of global education. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/We-Need-a-New-Model-of-Global/12819
Lunn, J. (2008). Global Perspectives in Higher Education: Taking the Agenda Forward in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 231–254.
doi:10.1177/1028315307308332
Luzader, S., & Rader, M. (2010, April 8). Utilizing student development theory to advance education
abroad. Presented at the Study Abroad [Redefined]. Retrieved from
http://www.forumea.org/documents/Fri4-8-11UtilizingStudentDevTheoryRaderandLuzader.pdf
Marmolejo, F. (2012, September 25). Trends in international mobility of students: A wake-up call for
the U.S.? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/education-at-a-glance-2012/30454
Mason, E. J., & Bramble, W. J. (1989). Understanding and conducting research: Applications in
education and the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s.
International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.
102
Mckenzie, A. (2003). Global perspectives in higher education. London: Development Education
Association.
Merryfield, M. M. (1998). Pedagogy for global perspectives in education: Studies of teachers’
thinking and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(3), 342–379.
Merryfield, M. M., & Harris, J. (1992). Getting started in global education: Essential literature,
essential linkages for teacher educators. School of Education Review, 4, 56–66.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with
quantitative & qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Miami University. (2011). Miami University: Education abroad global competencies assessment
project. Oxford, OH.
Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1998). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program on college students’
civic responsibility. Teaching Sociology, 26(4), 243–258.
National survey of student engagement. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning
and success. Bloomington, IN.
Neuliep, J. W., & McCrosky, J. C. (1997). The development of a US and generalized ethnocentrism
scale. Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 385–398.
O’Connell, W. (1994). Foreign student education in two-year colleges: a handbook for
administrators and educators. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA.
Ogden, A. (2007). The view from the veranda: Understanding today’s colonial student. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 35–55.
Olson, C. L., Evans, R., & Shoenberg, R. F. (2007). At home in the world: Bridging the gap between
internationalization and multicultural education (No. 311578) (p. 9). Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education. Retrieved from
http://inclusion.uwex.uwc.edu/sites/inclusion.uwex.uwc.edu/files/At%20Home%20in%20the%2
0World%20Bridging%20the%20Gap.pdf
Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competence and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 5(2), 116–118.
Ortiz, A. M. (2000). Expressing Cultural Identity in the Learning Community: Opportunities and
Challenges. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(82), 67–79. doi:10.1002/tl.8207
Passarelli, A. M., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Using experiential learning theory to promote student
learning and development in programs of education abroad. In Michael Vande Berg, R. M. Paige,
103
& K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad - What our students are learning, what they’re not,
and what we can do about it (pp. 137–161). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Pasternak, M. (1998). Is international education a pipe dream? A question of values. In M. C. Hayden
& J. J. Thompson (Eds.), International education: Principles and practice. London: Kogan Page.
Petrides, K. V. (2009). Technical manual for the trait emotional intelligence questionnaires. London
Psychometric Laboratory. Retrieved from
http://www.psychometriclab.com/admins/files/TEIQue%20manual%20(4th%20printing%20%20contents)%20-%20KV%20Petrides.pdf
Pett, M. A. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument
development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Pub.
Phinney, J. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and
young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.
Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Pizzolato, J. E. (2005). Creating crossroads for self-authorship: Investigating the provocative moment.
Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 624–641.
Quantz, R. A. (2012, April). On methodology and discourse.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Expanded ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Redden, E. (2010, July 13). Academic outcomes of study abroad. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/13/abroad
Rest, J., Turiel, E., & Kohlberg, L. (1969). Level of moral development as a determinant of
preference and comprehension of moral judgments made by others. Journal of Personality, 37(2),
225–252. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1969.tb01742.x
Rubin, D., & Sutton, R. (2009). Online workshop - Assessing and documenting study abroad learning
outcomes: Beyond student satisfaction surveys. Webinar. Retrieved from
http://www.weeklyinnovations.org/events/online-workshop-assessing-and
Ryan, A. B. (2006). Post-positivist approaches to research. In Researching and writing your thesis: A
guide for postgraduate students (pp. 12–26). MACE: Maynooth Adult and Community
Education.
Samonte, K., & Pastor, D. (2011). An exploratory factor analysis of the Global Perspective Inventory.
Presented at the 23rd Annual Convention of the Association for Psychological Sciences,
104
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.psyc.jmu.edu/assessment/research/pdfs/The%20Global%20Perspective%20Inventor
y_FINAL.pdf
Satterlee, B. (1992). The acquisition of key executive skills and attitudes for international business in
the third millennium (No. ERIC: ED432175). VA.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory. New York:
Springer Pub. Co.
Schwindt, E. (2003). The development of a model for international education with special reference to
the role of host country nationals. Journal of Research in International Education, 2(1), 67–81.
Shealy, C. N. (2004). A model and method for “making” a combined-integrated psychologist:
Equilintegration (EI) theory and the beliefs, events, and values inventory (BEVI). Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 60(10), 1065–1090.
Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the
CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(8), 280–289.
Sideli, K. (2001). SECUSSA/IIE electronic sampling results, survey #2: Outcomes assessment and
study abroad program. International Educator, 10(2), 30.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K.
Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–52). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Steinberg, M. (2002). “Involve me and I will understand”: Academic quality in experiential programs
abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8. Retrieved from
http://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol8/vol8-10_steinberg.htm
Stockburger, D. W. (1998). Multiple regression with categorical variables. In Multivariate Statistics:
Concepts, Models, and Applications. Online book. Retrieved from
http://www.psychstat.missouristate.edu/multibook/mlt08.htm
Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power,
technology, and knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sutton, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2004). The GLOSSARI project: Initial findings from a system-wide
research initiative on study abroad learning outcomes. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal
of Study Abroad, 10, 65–82.
105
Swiss Consulting Group. (2002). Global competency report. Retrieved from
http://www.swissconsultinggroup.com/gcr.php?secID=gcr
Thompson, Bruce. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and
applications (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Theoretical framework for evaluation of cross-cultural training effectiveness.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1(4), 19–45. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(77)90030X
Tucker, M. L., Gullekson, N. L., & McCabridge, J. (2011). Assurance of learning in short-term, study
abroad programs. Research in Higher Education, 14. Retrieved from http://aabri.com/rhej.html
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The multicultural personality questionnaire:
Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings of multicultural effectiveness. Journal of
Research in Personality, 35, 278–288. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.232
Vande Berg, M. (2007). Intervening in the learning of U.S. students abroad. Journal of Studies in
International Education, II(3), 392–398.
Vande Berg, M. (2009). Intervening in student learning abroad: A research-based inquiry.
International Education, 20(4), 15–27.
Vande Berg, M., Balkcum, A., Scheid, M., & Whalen, B. (2004). A report at the half-way mark: The
Georgetown Consortium project. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10,
101–116.
Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (2012a). Student learning abroad - Paradigms and
assumptions. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 3–28).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (2012b, May 3). Student learning abroad: What our
students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Presented at the NAFSA
Webinar Series.
Walker, G. (2002). To educate the nations: Reflections on an international education. Saxmundham:
John Catt Educational Ltd.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 22, 659–677.
106
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference, American Psychological Association, Science
Directorate. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594
World Studies Project. (1976). Learning for change in world society: reflections, activities, and
resources. London: World Studies Project.
107
Appendix A – Global Perspective Inventory - Version 5
Copyright © 2008 Global Perspective Institute Inc.
1.
When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have the better
approach.
2. I have a definite purpose in my life.
3. I can explain my personal values to people who are different from me.
4. Most of my friends are from my own ethnic background.
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to society.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not.
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to determine.
8. I am informed of current issues that impact international relations.
9. I know who I am as a person.
10. I feel threatened around people from backgrounds very different from
my own.
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better understand myself.
12. I tend to judge the values of others based on my own value system.
13. I understand the reasons and causes of conflict among nations of
different cultures.
14. I am confident that I can take care of myself in a completely new
situation.
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am successful at navigating
their cultures.
16. I work for the rights of others.
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
18. I do not see cultural differences as important to my daily life.
19. I understand how various cultures of this world interact socially.
20. I get offended often by people who do not understand my point-ofview.
21. I am able to take on various roles as appropriate in different cultural
108
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Agree
Strongly
INSTRUCTIONS: There is no time limit, but try to respond to each statement as quickly as
possible. There are no right or wrong answers, only responses that are right for you. You must
complete every item for your responses to count. Thank you for your cooperation.
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
and ethnic settings.
22. I put my beliefs into action by standing up for my principles.
23. I can evaluate issues from several different perspectives.
24. The role of the student is to receive knowledge from authority figures
25. I know how to analyze the basic characteristics of a culture.
26. I am sensitive to those who are discriminated against.
27. I do not feel threatened emotionally when presented with multiple
perspectives.
28. I prefer to work with people who have different cultural values from
me.
29. I am accepting of people with different religious and spiritual
traditions.
30. Cultural differences make me question what is really true.
31. I put the needs of others above my own personal wants.
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective.
33. I am developing a meaningful philosophy of life.
34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural backgrounds in my
life.
35. I prefer complex rather than straightforward interpretations of
debatable issues.
36. I constantly need affirmative confirmation about myself from others.
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach me about our
cultural differences.
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.
39. I am open to people who strive to live lives very different from my
own life style.
40. Volunteering is not an important priority in my life.
41. I have a strong sense of affiliation with my college/university.
42. I share personal feelings and problems with students and colleagues.
43. I have felt insulted or threatened based on my cultural/ethnic
background at my college/university.
44. I feel that my college/university community honors diversity and
internationalism.
45. I understand the mission of my college/university.
46. I am both challenged and supported at my college/university.
47. I have been encouraged to develop my strengths and talents at my
college/university.
48. I feel I am a part of a close and supportive community of colleagues
and friends.
109
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
SA
A
N
D
SD
49. My age in years (e.g., 21)
50. My gender is:
51. Are you an international student, foreign national, or Third Culture Kid?
Yes
No
52. Select the one ethnic identity that best describes you:
a. Multiple Ethnicities
b. African/African American/ Black
c. Asian/Pacific Islander
d. European/White
e. Hispanic/Latino
f. Native American
g. I prefer not to respond
53. Please estimate your current yearly FAMILY income (approximate, in US dollars):
54. Which of these best describes your MOTHER'S highest level of schooling completed?
a. Elementary school
b. Some high school
c. High school graduate
d. Some college
e. Associate degree (e.g., AA, AS)
f. Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, AB, BS)
g. Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA)
h. Professional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, JD)
i. Doctorate degree (e.g., PHD, EdD)
55. Which of these best describes your FATHER'S highest level of schooling completed?
a. Elementary school
b. Some high school
c. High school graduate
d. Some college
e. Associate degree (e.g., AA, AS)
f. Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, AB, BS)
g. Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA)
h. Professional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, JD)
i. Doctorate degree (e.g., PHD, EdD)
56. Where have you spent most of your life?
a. Urban area
110
b. Suburbs
c. Small/middle sized town
d. Rural area
57. My status at the college/university in which I am enrolled. NOTE: If you are an
undergraduate student completing the GPI during orientation or the first 4 weeks of your
enrollment in this college/university please indicate “New Student.”
a. New student b. Freshman c. Sophomore
d. Junior
e. Senior
How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in the following since you enrolled
at Miami?
58. Events or activities sponsored by groups reflecting your own cultural
heritage
Four
or
more
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
One
None
term
terms
59. Events or activities sponsored by groups reflecting a cultural heritage
different from your own
Four
or
more
One
None
term
terms
Four
or
more
60. Community service activities
One
None
term
terms
61. Campus organized discussions on diversity issues
Four
or
more
One
None
term
terms
Four
or
more
62. Religious or spiritual activities
One
None
term
terms
63. Leadership programs that stress collaboration and team work.
Four
or
more
One
None
term
terms
64. Courses that include materials/readings on race and ethnicity issues
Four
or
more
One
None
term
terms
65. Courses that include opportunities for intensive dialogue among students
with different backgrounds and beliefs
Four
or
more
One
None
term
terms
66. Courses that include service learning opportunities
111
Four
or
more
One
None
term
terms
Four
or
more
67. Study/education abroad programs
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
Three
terms
Two
Terms
One
None
term
terms
Four
or
more
68. Undergraduate research opportunity program with a faculty member
One
None
term
terms
Four
or
more
69. Internship program
terms
70. I estimate my GPA is (please guess, even if you are not exactly sure):
71. My academic major(s) is/are:
72. If am a BIS major, my concentrations are:
73. The BIS class I am taking right now is: BIS 201
401
BIS 301
BIS
74. In regards to studying abroad while at Miami:
I do not intend to study abroad while at Miami.
I intend to study abroad while at Miami.
I have already studied abroad while at Miami.
75. Have you encountered international students in your time at MU Middletown and/or MU
Hamilton?
Yes
No
112
One
None
term
If yes, please describe:
74. Have you studied abroad before?
Yes
No
-- If yes, please describe:
75. Have you traveled abroad before?
Yes
No
-- If yes, please describe:
76. Have you lived abroad before?
Yes
-- If yes, please describe:
77. Is there anything else you would like us to know?
113
No
Appendix B – Institutional Review Board (IRB) Certifications
114
115
116
Appendix C – Statistical Test Tables
Table 1: Description of Dataset – Age, Gender & Ethnicity
Table 2: Description of Dataset – Family Income, Mother’s and Father’s Education &
Geographical Settings
Table 3: Description of Dataset – Class Status and GPA
Table 4: Knowing – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Table 5: Knowledge – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Table 6: Identity – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Table 7: Affect – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Table 8: Social Responsibility – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI
Subscale
Table 9: Social Interaction – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI
Subscale
Table 10: Modified Affect Subscale after Removing Items
Table 11: Modified Social Interaction Subscale after Removing Item
Table 12: Detailed Item Analysis of the Knowing Subscale
Table 13: Alternative Approach of Combining Items in the Knowing and Knowledge Subscales
Table 14: Alternative Approach of Combining Items in the Identity and Affect Subscales
Table 15: Alternative Approach of Combining Items in the Social Responsibility and Social
Interaction Subscales
Table 16: Factor Loading and Internal Consistency Tests for Global Citizenship Subscale
Table 17: Confirmed Global Citizenship Subscale
Table 18: All Dependent Variables in this Research
Table 19: All Independent Variables in this Research
Table 20: Mean Differences with Social Locations and Academic Factors across GPI Dependent
Variables
117
Table 21: Mean Differences for Students' Curriculum across GPI Dependent Variables
Table 22: Mean Differences for Students' Co-Curriculum across GPI Dependent Variables
Table 23: Correlations between the Survey Items in the Community Factor and GPI Subscales
118
Table 1
Description of Dataset – Age, Gender & Ethnicity
Age
18
19
20
21
22
>22
Missing
Total
Regional Campus
Students
Freq.
%
21
6.4
School of
Business Students
Freq.
%
175
28.0
49
15.0
82
13.1
45
45
30
128
8
326
13.8
13.8
9.2
39.0
2.5
100.0
14
112
48
19
175
625
2.2
17.9
7.7
3.1
28.0
100.0
168
152
1
51.5
46.6
.3
318
299
2
50.9
47.8
.3
Study Abroad
Participants
Freq.
%
9
1.3
1
69
1
240
35.0
205
29.8
50
7.3
103
15.0
10
1.5
686
100.0
Gender
Male
Female
Other
Decline to state
Calculated total
Missing
Total
Ethnicity
Multiple Ethnicities
African/African American/Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
European/White
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Prefer not to respond
Other
Calculated total
Missing
Total
207
465
30.3
67.8
.6
98.6
1.4
100.0
3.9
.7
2.9
84.8
.9
.3
4.2
.6
98.3
1.7
100.0
321
5
326
98.5
1.5
100.0
619
6
625
99.0
1.0
100.0
4
676
10
686
15
14
6
263
7
5
11
4.6
4.3
1.8
80.7
2.1
1.5
3.4
321
5
326
98.5
1.5
100.0
9
7
40
528
18
2
16
4
624
1
625
1.4
1.1
6.4
84.5
2.9
.3
2.6
.6
99.8
.2
100.0
27
5
20
582
6
2
29
4
675
11
686
119
Table 2
Description of Dataset – Family Income, Mothers’ and Fathers ‘Education & Geographical
Settings
Family Annual Income
Below $50,000
Between $50,000 and $120,000
Above $120,000
Missing
Total
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Regional Campus School of Business
Students
Students
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
85
26.1
43
6.9
118
36.2
168
26.9
33
10.1
297
47.5
90
27.6
117
18.7
326 100.0
625 100.0
$3,000
$10,000
$1,000,000
$3,000,000
$76,895
$210,279
$60,000
$150,000
120
Study Abroad
Participants
Freq.
%
78
11.4
226
33.8
234
34.1
148
21.6
686 100.0
$1,000
$3,000,000
$161,636
$100,000
Table 2 – (Continued)
Mother's Education
Elementary school
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
Associate degree (e.g., AA, AS)
Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, AB, BS)
Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA)
Professional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, JD)
Doctorate degree (e.g., PHD, EdD)
Missing
Total
Father's Education
Elementary school
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
Associate degree (e.g., AA, AS)
Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, AB, BS)
Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA)
Professional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, JD)
Doctorate degree (e.g., PHD, EdD)
Missing
Total
Geographical Settings
Urban area
Suburbs
Small/middle sized town
Rural area
Missing
Total
Regional
Campus
Students
Freq.
%
9
2.8
15
4.6
112
34.4
63
19.3
47
14.4
48
14.7
21
6.4
1
.3
3
.9
6
1.8
326
100.0
School of
Business
Students
Freq.
%
1
.2
4
.6
56
9.0
71
11.4
53
8.5
297
47.5
114
18.2
16
2.6
11
1.8
2
.3
625
100.0
Study Abroad
Participants
Freq.
%
4
.6
4
.6
78
11.4
69
10.1
43
6.3
315
45.9
125
18.2
23
3.4
18
2.6
7
1.0
686
100.0
8
25
133
46
27
52
18
4
6
7
326
2.5
7.7
40.8
14.1
8.3
16.0
5.5
1.2
1.8
2.1
100.0
1
4
52
48
24
263
157
52
22
2
625
.2
.6
8.3
7.7
3.8
42.1
25.1
8.3
3.5
.3
100.0
3
4
66
43
23
276
151
63
50
7
686
.4
.6
9.6
6.3
3.4
40.2
22.0
9.2
7.3
1.0
100.0
29
154
94
38
3
326
8.9
47.2
28.8
11.7
.9
100.0
65
426
106
26
2
625
10.4
68.2
17.0
4.2
.3
100.0
50
435
127
64
10
686
7.3
63.4
18.5
9.3
1.5
100.0
121
Table 3
Description of Dataset – Class Status and GPA
Class Status
New student
First-year student
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Missing
Total
GPA
Below 2.00
Between 2.00 and 3.00
Between 3.00 and 4.00
Above 4.00
Missing
Total
Mean
Median
SD
Regional Campus
Students
Freq.
%
4
1.2
51
15.6
94
28.8
113
34.7
60
18.4
3
.9
326
100.0
3
115
181
14
13
326
1.0
36.7
57.8
4.5
4.0
100.0
3.08
3.00
.56
School of Business
Students
Freq.
%
153
27.3
109
19.4
50
8.9
141
25.1
108
19.3
64
10.2
625
100.0
Study Abroad
Participants
Freq.
%
5
.8
13
2.0
74
11.4
262
40.4
279
43.0
37
5.4
686
100.0
43
232
6
405
686
3.38
3.42
.41
122
15.3
82.6
2.1
59.0
100.0
Table 4
Knowing – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Knowing Subscale Items
Structure Matrix
Factor
1
2
3
.607
.177
.029
Pattern Matrix
Factor
1
2
3
.635
-.071 -.006
6. Some people have a culture and others
do not.
.359
.808
.029
.052
.804
-.102
7. In different settings what is right and
wrong is simple to determine.
.400
.302
.043
.332
.174
-.009
12. I tend to judge the values of others
based on my own value system.
.401
.125
.074
.415
-.045
.051
18. I do not see cultural differences as
important to my daily life.
.284
.279
.112
.206
.188
.067
23. I can evaluate issues from several
different perspectives.
.401
.292
.079
.338
.155
.030
24. The role of the student is to receive
knowledge from authority.
.038
.336
.365
-.115
.330
.321
30. Cultural differences make me
question what is really true.
.054
.017
.300
.052
-.052
.305
35. I prefer complex rather than
straightforward interpretations of
debatable issues.
.088
.101
.633
.050
-.018
.632
1. When I notice cultural differences, my
culture tends to have the better approach.
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser
Normalization. Cronbach's α is .546. When Eigenvalues is bigger than 1, the 3 factors accounted
for 26.78% of the total variable variance.
123
Table 5
Knowledge – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Knowledge Subscale Items
8. I am informed of current issues that impact international relations.
Factor Matrix
Factor
1
.550
13. I understand the reasons and causes of conflict among nations of
different cultures.
.595
19. I understand how various cultures of this world interact socially.
.636
25. I know how to analyze the basic characteristics of a culture.
.635
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective.
.705
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. One factor extracted. Cronbach's α is .756.
When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the one factor accounted for 39.22% of the total variable
variance.
124
Table 6
Identity – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Identity Subscale Items
Factor Matrix
Factor
1
2. I have a definite purpose in my life.
.671
3. I can explain my personal values to people who are different from me.
.735
9. I know who I am as a person.
.726
14. I am confident that I can take care of myself in a completely new
situation.
.608
33. I am developing a meaningful philosophy of life.
.559
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. One factor extracted. Cronbach's α is .792.
When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the 1 factor accounted for 44.01% of the total variable
variance.
125
Table 7
Affect – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Affect Subscale Items
Factor Matrix
Factor
1
2
.472
.656
Pattern Matrix
Factor
1
2
.113
.587
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to
better understand myself.
.496
.216
.582
-.140
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
.547
.264
.617
-.114
20. I get offended often by people who do not
understand my point-of-view.
.252
.542
-.127
.620
26. I am sensitive to those who are
discriminated against.
.551
.377
.512
.064
27. I do not feel threatened emotionally when
presented with multiple perspectives.
.547
.500
.385
.265
28. I prefer to work with people who have
different cultural values from me.
.546
.273
.606
-.098
29. I am accepting of people with different
religious and spiritual traditions.
.603
.580
.397
.337
36. I constantly need affirmative confirmation
about myself from others.
.177
.460
-.167
.562
10. I feel threatened around people from
backgrounds very different from my own.
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser
Normalization. Cronbach's α is .736. When Eigenvalues is bigger than 1, the 2 factors accounted
for 32.52% of the total variable variance.
126
Table 8
Social Responsibility – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Social Responsibility Items
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to society.
Factor Matrix
Factor
1
.692
16. I work for the rights of others.
.628
22. I put my beliefs into action by standing up for my principles.
.438
31. I put the needs of others above my own personal wants.
.502
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.
.708
40. Volunteering is not an important priority in my life.
.423
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. One factor extracted. Cronbach's α is .729.
When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the 1 factor accounted for 33.27% of the total variable
variance.
127
Table 9
Social Interaction – Factor Loading and Internal Consistency with Original GPI Subscale
Social Interaction Items
Structure Matrix
Factor
1
2
.081
.397
Pattern Matrix
Factor
1
2
-.177
.490
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am
successful at navigating their cultures.
.518
.482
.365
.290
21. I am able to take on various roles as appropriate
in different cultural and ethnic settings.
.610
.348
.591
.037
34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural
backgrounds in my life.
.565
.589
.353
.403
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach
me about our cultural differences.
.712
.297
.769
-.109
39. I am open to people who strive to live lives very
different from my own life style.
.617
.192
.714
-.184
4. Most of my friends are from my own ethnic
background.
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Two factors extracted. Cronbach's α is .665.
When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the 2 factors accounted for 37.31% of the total variable
variance.
128
Table 10
Modified Affect Subscale after Removing Items
Affect Items
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better understand myself.
Factor
1
.465
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
.512
26. I am sensitive to those who are discriminated against.
.580
27. I do not feel threatened emotionally when presented with multiple
perspectives.
.574
28. I prefer to work with people who have different cultural values from me.
.524
29. I am accepting of people with different religious and spiritual traditions.
.622
Note: Removed items 10, 20 and 36 from the original GPI Affect subscale to make the
remaining items more unidimensional. One factor extracted. Cronbach's α is .715. When
Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the one factor accounted for 30.13% of the total variable variance.
129
Table 11
Modified Social Interaction Subscale after Removing Item
Modified Social Interaction Items
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am successful at navigating
their cultures.
Factor Matrix
Factor
1
.537
21. I am able to take on various roles as appropriate in different cultural
and ethnic settings.
.628
34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural backgrounds in my
life.
.567
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach me about our
cultural differences.
.690
39. I am open to people who strive to live lives very different from my
own life style.
.582
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. One factor extracted. Cronbach's α increased
to .737 from .665 after removing Item 4. When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the one factor
accounted for 36.38% of the total variable variance.
130
Table 12
Detailed Item Analysis of the Knowing Subscale
Knowing Items
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have
the better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not.
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to
determine.
12. I tend to judge the values of others based on my own value
system.
18. I do not see cultural differences as important to my daily life.
23. I can evaluate issues from several different perspectives.
24. The role of the student is to receive knowledge from
authority.
30. Cultural differences make me question what is really true.
35. I prefer complex rather than straightforward interpretations
of debatable issues.
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have
the better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not.
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to
determine.
12. I tend to judge the values of others based on my own value
system.
18. I do not see cultural differences as important to my daily life.
24. The role of the student is to receive knowledge from
authority.
30. Cultural differences make me question what is really true.
35. I prefer complex rather than straightforward interpretations
of debatable issues.
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have
the better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not.
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to
determine.
12. I tend to judge the values of others based on my own value
system.
18. I do not see cultural differences as important to my daily life.
23. I can evaluate issues from several different perspectives.
24. The role of the student is to receive knowledge from
authority.
35. I prefer complex rather than straightforward interpretations
of debatable issues.
131
No.
Items
9
Attempted
Changes
No
Changes
Cronbach's
α
.546
8
Removed
Item 23
.530
8
Removed
Item 30
.563
Table 12 – (Continued)
Knowing Items
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have the
better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not.
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to
determine.
12. I tend to judge the values of others based on my own value
system.
18. I do not see cultural differences as important to my daily life.
23. I can evaluate issues from several different perspectives.
24. The role of the student is to receive knowledge from authority.
30. Cultural differences make me question what is really true.
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have the
better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not.
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to
determine.
18. I do not see cultural differences as important to my daily life.
23. I can evaluate issues from several different perspectives.
24. The role of the student is to receive knowledge from authority.
35. I prefer complex rather than straightforward interpretations of
debatable issues.
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have the
better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not.
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to
determine.
12. I tend to judge the values of others based on my own value
system.
18. I do not see cultural differences as important to my daily life.
24. The role of the student is to receive knowledge from authority.
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have the
better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not.
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to
determine.
132
No.
Items
8
Attempted
Changes
Removed
Item 35
Cronbach's
α
.546
7
Removed
Items 12
and 30
(Based on
Version 7
calculation)
.536
6
Removed
Items 23,
30, and 35
.580
3
Only Items
1, 6 and 7
(Based on
email with
Author)
.466
Table 13
Alternative Approach of Combining Items in the Knowing and Knowledge Subscales
Knowing and Knowledge Items
Structure Matrix
Factor
1
2
3
4
-.045 .529
.158
.108
1
-.086
.151
.319
.525
.043
.089
.279
.520
-.162
7. In different settings what is right
and wrong is simple to determine.
-.080
.360
.377
.248
-.179
.303
.331
.149
12. I tend to judge the values of
others based on my own value
system.
18. I do not see cultural differences
as important to my daily life.
.063
.419
.047
.026
.059
.425
.000
-.055
.151
.257
.265
.128
.103
.225
.218
.010
23. I can evaluate issues from
several different perspectives.
.054
.414
.211
.083
.017
.398
.168
-.030
24. The role of the student is to
receive knowledge from authority.
.558
.004
.389
.212
.503
-.056
.303
.030
30. Cultural differences make me
question what is really true.
.103
.034
.071
.568
-.013
-.053
-.083
.602
35. I prefer complex rather than
straightforward interpretations of
debatable issues.
8. I am informed of current issues
that impact international relations.
.362
.155
.009
.350
.315
.111
-.138
.300
.579
.073
-.143
.012
.633
.090
-.240
-.076
13. I understand the reasons and
causes of conflict among nations of
different cultures.
19. I understand how various
cultures of this world interact
socially.
25. I know how to analyze the
basic characteristics of a culture.
.590
-.040
-.036
.055
.622
-.042
-.124
-.041
.613
.030
.180
.127
.605
.001
.086
-.028
.657
-.123
.306
.186
.623
-.176
.217
.020
32. I can discuss cultural
differences from an informed
perspective.
.705
.178
.259
.281
.663
.126
.110
.086
1. When I notice cultural
differences, my culture tends to
have the better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and
others do not.
Pattern Matrix
Factor
2
3
.517
.106
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser
Normalization. Cronbach's α is .659. When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the 4 factors
accounted for 33.13% of the total variable variance.
133
4
.015
Table 14
Alternative Approach of Combining Items in the Identity and Affect Subscales
Identity and Affect Items
2. I have a definite purpose in my life.
3. I can explain my personal values to people
who are different from me.
9. I know who I am as a person.
14. I am confident that I can take care of
myself in a completely new situation.
33. I am developing a meaningful philosophy
of life.
10. I feel threatened around people from
backgrounds very different from my own.
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to
better understand myself.
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
20. I get offended often by people who do not
understand my point-of-view.
26. I am sensitive to those who are
discriminated against.
27. I do not feel threatened emotionally when
presented with multiple perspectives.
28. I prefer to work with people who have
different cultural values from me.
29. I am accepting of people with different
religious and spiritual traditions.
36. I constantly need affirmative confirmation
about myself from others.
Structure Matrix
Factor
1
2
3
.696 .283 .252
Pattern Matrix
Factor
1
2
3
.849
-.155 -.111
.725
.463
.405
.698
.048
-.004
.735
.600
.402
.530
.412
.464
.756
.415
-.086
.217
.056
.102
.568
.556
.390
.376
.354
-.038
.399
.473
.666
.025
.076
.604
.302
.512
.236
.032
.589
-.153
.329
.173
.561
.257
.280
.556
.021
-.149
.630
-.092
-.129
.695
.409
.542
.380
.123
.450
.030
.459
.545
.508
.148
.309
.234
.163
.553
.288
-.253
.724
-.032
.435
.588
.582
.041
.350
.339
.248
.179
.449
.081
-.207
.535
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser
Normalization. Cronbach's α is .827. When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the 3 factors
accounted for 33.84% of the total variable variance.
134
Table 15
Alternative Approach of Combining Items in the Social Responsibility and Social Interaction
Subscales
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to society.
Structure
Matrix
Factor
1
2
.369 .720
16. I work for the rights of others.
.496
.609
.187
.492
22. I put my beliefs into action by standing up for my
principles.
31. I put the needs of others above my own personal wants.
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.
40. Volunteering is not an important priority in my life.
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am successful at
navigating their cultures.
21. I am able to take on various roles as appropriate in
different cultural and ethnic settings.
34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural
backgrounds in my life.
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach me
about our cultural differences.
39. I am open to people who strive to live lives very
different from my own life style.
.451
.413
.316
.214
.324
.563
.221
.545
.506
.699
.438
.258
.009
.204
-.090
.634
.501
.571
.495
-.141
.663
.369
.713
-.080
.558
.421
.485
.116
.662
.420
.659
.005
.577
.411
.527
.080
Social Responsibility and Social Interaction Items
Pattern Matrix
Factor
1
2
-.140 .808
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser
Normalization. Cronbach's α is .808. When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the 2 factors
accounted for 36.05% of the total variable variance.
135
Table 16
Factor Loading and Internal Consistency Tests for Global Citizenship Subscale
Global Citizenship Items
Structure Matrix
Factor
1
2
.624
.498
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
Pattern Matrix
Factor
1
2
.514
.175
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to
society.
.345
.720
-.176
.830
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better
understand myself.
.547
.378
.512
.056
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am
successful at navigating their cultures.
.619
.316
.694
-.120
16. I work for the rights of others.
.507
.637
.176
.527
21. I am able to take on various roles as
appropriate in different cultural and ethnic settings.
.645
.386
.664
-.031
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an
informed perspective.
.659
.387
.687
-.044
34. I intentionally involve people from many
cultural backgrounds in my life.
.590
.465
.492
.156
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures
teach me about our cultural differences.
.595
.406
.562
.053
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a
difference.
.513
.684
.138
.597
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser
Normalization. Cronbach's α is .836. When Eigenvalues are bigger than 1, the 2 factors
accounted for 41.33% of the total variable variance.
136
Table 17
Confirmed Global Citizenship Subscale
Confirmed Global Citizenship Items
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
Factor
1
.644
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to society.
.470
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better understand myself.
.541
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am successful at navigating
their cultures.
.562
16. I work for the rights of others.
.592
21. I am able to take on various roles as appropriate in different cultural and
ethnic settings.
.611
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective.
.621
34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural backgrounds in my
life.
.606
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach me about our cultural
differences.
.587
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.
.606
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser
Normalization. Cronbach's α is .759. When extracted with one factor, this factor accounted for
34.34% of the total variable variance.
137
Table 18
All Dependent Variables in this Research
Dependent Variables
Items
Attempted
Changes
Cumulative %
Cronbach's
α
10
No changes
34.34
.759
5
No changes
39.22
.756
5
No changes
44.01
.792
Global Citizenship
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to
society.
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better
understand myself.
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am
successful at navigating their cultures.
16. I work for the rights of others.
17. I see myself as a global citizen
21. I am able to take on various roles as
appropriate in different cultural and ethnic
settings.
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an
informed perspective.
34. I intentionally involve people from many
cultural backgrounds in my life.
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures
teach me about our cultural differences.
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a
difference.
Knowledge
8. I am informed of current issues that impact
international relations.
13. I understand the reasons and causes of conflict
among nations of different cultures.
19. I understand how various cultures of this
world interact socially.
25. I know how to analyze the basic characteristics
of a culture.
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an
informed perspective.
Identity
2. I have a definite purpose in my life.
3. I can explain my personal values to people who
are different from me.
9. I know who I am as a person.
14. I am confident that I can take care of myself in
a completely new situation.
33. I am developing a meaningful philosophy of
life.
138
Affect
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better
understand myself.
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
26. I am sensitive to those who are discriminated
against.
27. I do not feel threatened emotionally when
presented with multiple perspectives.
28. I prefer to work with people who have
different cultural values from me.
29. I am accepting of people with different
religious and spiritual traditions.
6
Removed Items
10, 20 and 36
30.13
.715
6
No changes
33.27
.729
5
Removed Item
4
36.38
.737
Social Responsibility
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to
society.
16. I work for the rights of others.
22. I put my beliefs into action by standing up for
my principles.
31. I put the needs of others above my own
personal wants.
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a
difference.
40. Volunteering is not an important priority in my
life.
Social Interaction
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am
successful at navigating their cultures.
21. I am able to take on various roles as
appropriate in different cultural and ethnic
settings.
34. I intentionally involve people from many
cultural backgrounds in my life.
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures
teach me about our cultural differences.
39. I am open to people who strive to live lives
very different from my own life style.
139
Table 19
All Independent Variables in this Research
Independent Variables
Social Locations & Academic Factors
Item 49 - Age
Item 50 - Gender
Item 52 - Ethnicity
Item 53 - Family income
Item 54 - Mother's highest education
Item 55 - Father's highest education
Item 56 – Geographical settings
Item 57 - Class status
Item 70 - GPA
Item 71 - Academic division
Curriculum Items (Cronbach’s α = .762)
Item 64 - How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in courses that include
materials/readings race and ethnicity issues?
Item 65 - How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in courses that include opportunities
for intensive dialogue among students with different backgrounds and beliefs?
Item 66 - How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in a service learning opportunity?
Co-Curriculum Items (Cronbach’s α = .765)
Item 58 - How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in events or activities sponsored by
groups reflecting your own cultural heritage?
Item 59 - How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in events or activities sponsored by
groups reflecting a cultural heritage different from your own?
Item 60 - How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in community service activities?
Item 61 - How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in campus organized discussions on
diversity issues?
Item 63 - How many terms (e.g., semesters) have you participated in leadership programs that stress
collaboration and teamwork?
Community Items (Cronbach’s α = .831)
Item 41 - I have a strong sense of affiliation with my college/university.
Item 44 - I feel that my college/university community honors diversity and internationalism.
Item 45 - I understand the mission of my college/university.
Item 46 - I am both challenged and supported at my college/university.
Item 47 - I have been encouraged to develop my strengths and talents at my college/university.
Item 48 - I feel I am a part of a close and supportive community of colleges and friends.
Study Abroad Item
Item 67 - How many terms (.e.g., semesters) have you participated in study/education abroad?
140
Table 20
Mean Differences with Social Locations and Academic Factors across GPI Dependent Variables
Global
Citizen.
3.56
3.65
Knowledge
3.58
3.68
Identity
4.03
4.08
Affect
3.68
3.76
Social
Resp.
3.63
3.66
Social
Inter.
3.64
3.72
693
916
3.51
3.60
3.65
3.55
4.04
4.04
3.63
3.72
3.50
3.70
3.59
3.68
European/White
Non-European White
1373
264
3.54
3.64
3.58
3.63
4.05
3.96
3.67
3.73
3.62
3.59
3.62
3.73
Urban area
Suburbs
Small/middle sized town
Rural area
144
1,015
327
128
3.68
3.53
3.58
3.56
3.69
3.58
3.60
3.58
4.05
4.02
4.06
4.06
3.80
3.65
3.73
3.67
3.62
3.60
3.65
3.67
3.76
3.62
3.67
3.63
< $50,000
$50,000 to $120,000
> $120,000
206
512
564
3.63
3.54
3.57
3.62
3.58
3.65
4.08
4.01
4.10
3.78
3.68
3.70
3.67
3.61
3.64
3.73
3.63
3.66
mother ed. < high school
mother ed. high school to
bachelors
mother ed. > bachelors
283
3.52
3.54
4.03
3.64
3.62
3.60
1006
3.55
3.59
4.03
3.68
3.60
3.63
332
3.62
3.66
4.05
3.73
3.66
3.72
father ed. < high school
father ed. high school to
45
1053
3.62
3.52
3.54
3.56
4.06
4.03
3.72
3.65
3.71
3.60
3.64
3.60
Traditional Students (<=22)
Non-traditional Students
Male
Female
N
1,194
250
141
N
Global
Citizen.
Knowledge
Identity
Affect
Social
Resp.
Social
Inter.
bachelors
father ed. > bachelors
523
3.62
3.65
4.05
3.74
3.63
3.71
School of Business students
Regional Campus students
Study Abroad returnees
625
326
686
3.45
3.54
3.66
3.54
3.61
3.63
4.02
4.04
4.05
3.61
3.69
3.74
3.53
3.67
3.67
3.55
3.59
3.74
New students
First-year students
Sophomores
Juniors
Seniors
Graduate students
162
173
218
516
447
16
3.44
3.47
3.55
3.56
3.65
3.51
3.56
3.51
3.59
3.58
3.67
3.54
4.05
3.97
3.99
4.02
4.12
3.95
3.59
3.61
3.76
3.68
3.73
3.67
3.57
3.60
3.57
3.61
3.68
3.53
3.53
3.49
3.66
3.65
3.74
3.62
GPA 2.00 to 2.99
GPA 3.00 - 3.99
GPA 4.00 and above
159
415
17
3.58
3.62
3.61
3.62
3.66
3.59
4.07
4.06
4.35
3.72
3.74
3.68
3.66
3.68
3.78
3.65
3.70
3.62
142
Table 21
Mean Differences for Students' Curriculum across GPI Dependent Variables
Curriculum (Items 64, 65 & 66)
Registered for courses with race and ethnicity issues
N
442
Global
Citizen.
3.42
Not Registered for courses with race and ethnicity
issues
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
Registered for courses on different backgrounds and
beliefs
1159
3.61
3.64
4.07
3.73
3.65
3.70
411
358
187
203
596
3.49
3.59
3.71
3.79
3.41
3.56
3.61
3.72
3.78
3.47
3.98
4.07
4.15
4.18
3.95
3.63
3.69
3.84
3.86
3.57
3.56
3.63
3.73
3.79
3.53
3.60
3.67
3.83
3.85
3.48
Not Registered for courses on different background and
beliefs
1008
3.64
3.66
4.09
3.75
3.66
3.73
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
Registered for courses with service learning
opportunities
388
293
143
184
803
3.52
3.60
3.81
3.83
3.46
3.54
3.66
3.76
3.86
3.54
4.04
4.04
4.17
4.21
3.99
3.65
3.69
3.92
3.92
3.62
3.59
3.62
3.78
3.80
3.52
3.63
3.69
3.89
3.90
3.57
Not Registered for courses with service learning
opportunities
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
796
3.65
3.65
4.10
3.75
3.71
3.72
414
213
86
83
3.60
3.63
3.78
3.84
3.63
3.59
3.77
3.75
4.08
4.05
4.16
4.22
3.70
3.73
3.89
3.92
3.65
3.71
3.82
3.92
3.68
3.68
3.83
3.86
143
Knowledge
3.48
Identity
3.97
Affect
3.57
Social
Resp.
3.52
Social
Inter.
3.48
Table 22
Mean Differences for Students' Co-Curriculum across GPI Dependent Variables
Co-Curriculum (Items 58, 59, 60, 61, and 63)
Not participated in events or activities sponsored by groups
reflecting your own cultural heritage
N
1,002
Global
Citizen.
3.51
Knowledge
3.56
Identity
4.02
Affect
3.66
Social
Resp.
3.59
Social
Inter.
3.59
Participated in events or activities sponsored by groups
reflecting your own cultural heritage
604
3.65
3.67
4.10
3.73
3.68
3.73
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
Not participated in events or activities sponsored by groups
reflecting a cultural heritage different from your own
205
147
59
193
851
3.59
3.61
3.78
3.69
3.43
3.65
3.64
3.73
3.69
3.48
4.04
4.10
4.23
4.12
3.99
3.72
3.71
3.87
3.71
3.58
3.65
3.65
3.80
3.69
3.54
3.65
3.67
3.83
3.82
3.51
Participated in events or activities sponsored by groups
reflecting a cultural heritage different from your own
757
3.70
3.72
4.10
3.80
3.70
3.79
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
Not participated in community service activities
Participated in community service activities
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
308
221
99
129
618
988
294
230
156
308
3.58
3.71
3.86
3.86
3.43
3.63
3.54
3.66
3.62
3.71
3.63
3.69
3.85
3.86
3.53
3.63
3.54
3.65
3.62
3.71
4.02
4.08
4.23
4.21
3.95
4.10
4.03
4.08
4.11
4.17
3.72
3.77
3.96
3.93
3.59
3.74
3.65
3.74
3.80
3.79
3.64
3.69
3.82
3.76
3.50
3.69
3.60
3.66
3.63
3.82
3.66
3.76
3.97
4.00
3.51
3.72
3.63
3.73
3.72
3.78
144
Co-Curriculum (Items 58, 59, 60, 61, and 63)
Not participated in campus organized discussion on diversity
issues
N
934
Global
Citizen.
3.45
Knowledge
3.51
Identity
3.99
Affect
3.60
Social
Resp.
3.55
Social
Inter.
3.54
Participated in campus organized discussion on diversity
issues
667
3.70
3.70
4.11
3.80
3.71
3.78
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
Not participated in leadership programs that stress
collaboration and team work.
335
183
60
89
634
3.61
3.74
3.92
3.80
3.40
3.61
3.72
3.97
3.82
3.48
4.07
4.09
4.32
4.17
3.94
3.76
3.78
4.00
3.86
3.57
3.67
3.67
3.86
3.85
3.50
3.69
3.82
4.02
3.86
3.49
Participated in leadership programs that stress collaboration
and team work.
960
3.66
3.67
4.11
3.76
3.69
3.74
307
225
131
297
3.57
3.60
3.75
3.76
3.62
3.61
3.75
3.73
4.06
4.06
4.16
4.19
3.70
3.67
3.86
3.85
3.63
3.63
3.70
3.81
3.65
3.70
3.83
3.83
One term
Two terms
Three terms
Four or more terms
145
Table 23
Correlations between the Survey Items in the Community Factor and GPI Subscales
Item
41
Item
44
Item
45
Item 44
.22
Item 45
.41
.45
Item 46
.51
.33
.56
Item 47
.49
.32
.51
Item 48
.57
.26
.45
Knowledge
.15
.12
.24
Identity
.29
.19
.33
Affect
.15
.13
.21
Social Resp.
.18
.13
.22
Social Inter.
.18
.12
.22
Global Citizenship
.18
.12
.23
Note: Below are the community factor items.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Item
46
Item
47
Item
48
Knowledge
Identity
.78
.59
.24
.43
.30
.27
.30
.28
.63
.23
.41
.29
.25
.28
.26
.21
.37
.28
.25
.27
.26
.53
.58
.40
.60
.68
.54
.54
.51
.56
Affect
.54
.76
.81
Item 41. I have a strong sense of affiliation with my college/university.
Item 44. I feel that my college/university community honors diversity and internationalism.
Item 45. I understand the mission of my college/university.
Item 46. I am both challenged and supported at my college/university.
Item 47. I have been encouraged to develop my strengths and talents at my college/university.
Item 48. I feel I am a part of a close and supportive community of colleagues and friends.
146
Social
Resp.
Social
Inter.
.52
.73
.88