Report of the study
Knowledge-Sharing for Improved Pedagogical
Practices in Global Citizenship
President’s Teaching and Learning Scholar Award (2011)
December 31, 2012
By Cindy Hanson, PhD (Principal researcher) and
Barbara McNeil, PhD (co-researcher)
Faculty of Education, University of Regina
Executive Summary
This
report
shares
insights
into
how
university faculty understand
and
integrate
internationalization and global citizenship ideas into their pedagogical practices. The study, supported by
a President’s Teaching and Learning Scholar Award, worked with a broad base of faculty at the
University of Regina to come to an understanding of what it means for scholarship to embrace
internationalization in teaching and then to explore ways of sharing that knowledge through pedagogical
practices in the classroom. Data was gathered through a focus group and interviews. Data was transcribed
and sorted thematically. The results demonstrate faculty commitments to global citizenship, willingness
to share teaching strategies, and ethical concerns about internationalization. Through this project the
researchers hoped to inform capacity to understand, develop, and deliver teaching strategies that enhance
values associated with global citizenship. The study results were shared through a conference
presentation, development of a video posted on the web, and a peer-reviewed article.
2|Page
Hanson and McNeil
Background to the Study
For the past two decades educational institutions across Canada have become increasingly
involved in working toward internationalizing the academy and that direction continues today, albeit with
increasing scope and complexity (Knight, 2008). As part of a plan to indigenize and internationalize the
University of Regina, Mâmawohkamâtowin: Our Work, Our People, Our Communities, the strategic plan
for 2010-2014, discusses internationalization as a direction for growth.
According to Knight (2008) the internationalization of higher education is a “process of
integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching,
research, and service), and delivery of higher education at the institutional and national levels” (xi).
Internationalization, as expressed by posters from the University of Regin’a international office (UR
International), exhort
the values of global citizenship. Some of
the publicity documents of UR
International suggest that internationalization, is intended to help the university community “realize [that],
the world is the community.”1 Although the implications for internationalization are many (from student
recruitment and research to academic mobility, to international networking and so on ) our study,
Knowledge-Sharing for Improved Pedagogical Practices in Global Citizenship, was concerned with what
internationalization meant in regards to possibilities and challenges for the scholarship of teaching and
learning. The researchers were particularly interested in learning about the impact of internationalization
on the development of global citizenship. The study was funded by the President’s Teaching and
Learning Scholar Fund.
Study Participants
The study participants were faculty from diverse colleges and departments across the university.
were contacted by the researchers. They were also provided with information about the study, including
behavioural ethics consent forms. The
faculty represented included the arts, social sciences and
humanities, the language institute, the office of internationalization, education and business. No faculty
from science or math participated in the study. Information about the faculty involved ( experiences and
teaching portfolios regarding internationalization) were gathered through face sheets that were filled out
prior to the focus group and interviews.
Research Methods and Methodology
Excerpted from Realize, the President’s Community report. Sept 2009. Downloaded from the internet
http://www.uregina.ca/presoff/president/documents/PresidentsCommunityReport-Sept09.pdf
1
3|Page
Hanson and McNeil
The diverse faculty met in a focus group first. This was followed by in-depth semi-structured
interviews wherein the researchers gathered data about specific teaching strategies related to enhancing
values associated with global citizenship. Specifically the research asked: 1) How do Faculty define
pedagogies and teaching practices about global citizenship? and 2) How do Faculty support and
implement teaching for global citizenship? For example, what kind of teaching strategies do they use to
promote the ideas of internationalization and global citizenship? The research received ethics approval
from the University of Regina behavioural ethics committee in January 2011 and data collection began
shortly thereafter.
The researchers held a strong commitment to popularizing the research and to that end they developed a
video that would provide knowledge sharing and dissemination to a wider audience. This also made the
research available to an international audience.2 The research was also disseminated through a conference
presentation at the 2011 conference of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education3 and a
peer-reviewed article appeared in Volume 5 of Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching4.
Researcher position
As recipients of the President’s Teaching and Learning Scholar Award the researchers engaged in
this research with the goal of increasing pedagogical knowledge surrounding teaching and learning about
global citizenship. The researchers approached the study from their perspective positions on education,
international work and personal experience. Dr. Hanson’s doctoral work in Educational Studies at UBC
was informed by her work in gender equality internationally. Her work in the past two decades includes
international development consultancies in 16 countries. She teaches in Adult Education and Human
Resource Development at the University of Regina and recently designed and delivered a course in
International and Transnational Perspectives on Adult Learning to her courseload. Dr. McNeil teaches in
the area of Language and Literacy. Her international experience and insights about global citizenship
were first acquired as a participant in Canada World Youth, then deepened later through her volunteer
teaching with World University Service of Canada in Southern Africa, and most recently, as a result of
involvement in the joint University of Regina and University of Malawi (Polytechnic) CIDA funded
2
The video is available for public viewing on the internet. At press time it was still being finalized for publication.
3
Hanson, C. (June 16, 2011). Paper presentation. Toward Understanding and Applying Internationalization into the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Society for
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
(Saskatoon).
4
Hanson, C., & McNeil, B. (June, 2012). Faculty understanding and implementation of
internationalization and global citizenship. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, (vol. 5).
4|Page
Hanson and McNeil
project; Hanson also worked on this project. Both of the researchers have been members of the Board of
Directors for the Centre for International Education and Training at the U of R.
Study Findings
The raw data was transcribed and sorted thematically. The recurring themes identified from the
transcripts and analysis of focus group and interview data included: 1) the role and responsibility of the
university; 2) ethical concerns around internationalizing; 3) the value of taking a global citizenship
approach; 4) development of a critical consciousness as it relates to hegemony and ethnocentrism. The
next section looks at each of the themes briefly and includes relevant literature on the research topic. In
discussing the themes, quotations from participants are sometimes used (with pseudonyms) to illustrate
their perspectives .
Institutional role and responsibility
The International Association of Universities 3rd Global Survey (2010) demonstrated by a
“substantial margin improving student preparedness for a globalized/inter nationalized world was the
most important rationale for internationalization by respondent [of] HEls, followed by “Internationalizing
the curriculum and improve academic quality and enhance international profile and reputation” (p. 3).
This section examines how participants in the study viewed the relationship between the university and
faculty, including a sharing of teaching strategies toward internationalization which many were already
implementing.
Although the university was generally commended for including internationalization in its strategic
planning and core functions (a general trend noted by Childress (2009) and Green and Schonberg (2006),
among others), several study participants questioned how extensive the consultations with faculty had
been, what internationalization meant in practice to the institution, and the motivations behind pushes in
this direction. A discussion of the university’s role in knowledge generation and sharing as well as
accountability mechanisms resonated for many participants. While those interviewed resoundingly
demonstrated a personal commitment to the practice of internationalizing their perspective curricula and
courses, they did express concern over the lack of support from the university and the complexities of
doing this within a context of increasingly heavy academic workloads. Participants recognized that
additional support by way of experience sharing sessions or workshops such as the opportunity garnered
by the focus group, could be an important way for the university to support their work.
5|Page
Hanson and McNeil
Although the increasing emphasis on the university toward internationalization was generally viewed
favourably, questions were raised about the motivations of the institution toward this direction. In
particular, concern was expressed that the institution’s goal may not be global citizenship with a social
justice slant. Instead, concerns were expressed about the way university’s increasingly emphasized
branding, profiling and recruitment of foreign students without explicit “ethical responsibilities, including
making sense of those connections” (Ken). While more support was seen as favourable in terms of time,
money and resources from the institution, there was also a sentiment that academic freedoms around
internationalization were important to maintain.
Participants wondered if the university should be integrating accountability mechanisms into processes
such as performance reviews so that faculty who took the role of internationalization seriously would be
recognized for their corresponding efforts. While the University was generally commended for including
internationalization into its strategic planning and core functions, several participants questioned how
extensive the consultations were in doing this and what it would actually mean in practice. Others
suggested more efforts be placed on graduate programs that offer international perspectives and enhanced
opportunities for graduate students wanting international field work experiences. Overall, study
participants demonstrated a personal commitment to the practice of internationalizing their respective
curricula. Nonetheless, they expressed concerns about the lack of supports for their efforts and the
complexities of internationalizing while managing increasingly heavy academic workloads. A key study
by Childress (2009) confirms that implementation of internationalization generally is carried out by
faculty, and therefore, institutional investments of resources to support faculty efforts toward the
operationalization of internationalization is central to its success
Ethical concerns
Stier (2004) suggests that universities use three perspectives with regard to internationalization:
idealism, educationalism, and instrumentalism. Instrumentalists consider higher education a means to
ensure economic growth or to transmit ideologies of governments, transnational corporations, or other
interest groups. The faculty we interviewed predominantly exhibited and supported the first two
categories suggested by Stier, but they were critical of instrumentalism. One faculty member said, “When
I hear global citizenship…I hear responsibility, I hear participation, I hear justice, and I think what it
encourages me to do is to… talk to students about why we are here, what is our effect on others?”
(Janine). Such idealism, ethical orientation, and concern for self and others were contrasted with
economic self-interest, which many perceived as the driving force behind internationalization. Again and
6|Page
Hanson and McNeil
again, faculty members brought forward normative discourses about market models as oppressive and
competitive, such as illustrated in this example:
There is a school of thought that maintains that this interest by universities in
internationalization is a money grab because foreign students are supposed to be
paying differential fees. The question then is the issue of ethical responsibility. If you
look at where these students are coming from (developing countries, for some of
them), how ethical is it to charge them for whatever as a way of perhaps making up for
shortfalls in government grants? (Alabie)
According to Alabie, the imperative for the internationalization of universities is economic self-interest
which Matus and Talbert (2009) say is characteristic of northern universities which actively participate in
neo-liberal practices linked to globalization. Generally, participants critiqued the way universities
increasingly emphasized branding, profiling, and recruitment of foreign students without explicitly
addressing “ethical responsibilities, and helping faculty and students make sense of those connections”
(Keith).
Study participants understood how knowledge and power exercised through curricula and pedagogical
practices could disrupt normative, hegemonic discourses about internationalization. Thus, many
suggested teaching in ways that are intentionally critical in order to resist and disrupt the tendency to reinscribe colonial relations of power.
Developing global citizenship
Karlberg (2008) suggests that global citizenship has become a “significant discursive construct”
in the university and elsewhere (p. 310), and our research supported this notion. On the whole, faculty’s
understanding of global citizenship draws on discourses in which global citizenship involves “being
empowered” and where citizens have responsibilities toward global relations, peace, environmentalism,
and understanding the interconnectedness of issues. These understandings converge with Toh’s (1996)
ideas about global citizenship explained as “awareness of and commitment to social justice for
marginalized groups, grassroots empowerment, nonviolent and authentic democracy, environmental care,
and North-South relations based on principles of equity, respect and sharing” (p. 185). One participant,
Rainy, explained that “now collectively, we’ve come together and realize we can put resources as a
university towards endeavours that advance global citizenship” and that “[allow] us not only to design
new courses but also to address some of the systemic injustices through that lens – citizenship lens.”
Another participant explained that through the emphasis on global citizenship, “we are no longer
7|Page
Hanson and McNeil
[operating] as one who serves the province in terms of citizenship, but as one who serves a global
community. This is really broadening that sense of accountability but also empathy at a deeper level”
(Joseph). These examples typify the inclusionary discourses of caring, social justice, equity, compassion,
humanitarianism, and cosmopolitanism (Karlberg, 2008) that imbue notions of global citizenship within a
transformative model of education (Hanson, 2010).
The participants in the study predominantly represented faculty in liberal arts disciplines and were not
representative of faculty in hard disciplines, such as math and science, who Clifford (2009) says represent
viewpoints that explain knowledge as fixed and less open to difference. This may explain why the
majority of faculty in the study described characteristics of reflexivity, responsibility, and agency as
desirable for global citizenship. Others, however, offered a more educationalist view where
transformation was not the intent. Instead they expressed the view that internationalization is useful for
offering students “a unique and enriching learning experience” (p. 92). These expressions stress the
importance of personal learning through intercultural understanding. For instance, one participant stated
that “there is always that culture component; students in every lesson are reading about culture, economy,
and geography…they do some research about a country…and it is a good way to learn about the rest of
the world” (Kirsty). Such views do not necessarily challenge power structures inherent in international
relations, and
the participants holding these views are less likely to intentionally promote critical
consciousness in learning.
Developing critical consciousness
Many study participants referenced a vision of critical consciousness linked to the Brazilian
educator Freire (1970), who suggests that transformation becomes possible when the awareness of one’s
position in the world becomes apparent – that is, “learning to perceive social, political and economic
contradictions and to take actions” (p. 17). For some of those interviewed, this meant implementing
strategies that oriented students to think about self and others through the construction of interdisciplinary
courses about environmental ethics, global citizenship, international business, and international
development. Faculty members explained that in such courses, emphasis is placed on knowing and
understanding how actions in one locality affect citizens in another. For example, one participant said the
process involves taking problems within communities and saying, “It’s not just here in
Saskatchewan...our day-to-day activities impact people in other places, like a developing country”
(Dalton). The examination of connections between issues, people, and geographies was thus an important
aspect of pedagogical practice for faculty in the study.
8|Page
Hanson and McNeil
Discussion: Pedagogical Practices and Strategies
Because the study was particularly focused on pedagogical strategies that could lead toward
internationalization and global citizenship, this discussion section of the report focuses on that. The
orientation in the discussions could often be linked to social justice and work that linked to ethics around
relationships, as well as dealing with issues around technical aspects of learning such as plagiarism and
assessment.
Most study participants were grounded in pedagogical practices oriented toward social justice and
challenging dominant knowledge systems, again a finding that does not concur with broader studies that
distinguish differences between disciplines (Clifford, 2009). They spoke about using methods that linked
students to local and global communities. Finally, they addressed the need to challenge Western ways of
knowing and find culturally appropriate ways of addressing student issues and learning styles. Faculty
advocated using a variety of instructional strategies. The use of small group work and invited speakers to
represent different realities was reiterated frequently. It was viewed as a way of breaking isolation and
engaging students who do not readily participate in large groups.
Faculty are critical of Eurocentric notions held by students and felt that by using examples which
demonstrated ‘other’ realities and ways of doing things, some of these viewpoints might shift. The ways
in which faculty addressed this problem differed; for example, some included different political and
cultural representations in their curriculum. One faculty member used a simulation exercise wherein
students simulate living in another culture for the duration of the semester. The students in that ‘other’
culture then come to understand how ‘othering’ operates and how it feels; for example, they experience
visits from people representing dominant culture. Additionally a couple of faculty members investigated
intercultural dialogue through digital networks linking students in different parts of the world to address
ethical questions around global relations and the arts.
One faculty member had students trace the secret life of stuff thus enabling students to learn
about the origins and pathways for items or foods found in North America, such as in the case of
Tomasito (Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice, 1994). Similarly, case studies were used in several
disciplines as a way of integrating local and global experiences. Faculty noted that case studies present
dimensions of real life situations and provide a way of engaging students philosophically.
Another faculty noted the importance of using student experience as a starting place for actions.
She explained the implementation of an exercise where she moves students into a circle (using principles
of an Aboriginal talking circle), places a collection of objects on a cloth in the centre of the circle, and
then has students select an object that reminds them of a story in their lives: the stories are then shared.
Similarly, another faculty stated that for students to understand the world they live in, livelihood mapping
9|Page
Hanson and McNeil
is an important way to link issues to personal lives. Livelihood mapping explains the interconnections
between resources and choices made by individuals. Rainy explains:
If you help them think about what their options are in a concrete way, then they can
actually address some of the sustainability issues they observe about their own
livelihoods and see areas where they can make changes and help others.
Using learning tools that assist students to understand current realities was deemed important. One faculty
explained how he uses the board game Monopoly as a way of demonstrating how wealth is concentrated
in society. In deconstructing the game, students were asked to name what the game’s pieces represent, to
discuss how concentration of wealth can lead to socio-economic inequities, and to name the
responsibilities that citizens have to change such disparities.
The focus group provided a dynamic platform wherein faculty shared their knowledge and
classroom practices. Many expressed a yearning for more opportunities to conduct such an exchange.
Through the examples provided, faculty demonstrated cross-disciplinary, collaborative, knowledgesharing experiences aimed toward global citizenship. The findings were shared by the researchers in a
fifteen-minute video. The aim of the video was to popularize the research to a wider, potentially
international audience using the internet as the medium.
Conclusion
This small study supported the findings of previous studies (Childress, 2009; Dewey & Duff,
2009) which suggested that internationalization is perceived as inevitable for universities and, hence, it is
vital to broadly enlist the involvement of faculty in internationalization processes and to provide them
with appropriate supports. Although skepticism among faculty members exists, the level of activity
toward internationalizing curricula evident at the individual level in the area of teaching (Knight, 2004)
points to the existence of considerable sympathy and support for understanding global citizenship as a
shared responsibility. Similar to faculty perceptions in the study by Dewey and Duff (2009), the faculty
we interviewed “desire clarity in faculty involvement and roles in internationalization at the institutional
level” (p. 501). The study participants are cautious about conceptual and policy understandings at the
institutional level, and they welcome increased involvement in university processes toward
internationalization. Most of the study participants were particularly supportive of taking an ethical stance
toward global citizenship – one that clearly articulates or challenges power inequities, stresses aspects of
social justice, and encourages the development of a critical consciousness among learners.
10 | P a g e
Hanson and McNeil
References
Childress, L. (2009). Planning for internationalization by investing in faculty. Journal of International
and Global Studies, 1(1), 30-49.
Clifford, V.A. (2009) Engaging the disciplines in the discourse of internationalising the curriculum.
International Journal for Academic Development, 14(2) 133-143.
Dewey, P. & Duff, S. (2009). Reason before passion: Faculty reviews on internationalization in higher
education. Higher Education, 58(4), 491-504.
Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice. (1994). “Tomasito’s guide to economic integration: A
whirlwind tour with your guide Tomasito, the tomato” in Economic Integration of the Americas:
An education and action kit. Toronto: Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Green, M.F., & Schoenberg, R. (2006). Where faculty live: Internationalizing the disciplines.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Hanson, C. (June 16, 2011). Paper presentation. Toward Understanding and Applying
Internationalization into the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Society for Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, Saskatoon.
Hanson, C., & McNeil, B. (June, 2012). Faculty understanding and implementation of internationalization
and global citizenship. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, (vol. 5).
Hanson, L. (2010). Global Citizenship, global health, and the internationalization of curriculum: A study
of transformative potential. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 70-88.
Karlberg, M. (2008). Discourse, identity, and global citizenship. Peace Review, 20, 310-320.
Knight, J (2004). Internationalization remodelled: Definitions, approaches and rationales. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam:
Sense Pub.
Matus, C. & Talburt S. (2009). Spatial imaginaries: Universities, internationalization, and feminist
geographies. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(4), 515-527.
Stier, J. (2004). Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education:
Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Globalization, Societies and Education, 2(1), 8397.
Toh, S. (1996). Partnerships as solidarity: Crossing North-South boundaries. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 42, 178-191.
University of Regina. (2010). Mâmawohkamâtowin: Our work, our people, our communities.
Unpublished Strategic Plan 2010-2014.
11 | P a g e
Hanson and McNeil