POINT OF VIEW

Global Learning in a New Age
By MADELEINE GREEN and MICHAEL BAER

The events of September 11 have given new urgency and meaning to  international education. Overnight, our campuses have become focal  points of intense debate about world issues. Educators have an  opportunity to go beyond the rhetoric of "educating students for  global citizenship" to grapple with the educational process required  to make it a reality. Too much of the discussion on the global  dimension of American higher education has been about markets, too  little about learning. September 11 could help rebalance that  conversation.

For many colleges and universities in the United States, the global  economy offers a variety of opportunities to sell their educational  products. But have they paid equal attention to the implications of  global interdependence for the education of students? Almost 500,000  foreign students already enroll in American institutions each year,  according to the Institute of International Education. Distance  learning could increase that number substantially.

To take advantage of the huge number of potential students  worldwide, business schools in particular have moved rapidly to  expand their reach. Of the half-million international students in  the United States, 103,000 are studying business. Many programs  offer M.B.A.'s and sessions in other countries, with short residency  requirements on the home campus.

Partnerships of for-profit providers and universities, like Cardean  University -- which involves Carnegie Mellon University, the  Columbia University Business School, the London School of Economics  and Political Science, Stanford University, UNext, and the  University of Chicago Graduate School of Business -- enable  institutions to work outside the usual boundaries in new  configurations, delivering courses to business executives around the  world. Courses and degree programs on the Internet are now  commonplace in business schools, and other parts of their  institutions will not be far behind.

Certainly, increasing contacts with international students and  faculty members have the potential to enhance the undergraduate  experience here in the United States. But an entrepreneurial  strategy does not necessarily translate into an academic strategy.  It is possible for an institution to be highly active in the  entrepreneurial aspects of globalization -- exporting M.B.A.'s on  the Internet, establishing branch campuses in other countries, or  offering contract training to business executives or government  officials -- without substantially affecting the learning of its  on-campus students.

Although the academic and entrepreneurial aspects of globalization  should be mutually reinforcing, there is no guarantee that they will  be. The temptation is great to focus on what the global economy can  do for the institution rather than on what the institution, acting  in a global capacity, can do for its students. Attracting  international students, forming research collaborations, providing  training courses in other countries, or marketing distance education  worldwide may contribute to the overall internationalization of the  institution, but that contribution is often a byproduct of  entrepreneurial activity rather than the goal.

The global campus cannot be truly global unless its entrepreneurial  activities are combined with intentional academic strategies to give  students the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow them to  understand the larger global context in which they live. As  institutions become more involved with global initiatives, it is  likely that they will be pushed to think differently about  curriculum, faculty preparation and rewards, and student learning.  But colleges need to be clear about their purposes in engaging in  international activities. If their purposes are to develop new  markets of students or new sources of revenue, what is the impact on  faculty members, on the traditional ways of doing business? Do the  activities benefit students directly or indirectly, and how?

As institutional leaders consider their commitment to the academic  part of globalization -- often referred to as internationalization  -- and the effect it has on students, the following questions should  help guide their thinking:

To what extent is global learning articulated as a goal of  undergraduate education at the institution? How is it defined? How  is it assessed? Many institutions pursue the goal -- often in their  mission statements -- of global awareness or competence. Fewer have  crafted definitions of and strategies to achieve the specific  learning associated with those goals. Assessing student learning in  this arena is new territory, and much work needs to be done. As in  other arenas, measures tend to be inputs (courses offered with an  international focus, language courses, grants for internationally  focused projects) rather than outcomes (student learning and  attitudes).

Does the institution's general-education curriculum include global  perspectives? Most undergraduates will derive much of their  international learning from the general-education curriculum.  Updating that curriculum with global perspectives must be  purposeful, with specific courses designed to incorporate material  that broadens students' vision beyond their own national  experiences.

Do collaborative activities with institutions in other countries  affect the experience of undergraduates? Do those activities affect  the undergraduate curriculum? Do they involve undergraduates in  international activities, like study abroad or collaboration in  transnational research? Many international collaborations involve  relatively few students. Contracts to provide technical assistance  on health or environmental issues, for example, may be excellent  opportunities for certain faculty members, but do not necessarily  involve undergraduates or inform the undergraduate curriculum. Do the international activities of faculty members have an impact on  undergraduates? Does the fact that a professor delivers papers at  international conferences -- in English -- and keeps up with  colleagues in other countries about his or her research affect that  professor's teaching? The answer may be yes, but not necessarily.

How does the institution implicitly or explicitly encourage or  discourage study abroad? What is the role of financial aid in such  encouragement or discouragement? What are the cost barriers?  Departmental requirements in the major? Faculty attitudes in  general? In a survey last year conducted by studentPOLL -- a  research letter published by the Art and Science Group, which  provides marketing advice to nonprofit organizations -- 48 percent  of high-school seniors headed to four-year colleges expressed an  interest in studying abroad. Since less than 3 percent actually do  study abroad at some point during their college careers, it would be  useful to know the explanation for this startling gap. Is cost the  major barrier? Income forgone? Do requirements in the major preclude  credit for study abroad? Is it possible to fulfill the requirements  for graduation if one goes abroad? If colleges are serious about  increasing the numbers of students studying abroad, an investigation  of the barriers is necessary.

Are distance-learning courses offered by the institution to students  outside the United States tailored to an international audience in  terms of content and pedagogy? What pedagogical techniques will the  institution use to facilitate interaction among students of  different cultures, and among faculty members and students from  different cultures? Is it even possible for institutions to use  Internet technology in new ways to cross cultural boundaries? Taking  an existing course and adapting it to a distance format does not in  itself address either the knowledge needs or the learning habits of  an international audience. A course in organizational behavior, for  example, rooted in American corporate traditions and culture, may  seem very remote to a French or Thai student, especially one with  firsthand experience of organizational issues in another culture.  Such a course would not necessarily contribute to the international  competence of the American students taking it, unless the design  encourages intercultural learning.

How does the institution review and assess the global dimension of  undergraduate education? If a college does not review its progress  in achieving its stated goals, it can't be all that serious about  achieving them. Colleges regularly undertake program reviews as well  as program and institutional accreditation processes that require  reflection on strengths and weaknesses. A similar approach makes  sense for internationalizing.

To what extent do academic policies and practices, including  promotion-and-tenure criteria and faculty-development opportunities,  emphasize and reward teaching and learning with a global focus?  Every discussion of change in the academic enterprise, whether it  concerns emphasizing teaching and learning, introducing service  learning, or encouraging interdisciplinary work, for example, leads  to the question of faculty roles and rewards. Higher education's  professed values -- that we value teaching as much as research, or  that we want our undergraduates to be globally literate -- must be  aligned with its practices. Institutions cannot expect faculty  members to incorporate international dimensions in their courses or  research while the reward system ignores or punishes such efforts.  Incentives and support through faculty-development opportunities and  financing are proven ways to promote innovation. The international  arena is no exception.

The answers to those questions will be different for every  institution. But every institution would do well to stay focused on  its students as it decides what constitutes appropriate and  beneficial global activity. Higher education's responsibility to  educate students about the world is greater than ever. The ability  to live and work in a pluralistic society and in a polarized and  frightening world is not an optional skill. As colleges expand their  international reach, they can engage in entrepreneurial activities  and in fostering students' global competence. But in the rush to  globalize, college leaders must be clear about their purpose and  keep their eyes on the educational needs of all their students.

Madeleine Green is vice president and director of the Center for  Institutional and International Initiatives at the American Council  on Education. Michael Baer is senior vice president for programs and  analysis at the council.

Copyright (c) 2001 by The Chronicle of Higher Education