Global education as good pedagogy

The text of this page is copyright ©1998. See terms of use. Images and other media may be licensed separately; see captions for more information and read the fine print.

Print

• Print

Share

• Email
• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon

Global education reform is one of the most contentious issues that fall under the popular rubric of "globalization." The crusaders in the global education movement carry various banners and march to the beat of diverse drums. Amidst their cacophonous camps, one is likely to find those who trumpet:

• Multiculturalism, diversity, and culturally responsive teaching
• Teaching universality and common core ideals
• Teaching with themes like war, poverty, or human rights
• Standards-based teaching and assessment
• Humanities-based instruction that is cross-cultural
• International studies with a social science orientation
• Expansion of foreign language studies
• Bilingual education
• Pedagogy for social justice
• Integration of service learning and study abroad opportunities
• World perspective studies as a way to understand local issues
• Local issues studies as a way to understand the world

The list might go on and on. Harmony about what global education is or ought to be is not likely to follow. In this article, I will discuss some of the ways that global education has been defined by policymakers past and present, and conclude with some tips for educators making their own choices about strategies and resources for global education.

Global education: what is it?

Since the time that "global education" began to appear in scholarly and popular writing about public education in the 1960s, there has been little, if any, definitional clarity. In 1981, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) described global education as "efforts to cultivate in young people a perspective of the world which emphasized the interconnections among cultures, species, and the planet." The purpose for engaging in those efforts was "to develop in youth the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to live effectively in a world possessing limited natural resources and characterized by ethnic diversity, cultural pluralism, and increasing interdependence."

As the cause of global education has been assumed, subsumed, and presumed by various political organizations, social institutions and special interests, the aims and content of global education have become increasingly skewed. A memorandum issued by the Clinton White House in April 2000 articulated a plan for a "coherent and coordinated international education strategy" with the aim of assuring successful competition in the global economy and "maintaining our role as a world leader." According to a presidential missive, schools must ensure that citizens develop a broad understanding of the world, proficiency in other languages, and knowledge of other cultures. To that end, the White House pledged federal government support to, among other things, "prepare and support teachers in their efforts to interpret other countries and cultures for their students" and "advance new technologies that aid the spread of knowledge throughout the world." The political and economic motivation to support global education was both lauded and criticized by educators. Some saw it as practical and beneficial to our collective future; others perceived it as the worst kind of teaching, designed to preserve the social order and hegemonic power at the expense of cultivating a just and caring citizenry who would be willing to change the inequities of the world.

The fledgling Bush administration gave no conspicuous coverage to international or global education in press releases until a month after the September 11 terrorist attacks. In October, 2001, the President announced the Friendship Through Education initiative to encourage school children to reach out to make friends with children in other places, especially in the Muslim world, to promote care and understanding of each other and to "remind people all around the world we have much more in common than people might think; that we share basic values — the importance of family, and the importance of faith, and the importance of friendship." Similar projects that have arisen in the context of global education since September 11 have had in common a conspicuous level of interest in the Islamic world and emphasis on understanding other cultures and encouraging tolerance and peace-making.

Global education: what should it be?

There remains a decided lack of consensus on the scope, sequence, goals, objectives, and content of global education and international studies in public education. Should we study the world as something to be understood and appreciated for its diversity or as something we study in order to identify commonalities? In common usage, global education has a positive, albeit amorphous, ring. Images of global education are individual and often conflicting. The vagueness of the term simultaneously makes it accessible to the many who have adopted it and vulnerable to disdain from those who would "despise the cloak because of who is wrapped in it." Needless to say, there is a fair amount of friction among a number of the groups who identify themselves with global education. Such controversy is nothing new, yet neither is the agenda. Charged with the responsibility of figuring out how to promote good citizenship in the schools, the "Committee of 10" in 1892 concluded that what was needed were studies that "counteract a narrow and provincial spirit." More than 110 years later, as we seek to prepare students for effective citizenship, global education presents itself in a form that appears to be consistent with what the patriarchs of public schooling had in mind. Contemporary school leaders and the various constituents of global education may acquiesce at least to a shared goal statement, even if they differ in the way they would pursue the goal. Contemporary global education seeks to enlarge the perspective of students so that a worldwide or cosmopolitan orientation, rather than a narrow, parochial one, guides them in the pursuit of learning.

Global education in the classroom

The classroom teacher who accepts this broad definition of global education and its aims is faced with the challenge of determining best practices and selecting appropriate materials. Enlarging students’ perspectives ought not to be a haphazard process, but materials offered under the guise of global education may have been developed without regard for sound and realistic pedagogy. A sound, realistic pedagogy must have at its core a concern for students’ academic success. That concern must be central to the evaluation of materials and programs designed to serve global education — or any other cause, for that matter. It should be the starting place for teachers as they make decisions about what materials to use and how to plan instruction. With that in mind, the following questions are recommended to teachers as they evaluate a resource (material or program) that claims to serve the goals of global education:

1. Does it integrate the dynamic use of technology and Internet resources as a tool?
2. Does it provide resources related to both content information and teaching strategies?
3. Is it consistent with local, state, and national curriculum and assessment standards?
4. Does it have a dynamic news component, incorporating current events and various perspectives?
5. Does it engage interdisciplinary and multi-modality strategies, including science, social science, history, the arts and humanities?
6. Does it incorporate questions related to character and ethical behavior?
7. Does it accommodate the diverse ability levels of students who will be involved?
8. Does it provide professional development opportunities for teachers?
9. Did its development draw on knowledge of realistic classroom practice and the experience of qualified teachers?
10. Does it encourage students to consider the perspectives of others?

There are many seductive, exotic, superficially appealing products and materials on the market claiming applicability to global education. Many of those have been developed without regard for the research base that determines "best practices," and many fail to account for the standards and assessments that are a part of contemporary public schooling. Affirmative answers to the evaluative questions above should help assure that global education is also good education in our public schools.