DESIGNING FOR GLOBAL LEARNING IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY Dawn Simpson Branham A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education – Doctor of Philosophy 2018 By ABSTRACT DESIGNING FOR GLOBAL LEARNING IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY By Dawn Simpson Branham Internationalization, the process of adding an international or intercultural dimension to various aspects of higher education, has become a growing imperative for higher education institutions (HEIs) within the United States and worldwide. Once the domain of research- intensive universities and private liberal arts colleges, the internationalization imperative now expands to every type of HEI, including community colleges and other broad-access institutions (Green, 2007; Raby & Valeau, 2016; Yemini et al., 2015). Community colleges, a unique sector of higher education that serves close to 50% of all undergraduate students in the United States, face increasing pressure to internationalize from professional organizations and from scholars of higher education (Harder, 2010; Opp & Gosetti, 2014; Raby, 2007). However, internationalization in the community college sector continues to lag behind other sectors of higher education. Several possible reasons exist for the lag in internationalization, including a persistent belief that global is the opposite of local, and thus in direct contrast to the primary mission of the community college to serve the local community (Raby & Valeau, 2016). Advocacy efforts to increase internationalization of community colleges continue to rely on rationales that were developed in the context of research universities (Raby & Valeau, 2016). Thus, the purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the rationales guiding current, successful, global education initiatives at community colleges and the role of local context in the development of those rationales. I conducted a multi-site case study of two different community colleges with active, campus-based global education programs. I interviewed 24 faculty and staff members and analyzed documents related to global education initiatives on each campus. Key findings from the study indicate that rationales for global education in community colleges fall into three main categories: student-driven, institution-driven, and community-driven. Most notably, participants in this study strongly believed that global is not the opposite of local and that global education is critical to serving local communities in today’s globalized environment. Based on these findings, I offer a service-oriented framework for understanding rationales for global education in community colleges. I also offer a model that depicts the interaction of micro- and macro- rationales for global education. This model illustrates the ways that local context influences the development of rationales. Implications for practice, policy, theory, and future research are discussed with an emphasis on understanding and using local-level rationales to improve advocacy for increasing global education programming on community college campuses. Copyright by DAWN SIMPSON BRANHAM 2018 iv This dissertation is dedicated to my brother, Roy, who dropped out of high school but later earned his GED and found success at a community college. The event of his death in 2009 in a tragic motorcycle accident motivated me to finally pursue my PhD. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is often said that it takes a village to accomplish something great, and that is definitely true when it comes to writing a dissertation and completing a PhD program. While the tough work of sitting in front of the computer everyday was up to me, I truly could not have done it alone. I want to thank a few special people who pushed me and encouraged me during the last year when I needed it the most. To my advisor, Dr. Marilyn Amey, thank you for your steadfast belief in the value of my ideas and in my ability to accomplish this goal. I will never forget the day you told me that not only am I fully capable of finishing but that I deserve to finish. Those words shifted my perspective and made a world of difference to me. You also reminded me that the stories of the amazing educators, whom I was fortunate enough to interview for my study, deserve to be told. You are one of the strongest, smartest women I have ever met, and I consider myself blessed to have worked with you. To Dr. Karla Loebick, your weekly check-ins and words of encouragement truly motivated me during the last months of this project when I felt so many times that I was running out of steam. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for reaching out to me. You were like a dissertation angel who appeared in the form of a text message, just when I needed you most. To my husband, Jason, thank you for allowing me the space to finish this and for believing in my ability to do it. You told me at one point that finishing was the only thing that mattered and, as simple as it sounds, hearing that statement helped me to reorganize my priorities and get to the finish line. I also want to thank the numerous faculty members and practitioner-scholars who have supported and mentored me during this program and beyond. I have learned much from you and v consider myself very lucky to have worked with you: Dr. David Wong, Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski, Dr. Brendan Cantwell, Dr. Roger Baldwin, Dr. Ann Austin, Dr. Naomi Kagawa, Dr. Inge Steglitz, Dr. Amy Conger, Dr. Julie Sinclair, and Dr. Christina Yao. There is no substitute for a loving family and a supportive group of friends. I am lucky enough to have both. Mom, thank you for helping me in more ways than I can list here, from babysitting, cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, listening to me complain and so much more. I couldn’t have done it without your help, support, and love. My amazing son, Zander, thank you for being my beacon of hope and my shining light. Everything I do, I do because of you. I started my PhD program just a few months after my father passed away suddenly in May of 2012. Coping with that grief made it harder to do this work, but in some ways having the coursework and all the new challenges to focus on helped me through it. Dad, I love you and miss you and I know you’re proud. My lifelong friends, my Sophomore Posse, thank you for your love and support through everything, over all the years. My HALE cohort and other HALE colleagues, thank you for challenging me to grow and learn in so many ways. As a commuter student and parent, my time on campus was limited; I did not get to know many of you as well as I would have liked, but I will always remember you as an important part of my journey. To the special group of women who helped me find balance and reclaim my health so I could complete the last leg of this journey, thank you, Andrea Bachman, Sara Zabawa-Hughes, and Jessica Ortiz. As a commuter student, working parent, first-generation college student, and person who has suffered from depression, I faced many challenges in completing my PhD. I want to acknowledge the struggles of each of these groups of students and the enormous strength it takes to do what we have done. You are my people, and I see you. Keep going. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER ONE—INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 6 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 7 Terms and Definitions ................................................................................................................. 8 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER TWO—LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 13 Global Learning in College ....................................................................................................... 13 Defining Global Learning ..................................................................................................... 14 Assessing Global Learning ................................................................................................... 18 Global Learning Programming ............................................................................................. 18 Internationalization at Home ................................................................................................. 19 Internationalizing the Curriculum ......................................................................................... 21 Internationalization and the Community College ..................................................................... 23 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 25 CHAPTER THREE—METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 29 Design of the Study ................................................................................................................... 29 Case Study ............................................................................................................................ 30 Sample and Site Selection ..................................................................................................... 32 Sample ................................................................................................................................... 34 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 35 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 36 Researcher Reflexivity .......................................................................................................... 40 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 41 CHAPTER FOUR—COASTAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE ..................................................... 43 Institutional Overview .............................................................................................................. 43 Global Education at Coastal Community College .................................................................... 45 Global Education Initiatives ................................................................................................. 47 Global Education Organizational Structure .......................................................................... 48 Rationales .................................................................................................................................. 49 Preparing Students ................................................................................................................ 49 Reflecting and Strengthening the Institution ........................................................................ 55 Reflecting and Strengthening the Local Community ............................................................ 61 Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 64 Gathering Information and Establishing Buy-In ................................................................... 65 Focus on Internationalization at Home ................................................................................. 68 Institutionalizing Global Education ...................................................................................... 77 vii Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................... 81 CHAPTER FIVE—METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM ......................... 83 Institutional Overview .............................................................................................................. 84 Global Education at MCCS ...................................................................................................... 87 Global Education Organizational Structure .......................................................................... 88 Rationales .................................................................................................................................. 93 Preparing Students ................................................................................................................ 93 Strengthening the Institution ................................................................................................. 97 Strengthening the Community ............................................................................................ 101 Strategies ................................................................................................................................. 104 Faculty Leadership .............................................................................................................. 104 Organizing, Connecting, and Finding Support ................................................................... 108 Focus on Teaching and Learning ........................................................................................ 113 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................... 117 CHAPTER SIX—CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 119 Rationales ................................................................................................................................ 119 Student-Driven Rationales .................................................................................................. 120 Institution-Driven Rationales .............................................................................................. 122 Community-Driven Rationales ........................................................................................... 124 Strategies ................................................................................................................................. 125 Preparatory Activities ......................................................................................................... 125 Institutionalizing Global Education .................................................................................... 127 Internationalization at Home ............................................................................................... 129 Funding ............................................................................................................................... 130 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................... 131 CHAPTER SEVEN—DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ..................... 132 A Service-Oriented Framework for Global Education Rationales ......................................... 133 Global Education Prepares Students ................................................................................... 134 Global Education Strengthens the Institution ..................................................................... 137 Global Education Serves the Local Community ................................................................. 140 Macro and Micro Rationales ................................................................................................... 141 Key Strategies ......................................................................................................................... 143 Preparatory Activities ......................................................................................................... 144 Institutionalizing Global Education .................................................................................... 145 Internationalization at Home ............................................................................................... 147 The Question of Context ......................................................................................................... 151 Implications and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 153 Implications for Practice and Policy ................................................................................... 153 Implications for Theory ...................................................................................................... 155 Implications for Future Research ........................................................................................ 156 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 159 viii APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 161 APPENDIX A Participant List .................................................................................................... 162 APPENDIX B Interview Protocol ............................................................................................... 163 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 166 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Global Education Initiatives at Coastal Community College ..................... 48 Table 2 A Summary of Global Education initiatives at MCCS .................................................... 89 Table 3 A Service-Oriented Framework for Identifying Rationales for Global Education at Two Table 4 Participant List ............................................................................................................... 162 U.S. Community Colleges ........................................................................................... 135 x Figure 1 Macro- and micro-rationales for global education at community colleges .................. 142 LIST OF FIGURES xi CHAPTER ONE—INTRODUCTION Internationalization is a growing imperative for higher education institutions within the United States and worldwide. Internationalization of higher education is not a new phenomenon—the earliest universities were engaged in international exchange of students, scholars, and ideas—but contemporary internationalization has gained significant momentum over the past several decades as postsecondary institutions both respond and contribute to the broader social phenomenon of globalization (Altbach, 2016; Cantwell & Maldonado-Maldonado, 2009; Hudzik, 2011). While there are differences in definitions and interpretation of the meaning of the term, Knight (2012) provided a well-cited definition for internationalization in the field of higher education: “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of post-secondary education” (p. 7). Further, Knight (2004, 2012) divided internationalization into at-home activities and cross-border activities, delineating between activities that occur on the home campus and those that occur overseas. In this study, I employ Knight’s (2012) definition when I use the term internationalization as associated with higher education institutions (HEIs). Once the domain of research-intensive universities and private liberal arts colleges, the internationalization imperative has expanded to almost every type of HEI, including community colleges and other broad-access institutions (Green, 2007; Yemini et al., 2015). This expansion can be viewed positively as providing more equitable access to important 21st century skills for groups of students who may have previously had limited opportunities to develop global and intercultural competencies (Harder, 2010). It can also be criticized as a case of mission creep or as further evidence of the increasing marketization of higher education. Some may ask why it is relevant for community colleges and other broad access, regionally focused HEIs to engage in 1 internationalization at all, since their missions are traditionally to serve their local communities (Raby & Valeau, 2016; Treat & Hagedorn, 2013). Knight (2012) posited that contemporary internationalization has become increasingly complex and has become associated with a wide variety of activities—including the recruitment and support of international students to the formation of branch campuses overseas, expansion of education abroad, curricular and co-curricular programming, and more—that it has become a less meaningful concept in higher education. Further, rationales, motivations, strategies, and processes for the various activities associated with contemporary internationalization differ among institutions, sectors, and nations. Within the increasingly complex arena of contemporary internationalization, it is critical for individuals and institutions to understand and clearly articulate their rationales for engaging in internationalization activities (Knight, 2012). Knight (2012) explained: Rationales are the driving force for why an institution (or any other actor) wants to address and invest in internationalization. Rationales are reflected in the policies and programs that are developed and eventually implemented. Rationales dictate the kind of benefits or expected outcomes. (p. 11) Similarly, de Wit (1998) explained, “Rationales can be described as motivations for integrating an international dimension into higher education. They address the ‘why’ of internationalisation [sic] and different rationales imply different means and ends to internationalisation” (p. 2). Both quotes also acknowledge the symbiotic relationship between the why and the how of internationalization as rationales inform strategies, processes, and intended outcomes. The American Council on Education (ACE; 2017) surveyed 1,164 accredited, degree- granting institutions in 2016 to gather data about the current state of internationalization of U.S. 2 higher education, including trends and progress over time and future priorities. Data from the ACE survey indicated that the most compelling reason for focusing on internationalization across all institution types (categorized as doctoral-, masters-, bachelor-, and associate-granting) was “to improve student preparedness for a global era” (ACE, 2017, p. 1). Despite the multitude of activities encompassed in the broad concept of internationalization, the results of the ACE survey indicated that the student-learning aspect, the goal of preparing students for a globalized world, has been the driving motivation at all types of institutions in the United States. Similar findings were reported by the International Association of Universities (IAU) survey in which heads of universities in more than 100 countries were asked to identify the top rationales driving internationalization at their institutions (Knight, 2012). In 2005 and 2009, the top rationale was “preparing students to be interculturally competent and more knowledgeable about international issues in a more globalized world” (Knight, 2012, p. 7). The growing movement in U.S. higher education around the concept of global learning reflects this emphasis on the student-learning aspect of internationalization. Research on the student-learning aspect of internationalization generally falls into two strands: internationalization of the curriculum and defining and assessing learning outcomes. While an important topic, the literature on internationalization of the curriculum constricts learning to the formal academic curriculum and the classroom, focusing on faculty engagement and curriculum design. Research on defining and assessing learning outcomes is also an important aspect of understanding global education, and more research is needed in this area. However, as Knight (2012) pointed out, rationales drive and shape program design, implementation, and desired outcomes. Rationales for internationalization are an understudied topic in general, and both Knight (2012) and de Wit (2002) called for a more nuanced 3 understanding of rationales at the level of the individual institution. Large surveys on the topic of internationalization have provided useful macro-views of rationales but have not provided an understanding of the role of local context and may not reflect the views of individuals engaged in the day-to-day work of internationalization likely because surveys are typically answered by one executive-level officer at an institution. Several recent studies have qualitatively examined rationales at the levels of the institution and the individual (Seeber, Cattaneo, Husiman, & Paleari, 2016; Willis & Taylor, 2014; Yemini, et al., 2015), but none have taken place in the community college sector. As contemporary internationalization grows more complex, it may also be necessary to hone in on one area of internationalization in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of rationales. As the primary motivation for internationalization across all institution types remains student preparation, and the focus of the community college is on teaching and learning, I chose to focus on the student-learning aspect of internationalization in my study. There is little to no literature that specifically examines rationales for the development of global education programs in the community college. The vast majority of research on internationalization in higher education has been conducted at large research universities and private liberal arts colleges. However, 41% of all undergraduate students in the United States have enrolled in associate-granting institutions at some point in their college careers, and that number continues to grow (AACC, 2018). With almost half of all undergraduate students attending a community college, the sector fills a critical role in the postsecondary landscape of the United States. Community colleges face increasing pressure to internationalize from national organizations such as the AACC, the ACE, the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), and scholars of higher education (Harder, 2010; Opp & Gosetti, 2014; Raby, 2007). 4 A variety of rationales for why community colleges should internationalize can be found in the literature coming from these organizations and scholars, but those rationales do not necessarily reflect the actual motivations of key actors within the institutions themselves that drive the development of global education initiatives—the people on the ground doing the work. Raby and Valeau (2016) contended that a continued reliance on a framework of four types of rationales for internationalization of higher education to advocate for international education at community colleges is “a contributing factor that keeps internationalization as optional” (p. 12). The framework Raby and Valeau (2016) referred to was conceptualized by Knight in 1995 (as cited in de Wit, 2002), further developed by Knight and de Wit (1999), and developed in the context of research universities. As such, it may not be reflective of the current rationales guiding the development of global education initiatives at community colleges. However, because Knight and deWit’s (1999) framework was created intentionally broad so that it could be applied to different contexts and because it is so pervasive in the literature, I drew on aspects of it to guide parts of my study, which I discuss further in Chapter 3 under the topic of conceptual framework. My findings ultimately led to a new framework, informed but differing significantly from Knight and deWit’s (1999) seminal work. Data from the ACE (2017) Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses survey indicated that only 24% of responding associate institutions had an institution-wide internationalization plan, just 33% identified global or international education as among the top- five institutional priorities, and only 35% mentioned some aspect of international or global education in their institutional mission statements. However, 43% reported having institution- wide committees working solely on international education efforts. While these numbers reflect growth from previous years, overall levels of internationalization at community colleges were 5 still below those at other types of institutions (ACE, 2017). We do not have clear evidence as to why internationalization in community colleges has lagged behind other sectors of higher education. Raby and Valeau (2016) contended that among other important factors, there remained persistent, underlying beliefs that focusing on global education is the opposite of serving the local community, which is the primary mission of the community college. According to the ACE (2012) report Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses: In addressing this challenge, it will be important to move beyond models that have worked for more traditional student populations. Finding ways to bring global learning to non-traditional students should be seen as an essential aspect of providing quality education to all students. (p. 24) Because the student population and institutional context at community colleges is typically very different from other HEIs, we cannot rely on studies conducted in other sectors to inform practice at community colleges. It is critical to develop a more nuanced understanding of the ways that internationalization, and particularly designing for global learning, is happening in community colleges. Problem Statement International education is important for all students in higher education within the current context of economic globalization, the growing cultural diversity of the U. S. population, and the many shared global problems we face now and, in the future, including threats such as terrorism and climate change. In light of recent anti-immigration sentiment and a resurgence of isolationist ideology in the U. S. political arena, a focus on global education has become increasingly urgent. Community colleges play a vital role in the postsecondary landscape of the United States, serving almost half of all undergraduate students, yet community colleges still lag significantly 6 behind other higher education sectors in the area of internationalization (AACC, 2018; Green, 2016). Many in the sector still view international education as optional rather than part of the core educational mission (Raby & Valeau, 2016). One reason for this view is an underlying belief that global is opposite of local, and the primary mission of the community college is to serve the local community (Raby & Valeau, 2016). Another potential reason is the continued reliance on rationales to advocate for international education at community colleges that were not developed in the context of this higher education sector (Raby & Valeau, 2016). A better understanding of the rationales guiding current, successful global education initiatives at community colleges and the role of local context in the development of those rationales can assist those who wish to change the perception that an emphasis on global education takes away from the primary mission to serve the local community. We need to know why the people doing this work think it is important and relevant for community college students. In addition, deeper understanding of the strategies used to successfully integrate global education programs into community colleges will provide more relevant examples that do not rely on studies from other sectors. Research Questions The purpose of this study was to gain a more nuanced understanding of why and how community colleges are designing for global learning. I conducted a multi-site case study of two different community colleges with active campus-based global education programs. Three research questions guided my study: • What rationales are driving community colleges to design for global learning? • What strategies are community colleges using to design for global learning? 7 • In what ways is local context related to rationales and strategies for designing for global learning in community colleges? I selected the two case study sites from a list of community colleges previously identified as having campus-based global education programs through an existing survey. In 2014, Community Colleges for International Development (CCID) partnered with Santa Fe College to conduct a survey of community colleges offering international studies/global studies certificate programs. The survey resulted in an ongoing study of 20 colleges in the United States and one in Canada with active international studies/global studies certificate programs. By answering the CCID survey, these 20 institutions self-identified as being actively engaged in designing global education initiatives. In order to narrow down the potential cases to two sites from the initial list of 20, I employed additional criteria detailed in Chapter 3 along with a more in-depth discussion of my decision to utilize a multi-site case study design. I conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 faculty and administrators who were directly or indirectly involved in the development, design, or implementation of global education initiatives at each college. I also collected and analyzed documents that provided information about the institutional context and the global education initiatives. Documents for analysis included college websites, program materials such as brochures and fliers, relevant meeting notes in which global education initiatives were discussed, proposals for global education funding, and community documents such as local newspapers and websites. Terms and Definitions There are a variety of terms and definitions associated with the field of international education in higher education, sometimes causing confusion and distraction from the content of studies themselves. In this section, I first discuss the terms I chose to use and the implications of 8 these choices for the work. I then provide definitions for each of these terms. The term internationalization, defined earlier in this chapter, has come to encompass so many different types of activities that it has almost become too generic to be meaningful (Knight, 2012). Therefore, I chose to focus on the student learning aspect of internationalization in my study to get at the larger phenomenon in a more meaningful way. In order to reflect my focus on student learning, I chose to use the term global learning instead of curriculum internationalization or internationalization of the curriculum because I believe, and we know from research in student affairs, that learning extends beyond the classroom and what is traditionally considered the curriculum (Fried, 2006). I sometimes use the term global education because that was the preferred term used by participants in my study. I use global education when referring to the actual programs being developed rather than the intended outcomes of student learning, for example, global education programs. I chose to use the term designing because it is a term traditionally associated with learning, and implies an intentional, thoughtful, and creative process. It is common to talk about designing learning experiences or designing for learning or instructional design in higher education (Fink, 2013). I chose to conduct my study in community colleges because it is an under-examined sector that plays a critical role in the higher education landscape of the United States that faces increasing calls to internationalize and that is unique in its historical mission to serve its local community—a mission somewhat at odds with a global learning agenda. In this study, I utilize the American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) definition of global learning: “a critical analysis of and engagement with complex, interdependent global systems and legacies (such as natural, physical, social, cultural, economic, and political) and their implications for people’s lives and the earth’s sustainability” (AAC&U, 9 2018, para. 2). The phrase designing for global learning is employed by NAFSA and AAC&U in a joint publication where it is defined as “an intentional process of creating educational experiences—curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular—through which students can achieve the outcomes associated with global learning” (Hovland, 2014, p. 8). I define global education as “an interdisciplinary approach to learning concepts and skills necessary to function in a world that is increasingly interconnected and multicultural” (Encyclopedia.com, 2018, para. 1). In this study, I used the terms global learning and global education together to discuss and differentiate between the intended student learning, the process of designing environments for that learning, and the actual programs that are developed and implemented to facilitate that learning. Significance of the Study My study is significant for several reasons. First, my study focused on an important and under-examined sector of U. S. higher education: the community college. There are increasing calls for community colleges to internationalize, yet we know little about why and how this can or should be achieved (Opp & Gosetti, 2014). Given the traditional missions of community colleges to serve their local communities by providing technical and vocational training to encourage economic prosperity, it is not immediately obvious to some people why an emphasis on global learning would be relevant at this type of institution. Community colleges are a critical sector for postsecondary learning in the United States, enrolling about 40% of all undergraduate students, yet we know little about how and why global learning initiatives are happening at these institutions. Community colleges and other locally focused, broad-access institutions often face more scrutiny over resource allocation than other types of HEIs, in part because they receive large portions of their funding from state and local taxes. Additionally, the student population of these 10 institutions tends to be less economically advantaged, relying more on financial aid programs, such as Pell grants, and are more sensitive to tuition prices. Many students are self-funded, working their way through college, and some also support families (Green, 2007). Global learning programs tend to be among the first programs cut when budgets come under pressure, and many states are currently under pressure to cut funding for higher education (Green, 2007). A deeper understanding of why and how community colleges design for global learning may provide stronger, more coherent arguments to persuade students, policymakers, and community members that these programs are worthwhile uses of funds. It is important that global learning initiatives designed for community colleges reflect the needs and values unique to this sector (ACE, 2012), and so it follows that we should seek to understand the rationales and processes of the individuals doing the work through their own words and experiences. Finally, my study adds to scholarly understanding of the rationales driving internationalization of higher education. As the internationalization movement in higher education becomes increasingly complex and more types of postsecondary institutions engage in a wide variety of internationalization practices, a more nuanced understanding of rationales and strategies is needed (Knight, 2012). I focus on understanding rationales at the level of the institution and include the role of the local context. Rather than attempting to understand the broad and almost generic phenomenon of internationalization, my study focuses on the student learning aspect, referred to in this study as global learning, in an attempt to add understanding of the broader phenomenon. I offer a new framework and model for understanding rationales for global education within the context of the community college. In the next section, I review existing literature on global learning with special focus on the internationalization at home movement and internationalization of community colleges. 11 Chapter 2 also contains a description of the conceptual framework that guides my study. In Chapter 3, I describe the methodological rationale for using a multisite case study approach. I also address sample and site selection, data collection and analysis, validity and reliability, and limitations. Chapters 4 and 5 share in depth case descriptions of my two case sites, and Chapter 6 and 7 provide cross-case analysis, discussion, and implications. 12 CHAPTER TWO—LITERATURE REVIEW Through this dissertation study, I set out to better understand the rationales and strategies guiding community colleges to design for global learning. In Chapter 1, I provided a brief overview of the broader internationalization movement in higher education and introduced global learning as one aspect of that broader movement. I also made the case for focusing on the community college sector, which lags behind other sectors in overall levels of internationalization and discussed the importance of rationales and the need for a more nuanced understanding of rationales for internationalization at the institutional level. In Chapter 2, I build on these ideas by exploring the concept of global learning more deeply, including its relationship to the concepts of internationalization at home and internationalization of the curriculum. I then review existing literature on internationalization and global learning in the community college sector. Chapter 2 concludes with a description of my conceptual framework, which draws on Knight and de Wit’s (1999) framework for internationalization rationales, and I discuss existing research on rationales for internationalization. Global Learning in College In the globally connected world we inhabit, it is easy to argue that a person cannot be considered truly educated without developing some understanding of multiple cultures and countries and considering one’s place in a global context (Killick, 2015). Some students enter our college campuses with significant exposure to international and intercultural differences, while others enter with very little. Across this spectrum of prior experience, there is much potential for the college years to enhance, expand, and engage the development of students’ international understanding and intercultural awareness and ability. This critical combination of international and intercultural awareness, appreciation, and ability has become more frequently 13 identified as a primary outcome of an undergraduate college education (Killick, 2015; Stearns, 2009). However, the language used to identify these outcomes is not always consistent, with many terms currently in use and no absolute consensus on preferred terminology. The phrase global learning is quickly becoming the umbrella term under which an array of skills and concepts can be included and is utilized in this study to refer to the intended outcomes of global education programs. Defining Global Learning I view global learning as a paradigm in which the outcomes include a critical combination of international and intercultural awareness, appreciation, skills and abilities that are developed through a commitment to a lifelong learning process, in contrast to a term-limited, competency-based paradigm. The social and economic problems we face today are global in nature and will not be solved by one person working alone in one country (Killick, 2015; Noddings, 2005). Developing the solutions to these problems will require citizens with a range of skills and who are able to think in a global capacity and work on multicultural, international teams. Whether one sees higher education as primarily a public or a private good, global learning is necessary for both. Today’s college graduates will need global skills to be successful in the workforce as well as to solve the social problems of the future (Killick, 2015). A sampling of the most common terms currently used under the umbrella concept of global learning includes: global citizenship, global competence, global perspective, intercultural competence, cultural competence, intercultural sensitivity, and global outlook. While the field itself lacks consensus, scholars point out the importance of campus-wide agreement on terms that will be used, the underlying concepts and values associated with these terms, and the goals of global 14 education activities in order to develop internationalization strategies aligned with intended student learning outcomes (Deardorff, 2006; Green, 2012b). Hovland (2009) described global learning as “not necessarily the same as internationalization of the curriculum” (p. 4), explaining that the AAC&U began using the term in order to provide a narrower focus on student learning as the goal of internationally focused educational experiences. According to Hovland (2009), the word global rather than international was chosen by the AAC&U in order “to signal greater attention to the locational, cultural, and political fluidity characterizing real-world challenges and opportunities” (p. 4). Global learning is quickly becoming the preferred term by prominent U. S.-based organizations with an interest in both higher education and international education, including NAFSA, ACE, AAC&U, and the Lumina Foundation, among others. Global learning as discussed in AAC&U publications has been aligned with liberal education outcomes and has emphasized the need for intercultural competence skills that can be applied to navigating domestic multicultural diversity and international encounters, bringing a global-is-local lens to the issue. A brief overview of some of the most influential ideas that make up the global learning paradigm follows. Global citizenship. The term global citizenship encompasses many universal elements of global learning, such as development of intercultural competence, cultivation of cultural empathy, a growing understanding and awareness of oneself as rooted in culture, and a responsibility to make ethical decisions based on an understanding of interdependent global systems (Green, 2012a). The defining feature of global citizenship is an emphasis on civic engagement and community involvement, and a social justice emphasis is often included (Morais & Ogden, 2011; Noddings, 2005). In the global citizenship paradigm, students develop a 15 worldview of themselves as active participants in a globally interconnected community (Schattle, 2009). The central goal of global citizenship is that students recognize the interconnected and global nature of modern problems and potential solutions and see themselves as members of a global community rather than of an individual nation state. Intercultural competence. This term refers to a set of skills students can utilize to work and interact with individuals from diverse cultures. Intercultural competencies usually focus on communication skills and emphasize understanding cultural differences and recognizing the potential difficulties that can arise from those differences. Deardorff’s (2009) model of intercultural competence is widely known and used in the field of international education. The model is presented as a pyramid shape where students must first establish foundational attitudes of respect, openness, and curiosity (the bottom of the pyramid) and then build on these requisite attitudes through guided educational interactions and experiences intended to develop skills such as adaptability and flexibility, and ultimately, resulting in a set of desirable behaviors that enable more productive intercultural interactions (the top of the pyramid). Deardorff’s model stresses a “dynamic interplay between affective, cognitive, and behavioral components” to foster lasting intercultural competence (Soria & Troisi, 2013, p. 265). In the intercultural communication and competence literature, cultural differences are largely seen as problematic to intercultural interaction and something to be overcome through a combination of knowledge and skills development. Global perspective. The concept of global perspective draws on research in the fields of intercultural communication, education, and human development. Braskamp, Braskamp, and Merrill (2009) explained that the global perspective model is based on the seminal human development work of Kegan (1995) who identified three major domains of human development: 16 cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. King and Baxter-Magolda (2005) used these domains to describe the intercultural social-cultural development of college students, terming their concept intercultural maturity. Braskamp et al. (2009) built on these ideas to coin the term global perspective and subsequently developed the Global Perspectives inventory (GPI), a survey instrument that seeks to measure students’ growth and development across three domains: “cognitive (epistemological, awareness, knowledge), intrapersonal (identity, attitudes, emotion), and interpersonal (behavioral, skills, social responsibility)” (Braskamp et al., 2009, p. 103). The GPI has been used in pre- and post-test study designs to measure students’ development as a result of study abroad and study away experiences (Engberg, 2013). The concept of global perspective can be applied in a range of diversity encounters outside of international education, such as religious, political, and racial/ethnic. Additional terms and concepts used in the global learning paradigm include global competence (Olson & Kroeger, 2001), global outlook (Jones & Killick, 2013), intercultural maturity (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005), intercultural sensitivity (Bennett & Bennett, 1993), global self (Killick, 2015), and more. I chose to use the broad term global learning in my study to capture the range of concepts, outcomes, and experiences delineated in the variety of terms in current use. I prefer the term global over international or intercultural because I believe that global encompasses both of these ideas—the nation-state and the cultural being—and applies to domestic as well as cross-border interactions. I prefer the term learning because I believe it includes both knowledge acquisition and the development of skills, attitudes, abilities, and awareness. Learning implies holistic development and a process that can span a lifetime, in contrast to a term like competence which implies a specified level of satisfaction that can be achieved and thus completed and terminated. I envision global learning as a process that has no 17 end but continues to be deepened and refined through one’s lifetime, if one continues to engage its development. Assessing Global Learning More than 30 instruments have been developed to measure intercultural competence alone (Green, 2012b). A number of inventories, rubrics, and scales have been developed to measure outcomes associated with global learning across the spectrum of terms and concepts discussed in this section. A sampling of these includes the GPI, the Global Citizenship scale, the Intercultural Development inventory, the Global Learning VALUE rubric (AAC&U, 2018), and more (Green, 2012b). Most of these assessments utilize pre- and post-test designs in order to measure changes in students’ knowledge, understanding, and self-reported attitudes. The Global Learning VALUE rubric was developed by the AAC&U to serve as a set of guidelines for postsecondary institutions as they seek to develop global learning programs on campuses but is not a measurement tool in itself. Just as there is no one agreed upon term or definition used to describe students’ development of global awareness and intercultural ability, there is no agreed- upon measure for assessing students’ growth in these areas. As the purpose of my study is not to assess students’ global learning outcomes but to understand how and why global learning programs are being developed on community college campuses, a more in-depth discussion of assessment is not included in this literature review. However, findings from this study could potentially help to design more accurate outcomes assessment instruments. Global Learning Programming Global education programs include both curricular and co-curricular opportunities on college campuses. While certificate and concentration programs aimed at developing broad global perspectives have increased in recent years, the percentage of institutions with a foreign 18 language requirement for graduation has declined steadily over time across all sectors, from 53% in 2001 to 37% in 2011 (ACE, 2012). These and other data point to a trend toward curricular offerings that foster an awareness of broad global issues and a decline in curricular offerings that encourage in-depth specialized knowledge of specific regions, countries, languages, and cultures (ACE, 2012). Experiential learning programs such as study abroad, study away, and service learning remain a vital part of programming for global learning, but efforts to include all students have led to an emphasis on options for those who do not have the ability to spend significant time away from the home campus. Many of these strategies fall within the internationalization at home movement. Internationalization at Home Postsecondary institutions have traditionally focused on facilitating global learning through the use of experiential learning programs across national borders, widely known as study abroad or education abroad (Soria & Troisi, 2013). While study abroad programs have been shown to increase students’ intercultural competence, overall participation remains relatively low and limited to a select group of students who tend to be White, female, affluent, attending liberal arts colleges, and majoring in the humanities (Twombly, Salisbury, Tumanut, & Klute, 2012). A number of barriers prevent more equitable access to study abroad opportunities, such as cost, family and work obligations, curricular structures, and stereotype threats (Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2011; Twombly et al., 2012). Many postsecondary institutions and professional organizations are working to increase study abroad participation among underrepresented groups, yet the fact remains that participation is limited to only about 1.5% of the overall U. S. college student population (this number includes graduate and professional students) and 13.8% of all U. S. students seeking bachelor’s degrees (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2012). 19 The internationalization at home movement has contended that because so few college students are able to study abroad, institutions must find a way to facilitate global learning on the home campus. Brewer and Leask (2012) explain that Bengt Nilsson was credited with coining the term internationalization at home in the 1990s and that the term first emerged in writing in a 2001 position paper published by the European Association of International Educators. The concept became popular early on in European and Australian higher education and more recently emerged in the United States through its alignment with the philosophy of comprehensive internationalization (Hudzik, 2011). Internationalization at home tasks postsecondary institutions with developing opportunities for students to gain intercultural and global competencies through co-curricular and curricular experiences that are both formal and informal without traveling abroad. Formal opportunities are usually associated with college credit such as a minor, a required course, or a study away or service learning program. Informal opportunities might include a social event in a residence hall, a student organization that has a cultural or global focus, or interactions with international students on campus. Soria and Troisi (2013) sought to determine whether students who participated in campus-based internationalization at home activities (categorized as curricular, co-curricular, and interactions with international students) and students who studied abroad reported similar development of global learning competencies. Overall, participation in campus-based international activities was found to develop students’ global and intercultural competence as much if not more than study abroad participation. While the rationales behind the internationalization at home movement can be applied to many educational contexts, this movement is particularly salient in the community college sector where more non-traditional 20 students are enrolled (Green, 2016; Rodriguez, 2016). Students who are more likely to work full- time, support children or other family members, have disabilities, come from ethnic minority groups, or qualify for Pell grants on the basis of financial need are less likely to study abroad. Internationalizing the Curriculum Within the broader process of internationalization in higher education, the concept of internationalizing the curriculum has encompassed a range of activities identified with enhancing teaching and learning by incorporating more international and/or intercultural perspectives into the curriculum. Examples include curriculum enrichment, movements to de-colonialize or de- Westernize existing programs and courses, development of new study abroad programs, curriculum integration of existing study abroad programs, enhancement of pedagogical practices in order to better accommodate international students in the classroom, and more (Brewer & Leask, 2012). For the most part, changes associated with teaching and learning activities tend to originate with faculty members and within departments and are primarily bottom-up in nature rather than top-down, or initiated at an institutional level (Jones & Killick, 2013; Kezar, 2013). An internationalized curriculum can take many forms and depends largely on local context to define its shape and scope (Brewer & Leask, 2012). While there is no single accepted definition of an internationalized curriculum, a definition provided by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has been widely used for a number of years: “A curriculum with an international orientation in content and/or form, aimed at preparing students for performing (professionally/socially) in an international and multicultural context and designed for domestic and/or foreign students” (Brewer & Leask, 2012, p. 246). Curriculum internationalization can be viewed as existing “at the intersection between the international and intercultural” and is usually aimed at domestic and international students simultaneously (Jones & Killick, 2013, p. 167). 21 Specific strategies for internationalizing the curriculum can be identified at the system, institutional, departmental, and course levels (Brewer & Leask, 2012). Strategies enacted at the institutional and departmental level include faculty development, recruitment of international faculty, program/course development and recruitment of international students (Brewer & Leask, 2012). Examples of curricular initiatives include adding requirements to the general education core curriculum, developing study abroad and integrating it more fully with degree requirements, developing international minors and majors, and developing stand-alone programs such as certificates, special cohorts, learning communities, and honors programs (Brewer & Leask, 2012; Stearns, 2009). Shared learning experiences, such as themed semesters or shared books, can also incorporate international, intercultural, or global themes. Jones and Killick (2013) reminded us that while content changes tend to be emphasized, pedagogy and assessment must also be internationalized. They assert that an internationalized curriculum should include activities that encourage students to challenge cultural assumptions and extend critical thinking skills. An important objective in the movement to internationalize the home campus is increasing the engagement of faculty in the internationalization process (Brewer & Leask, 2012). As the primary stakeholders involved in curricular decisions, faculty exert enormous influence over the ways that internationalization plays out in the teaching and learning aspects of postsecondary institutions. Schuerholz-Lehr (2007) investigated the readiness of faculty members to prepare students for living and interacting in a pluralistic society and found little evidence that faculty members’ own global competence translates into teaching practice, thus supporting the argument that faculty development is critical for internationalization efforts, regardless of prior international experience. 22 Internationalization and the Community College The importance of institutional context is a common theme in the internationalization literature (Brewer & Leask, 2012; Deem, 2001; Douglas, 2005; Green, 2012b; Marginson & Rhoades, 2002; Nolan & Hunter, 2012). While numerous scholars have emphasized that local context is crucial to understanding how internationalization is carried out at individual institutions, they point to a lack of research where local context is emphasized. Deem (2001) contended that case studies examining internationalization most often treat local and regional differences as subordinate to global factors and that a “deep empirical understanding of the effects of globalizing forces at the level of individual universities” is lacking (p. 17). Similarly, Marginson and Rhoades (2002) claimed that we do not know enough about the local institutional level and the ways that internationalization plays out as a change strategy in differing local contexts. Marginson and van der Wende (2011) argued, “Globalization is not a single or universal phenomenon. It is nuanced according to locality…and it plays out very differently according to the type of institution” (p. 5). Douglas (2005) emphasized that all globalization is local and called for a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of individual institutions as they seek to respond to the globalized higher education market. The local context plays an important role in my study, as I strive to understand how and why community colleges, a sector devoted to serving its local communities, are designing for global learning. The literature on internationalization of the community college has lagged behind that of other sectors, with the majority having been published after 2007 (Harder, 2011; Raby & Valeau, 2007). According to Bradshaw (2013), a shift occurred in the early 21st century in which international education went from being viewed as something extraneous and luxurious in the community college environment to a more essential part of educating citizens and employees for 23 a globalized economy and world. Prior to this shift, it was largely assumed that community college students interested in study abroad and international education would pursue those interests at a 4-year university after they transferred. While Bradshaw paints this shift as occurring widely in the sector, it is important to remember that the most recent ACE (2017) survey on internationalization of higher education reported that only 35% of responding associate institutions had some reference to international or global outcomes in their mission statement and only 33% ranked internationalization activities of any kind among the top five institutional priorities. While internationalization efforts in the community college have grown, they largely remain peripheral, and are often viewed as option or add-on (Green, 2016; Raby & Valeau, 2015). Green (2007) also pointed out the gap between “the growing national recognition of the need for global and international education and the actual state of international education in U.S. higher education,” noting also that “with 52% of first-year students enrolled in community colleges, global learning at the postsecondary level must begin there” (p. 16). National calls for increasing study abroad participation and global competence for college students such as the 2005 congressional report Global Competence and National Needs: One Million Americans Studying Abroad and the 2011 initiative 100,000 Strong have specifically called on community colleges to be more involved. Robertson (2014) examined community college students’ interest in global topics, their participation in internationalized activities, and their levels of global perspective. A majority of students surveyed did not indicate strong interest in international education, but those who did shared common personal and academic experiences. Family and peer encouragement were the most important influences on students’ interest in international education, followed by speaking a second language and having a parent born in another country. Students who measured as 24 having a strong global perspective indicated having had courses with internationalized content and/or regular interactions with faculty who talked about global issues in the classroom. Students who were not interested in international education cited several reasons, including the perceived high cost of study abroad and a sense that global topics were not relevant to their daily lives. The results of Robertson’s study confirm the importance of internationalizing the campus and the curriculum in order to expose more students to global issues and educate students and parents on the benefits of international education. Harder (2010) conducted an ex post facto study of 2006 survey data from the ACE internationalization survey to compare the level of internationalization at rural, suburban, and urban community colleges and determine critical dimensions of internationalization. Results indicated that rural community colleges experienced significantly less internationalization than suburban and urban colleges, and institutional support was the most critical indicator of successful internationalization at all institutions. Sipe (2016) examined the influence of environmental factors on internationalization in community colleges, seeking to determine if a relationship exists between levels of internationalization and three environmental factors: setting, student demographics (e.g., ethnic diversity), and primary industry in the colleges service area. Findings from the study indicated that relatively few community colleges in Washington and Oregon were prioritizing internationalization, and colleges in a rural setting had the lowest overall internationalization score. There was no significant relationship between student demographics or primary industry and level of internationalization (Sipe, 2016). Conceptual Framework Numerous scholars have studied and attempted to categorize the rationales that drive internationalization in higher education. One of the most well-cited and influential frameworks 25 for thinking about rationales for internationalization of higher education was first presented by Knight (1995, 1997) and further developed by Knight and de Wit (1999), both of whom have continued to refine the concept over the last two decades (de Wit, 2002; Knight, 2004; Knight, 2012). Knight and de Wit’s (1999) original framework organized rationales for internationalization of postsecondary education into four categories: academic, economic, political, and social-cultural. Following is a brief description of each category as initially explained by Knight (1997). Political rationales focus on national security and diplomacy as well as preserving national identity in the face of modern globalization. Economic rationales tend to emphasize employability and economic competitiveness within a globalized marketplace. Academic rationales emphasize sharing and discovery of knowledge, such as through research collaborations and institutional partnerships, as well as establishing international standards and curriculum alignment schemes. Social-cultural rationales emphasize improved intercultural understanding and communication and often include the concept of global citizenship and intercultural competence. Knight’s (1997) early description of these categories acknowledged that they were not meant to operate as mutually exclusive because many rationales fall into more than one category and categories are interrelated. While the framework was created intentionally broad, it is important to note it was developed in the context of research-intensive universities. The community college sector differs significantly from that of research-intensive universities, thus rationales for internationalization in the community college may also differ significantly from those in the research university sector. Knight (1999) proposed that rationales are initiated from various stakeholder groups at the national level, the sector level, and the institutional level. Knight’s (1999) initial description of the categories for rationales emphasized the perspectives of national level stakeholders, 26 particularly within the categories of political and economic rationales. Knight (2004) updated this early framework by discussing the influence of external drivers at the national and sector levels and emphasizing the importance of institutional level rationales, where the actual work of internationalization is carried out. Knight (2012) later described the initial framework as providing “a useful macro-view” but called for more nuanced understandings of rationales and motivations, particularly at the institutional level (p. 33). As internationalization itself grows more complex, factors such as institution type affect how rationales drive internationalization through both process and product (Knight, 2012). My study adds to the understanding of internationalization rationales by focusing on the institutional level, particularly within the community college sector. Knight (2004) posited that “the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of internationalization are (or at least should be) directly linked” (p. 22). Institutional motivations (or rationales—Knight uses the terms interchangeably) should define the goals and objectives for internationalization, which should then directly shape the strategies used to attain the goals. Rationales, strategies, and processes are linked at the institutional level, where internationalization actually happens. Yet, little research has examined rationales at the institutional level, and even less has linked rationales with strategies, and examined the influence of local context. In my study, I used Knight and de Wit’s (1999) framework to aid my investigation of both how and why community colleges are designing for global learning, as well as the role of context. I drew on Knight and de Wit’s (1999) framework to develop my initial interview protocol, to guide my initial data analysis and in my write-up of the data. I did not seek to test Knight and deWit’s (1999) framework, nor did I apply it to the community college sector blindly. Because the four categories of rationales are so broad, I felt they had the potential to be applied in a variety of 27 sectors but perhaps in different ways. Knight (2012) implied that she intentionally created the framework to be broad for this very purpose. When I analyzed my data, I first looked for themes that arose outside of Knight and de Wit’s (1999) framework, and then I attempted to apply their framework in order to assess if it was indeed relevant in the community college sector. I found that it was indeed relevant, but it needed to be adapted to reflect important differences unique to the community college sector. In Chapter 7, I describe the adapted framework that eventually came out of this analysis process. In this chapter, I provided an overview of the literature on global learning in postsecondary education and internationalization in the community college. I also described Knight and de Wit’s (1999) framework for internationalization rationales and described how I utilized the framework to guide various aspects of my study. In Chapter 3, I discuss my research design, including why I chose a qualitative approach and specifically a multi-site case study design. I also discuss site and sample selection, data collection and analysis, trustworthiness, and researcher reflexivity. 28 CHAPTER THREE—METHODOLOGY As higher education institutions respond to globalization and the internationalization imperative expands to almost every type of campus, the development of students’ global competence has been identified by many as a primary outcome of undergraduate education (Hovland, 2014; Killick, 2015; Stearns, 2009). Postsecondary institutions of all types seek to incorporate global learning programming into the campus environment. However, little is known about how and why global learning initiatives are developed at individual institutions, and especially at broad access institutions such as community colleges, where almost half of all U. S. college students enroll at some point in their college career. The purpose of my study was to learn more about the rationales, strategies, and processes that drive global learning in the community college. Three research questions guided my study: • What rationales are driving community college to design for global learning? • What strategies are community college using to design for global learning? • In what ways is context related to designing for global learning in community colleges? In this chapter, I describe my research design and methodological choices as well as the implications of those choices for my study. Design of the Study As the purposes of my study were understanding and contextualization, I felt a qualitative approach was the best choice. Qualitative research is primarily concerned with uncovering the meaning behind a phenomenon and describing the process of meaning-making rather than testing a theory or hypothesis (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative research is inductive, descriptive, and context-bound. My epistemological leanings and my research purpose aligned in this project to call for an interpretivist approach grounded in social constructivism. The assumptions I bring to 29 my research include a belief that reality and knowledge are socially constructed and that “variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure” (Glesne, 2011, p. 9). I felt it was important to approach my topic from multiple angles and to include the views and experiences of a variety of participants. Because I approached this work from a social constructivist and interpretivist lens, I did not seek to measure or assess outcomes of the global learning programs at the heart of each case, nor did judge the value of them, but rather sought to understand the perceptions and beliefs of the various participants involved in creating and implementing the programs. Case Study According to Yin (2003), case study is the “preferred strategy when how or why questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context” (p. 1). In my study, I sought to understand how and why community colleges are designing for global learning through the investigation of a contemporary phenomenon (the development of global education initiatives) within a real-life context (two chosen community college campuses). Jones, Torres, and Arminio (2006) explained, “what distinguishes case study from other qualitative approaches is the intensive focus on a bounded system, which can be an individual, a specific program, a process, an institution, or a relationship” (p. 53). In my study, the community college served as the bounded system of the case. Merriam (2009) asserted that “the unit of analysis, not the topic of investigation, characterizes a case study” (p. 41). While I asked questions about the creation of specific global education initiatives in order to gain insight into my broader question, the initiatives themselves were not the focus of the study—rather, the community college was the focus and thus the case. 30 Multi-site case study. Stake (1981) explained that “[i]nsights into how things get to be the way they are can be expected to result from case studies” (p. 47). By understanding how and why global learning initiatives came to be within their community college environments, I hoped to gain insight into my broader research questions about the rationales and strategies guiding community colleges in designing for global learning. Stake distinguishes between two basic types of case studies: intrinsic and instrumental. In the intrinsic case study, the case is chosen because it is unique and could not be replicated at any other site. In the instrumental case study, the case is chosen because it is a good representative of a larger phenomenon. I consider both of my cases instrumental as they each represent an example of the range of global education initiatives being designed at community colleges, and both self-identified as engaged in designing for global learning through their response to and participation in the CCID global certificate project referenced in Chapter 1. While both cases represent the larger phenomenon of community colleges engaged in designing for global learning, they exist within very different contexts. I chose to conduct a multisite case study because I believed that elements of the different local contexts between the two colleges would provide an important basis of comparison. In addition, because the mission of the community college is so directly linked to its local context, I felt it was important to investigate the role of local context in designing for global learning at community colleges. Choosing two cases with different local contexts was an important way to get at the question of local context. In Chapter 6, I performed a cross-case comparison in which I explored the similarities and differences of the rationales and strategies between the two case sites and considered the role of local context. 31 Sample and Site Selection I chose two cases for my study. I first employed reputational sampling to narrow my list of case site options. I utilized a list of 20 community colleges that self-identified as having an active, campus-based global education program by participating in a survey on global certificate programs at community colleges conducted by a nonprofit organization, Community Colleges for International Development (CCID). I determined that by responding to the CCID survey, these institutions were identified as actively engaged in designing for global learning. In order to choose two cases from the list of 20, I employed the following selection criteria: 1. Variation in program design of the identified global education initiatives at each site. While the specific design elements of the global education initiative were a primary subject of study themselves, I believed it was beneficial to have some variation in design to compare the strategies utilized at the different campuses and the possible role of local context in contributing to these design differences. 2. Variation in geographic location, local demographics, and student demographics between the case sites. I wanted one case located in a more rural area and one in a more urban area, one case to have a more ethnically homogenous student body and local community population and the other to have a more ethnically heterogeneous student body and local population. I also considered differences in state academic and economic contexts. I focused on differences in these aspects of local context in order to more fully consider its role in designing for global learning in the community college, especially in light of the primary mission of the community college to serve its local community. Existing literature indicated a difference in levels of internationalization between urban, suburban, and rural community colleges (Harder, 2010). I utilized the websites of each potential 32 college as well as the website of the U.S. Census Bureau in order to gather data related to these selection criteria. 3. Willingness to participate in the study, sufficient institutional contacts and availability of a variety of interview participants during the dates of data collection. Case 1: Coastal Community College. The first case site I chose was Coastal Community College (CCC), where I identified a currently active, campus-based global education initiative in the form of a global endorsement program. CCC, a pseudonym, is located in a mostly rural area within a small town of approximately 15,000 individuals, according to 2015 census data. CCC is located on a stretch of coastline that is a tourist attraction and has also resulted in a successful water resources program at the college. Although the community surrounding CCC experienced an economic boom in recent years due to increased tourism, the region is still considered rural. According to 2015 U. S. Census data, 94.9% of the local population identified as White, and the median household income was $52,487 (U.S. Census, 2015). The global endorsement program is described as, “A voluntary, official endorsement attached to the [CCC] student transcript certifying a student has gone beyond normal expectations to analyze, interact and develop a global awareness and understanding…” To complete the endorsement, students must earn a minimum of 100 points within three categories: academic coursework, experiential learning, and attendance at co-curricular events. The global endorsement is a primarily campus-based program that is open to students in all majors. Case 2: Metropolitan Community College System. The second case site I chose was Metropolitan Community College System (MMCS). MMCS is a large, multi-campus community college system serving a major metropolitan area in the continental United States. The college comprises three main campuses and three satellite campuses serving approximately 30,000 for 33 credit students and 30,000 noncredit continuing education students annually. About 60% of MCCS students identify as female and 40% male. Overall, the college racial/ethnic makeup is minority-majority with about 42% students identifying as White, 39% Black, 8% Asian, 6% Latino, 3% multiracial, and 1% unknown. Over half of all MCCS students work 20 hours per week or more. Almost 40% of MCCS students receive Pell grants. These data were obtained from institutional documents available on the college’s website. MCCS also has a global endorsement program, which is currently in the process of transitioning to an official academic certificate program. While I chose my cases by identifying an existing global education programs at each site, there were additional ways each college was designing for global learning. I did not limit myself to investigating only the previously identified programs but aimed for a holistic understanding of global education at each case site. I included questions in my protocol intended to discover additional ways the college may be designing for global learning. Sample The sample of participants in this study consisted of faculty and administrators associated with the identified global education initiative(s) at the case sites. I used purposeful sampling to find participants, deliberately choosing a combination of faculty members, executive-level administrators, and student affairs administrators who were either directly or indirectly involved in designing, developing, or implementing global education initiatives with each college. In purposeful sampling, participants are chosen for a specific reason and are usually limited to a smaller group of individuals with specialized knowledge or experience (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2012). I then employed snowball sampling to find additional participants as necessary. Snowball sampling is when participants are referred through other participants (Remler & Van Ryzin). 34 Both sampling techniques proved useful for obtaining a productive sample. In the constructivist paradigm, “truth is relative and…is dependent on one’s perspective” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545). Therefore, I felt it was important to interview a variety of faculty and administrators in order to access multiple perspectives on the topic of global education. I interviewed 10 participants at CCC and 14 at MCCS. Appendix A details the participants by name (pseudonym), title, and case site. Data Collection Case study design does not mandate specific methods of data collection but commonly include interviews, observations, and document analysis (Merriam, 2009). A hallmark of case study research is the use of multiple data sources, which is also thought to increase credibility (Baxter & Jack, 2008). I chose to employ two primary methods of data collection: semi- structured interviews and document analysis. My primary data-gathering source was interviews with campus faculty and administrators. I developed a protocol for study participants, included in Appendix B. Initial interviews lasted from 45 minutes to 1 hour and were audio-recorded and then transcribed. I conducted brief follow-up interviews and/or email exchanges with a few select individuals at each case in order to clarify interview segments and/or understand documents more thoroughly. I employed a semi-structured interview design to allow for both flexibility and consistency in my data collection (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2011). Semi-structured interviews involve the use of a predetermined protocol containing a mix of more and less structured questions that can be used flexibly, although the goal is to obtain generally the same data from all participants. Because “less structured formats assume individual respondents define the world in unique ways” (Merriam, 2009, p. 90), a semi-structured interview protocol fits with the 35 interpretive, constructivist paradigm that informs my research, allowing multiple perspectives to emerge. I also collected and analyzed documents associated with global education initiatives at each case site, including both web-based and hard copy data sources. Relevant documents for analysis included promotional items containing descriptions of the global initiatives (e.g., brochures and websites), proposals, student and faculty handbooks, institutional catalogs, community newspapers and websites, board and committee meeting minutes, and strategic planning documents. Analysis of these documents served several purposes. First, they either confirmed or challenged information obtained during interviews. Second, they provided additional context for information gathered during interviews, as well as contextual details about the local community and campus environment. Third, they provided insight into the macro-level rationales that were presented by the college in order to market global education programs. Finally, they provided in depth historical information about the design and development process of the global education initiatives. Data Analysis Data analysis in qualitative research should occur simultaneously with data collection (Merriam, 2009). It is an ongoing and iterative process with tentative themes developing as the study progresses. I utilized the following strategies for analyzing data as it is being collected during my data collection and analysis, as described by Merriam (2009) and originally from Bogdan and Biklen: Force yourself to make decisions that narrow the study. 1. “Plan data collection sessions according to what you find in previous observations” (Merriam, 2009, p. 171). 36 2. “Write observer’s comments as you go” (Merriam, 2009, p. 171). 3. “Write memos to yourself about what you are learning” (Merriam, 2009, p. 171). 4. “Try out ideas and themes on participants” (Merriam, 2009, p. 171). 5. “Begin exploring (or reread) the literature while you are in the field” (Merriam, 2009, p. 171). 6. “Play with metaphors, analogies, and concepts” (Merriam, 2009, p. 171). 7. “Use visual devices” (Merriam, 2009, p. 171). After each interview session, I made notes on my observations and tried to identify important data and potential themes related to my research questions. I sometimes used these observations to modify my interview protocol, being careful to keep my questions consistent enough to ensure I collected consistent data from one participant to the next. Once my interviews were completed and transcribed, I began my data analysis by hand coding the documents using thematic analysis procedures, mining the data for patterns and emergent themes within each site and across sites (Glesne, 2011). I isolated quotes in the transcripts and documents as evidence of emerging themes, and then created a separate document where I listed themes as they emerged and copied and pasted quotes underneath each theme. I then grouped and sorted the themes into categories based on my three research questions. After my initial attempt to code the data using naturally emerging themes, I performed another round of data analysis using Knight and de Wit’s (1999) framework of four categories for internationalization rationales. I examined transcript data and documents for evidence of rationales and strategies in each of their four categories: political, economic, academic, and social-cultural. During this round of data analysis, I utilized a color-coding scheme to identify each of the four categories. During this round, I also identified elements of local context that 37 seemed relevant to rationales and strategies, utilizing the color-coding scheme to identify quotes related to local context. I did not treat the four categories as mutually exclusive, sometimes including data in more than one category. It is important in qualitative research to determine when to stop collecting data. It is generally considered prudent to cease data collection when sources have been exhausted and thematic categories are saturated” (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). Saturation is the point at which the findings seem to be repeating themselves, with no new findings emerging. I regularly checked in with my data to assess when this point had occurred and felt confident that I had reached a point of saturation where I had enough data to answer my research questions. Trustworthiness All research must be considered trustworthy to be useful, and this is especially important in applied fields such as education (Merriam, 2009). In qualitative research, the goal of the researcher is to capture and report participants’ perspectives and interpretations of reality as accurately as possible so that the reader can ultimately gain a sense of shared understanding. In all research, the researcher is engaged in interpretation of the data, but in qualitative research the researcher is also the primary data collection instrument (Merriam). I utilized four strategies to ensure trustworthiness in my study: thick description, triangulation, member checking, and audit trail. Thick description. The goal in reporting qualitative data is to provide enough detail about the case to paint a rich and accurate picture for the reader. The reader should be able to clearly see how and why the researcher interpreted the data as they did. One way to ensure rich description is to engage in prolonged exposure, spending enough time in the research site to gain an accurate and deep sense of the context. In addition to prolonged exposure, seeking multiple 38 perspectives and using participants’ words helps accurately portray participants’ experiences and perceptions. I visited each case site for 5 days, spending time on each of the various campuses and in the local communities surrounding them. I kept a reflection journal of field notes while at each site, recording my observations of the context and my own experiences and reactions. The rich data obtained through my interviews made it easy to utilize participants’ words to illustrate important themes and points, and I was sure to include a number of carefully selected quotes in my findings chapters. Triangulation and peer debriefing. Triangulation is an important way to ensure the reliability of qualitative research. In triangulation, the researcher uses multiple methods and sources instead of relying on just a single source for data. I used multiple methods (interview and document analysis) and multiple sources (multiple participants and perspectives– faculty and administrators) to collect my data. I also employed. I also utilized a peer de-briefer to discuss my findings and analysis during the data analysis and write-up phases. Audit trail. I kept several journals and utilized a spreadsheet to log my research processes so that I would be able to explain in detail at the end of my study how I collected and analyzed my data, what questions arose from the data, what decisions were made, how categories emerged and solidified, and what measures of reflexivity were followed. These consisted of a handwritten notebook used while on site, a number of research memos written during data collect, and an excel spreadsheet keeping track of participants and documents. I also kept records of my color coding and thematic analysis documents and created multiple copies of transcripts in order to keep those with notes and color coding applied. Transferability. Generalizability, or external validity, is “the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations” (Merriam, 2009, p. 223). In qualitative 39 research, this is more commonly referred to as transferability. The best way to ensure transferability is to provide enough details that the reader can assess the similarity between the research situation and another situation with which they are familiar; it is up to the reader of the study’s findings to decide if there is transferability. The researcher cannot ensure transferability but can ensure internal validity and provide enough detail that the reader can come to his or her own conclusions. Another important consideration for transferability is in sample selection. Maximum variation in the sites selected and in participants interviewed “allows for the possibility of a greater range of application by readers or consumers of the research” (Merriam, 2009, p. 227). I believe my choice of diverse case sites and the variety of faculty and administrators in my sample contribute to a greater level of transferability for my findings. Researcher Reflexivity As the primary instrument for data collection, it was critical for me to explore and expose my own biases and assumptions and to consider the ways these might influence my data collection and interpretation. This process is known as researcher reflexivity (Glesne, 2006). I utilized two techniques to engage in this process. First, I included a section in my research journal devoted to noting and exploring my personal feelings during my field work and data analysis. Second, I used peer debriefing to discuss my data collection processes and findings with a colleague with whom I discussed ways that my personal background and assumptions might be shaping the data. Especially important for me to consider was my previous and ongoing connections with community colleges and global learning programs. I previously taught in several community colleges and have been involved in designing and administering global education programs for over 10 years in various capacities. I have existing beliefs about best practices for designing global education programs and the importance of global learning for all 40 higher education institutions. It was important for me to remember my role was not to evaluate program designs or administrative strategies and processes, but to explore my research questions through understanding and reporting the perspectives of my study participants. Limitations As with most dissertations, my study was limited by time and resources. A case study design meant that I needed to physically travel to the case site and spend time there. One site offered to connect me with participants virtually, but I felt it was important to physically spend time on the campus and in the community. While it might have been even more informative to conduct a multi-site case study at more than two sites, this would have been difficult in my situation as a doctoral student, and I believe that the two sites I visited yielded useful and transferrable findings, especially with the variation in context, participants and program design between the two sites. There are also conceptual limitations to the study. I was not able to gain access to interview the presidents at either case site and was only able to interview one executive-level administrator (a vice president [VP] at CCC). The absence of presidential perspective is particularly limiting for the data collected at CCC where the global education movement was largely attributed to a strong vision from the president and was led in a top-down, administrative style. While I strove to balance faculty and administrator views in my data collection, I was limited to those participants who volunteered their time. I ended up talking to more faculty than administrators overall, and especially at MCCS. At MCCS, the global education movement was framed as being primarily faculty-initiated and faculty-led, following a collaborative, bottom-up leadership style. However, while it must be noted that the primary data source for this 41 information was interviews with faculty members, the documents I reviewed supported this finding. Finally, I was not able to engage in member-checking as I had initially planned, due to a lack of response from participants and the time constraints of the study. I believe if I had been able to get more member feedback on my initial themes and analysis, I might have been able to gain further perspective. Despite these material and conceptual limitations, I believe that the findings of this study offer important and useful implications for understanding the nature of global education program in the community college sector. 42 CHAPTER FOUR—COASTAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE International education has been a part of CCC since its inception 60 years ago. In the last decade, however, it has become a strategic priority, largely because of the current president and his articulated vision for global education to be a distinctive feature of CCC to set it apart in a competitive higher education marketplace. The more recent creation of a dedicated international education office and dedicated staff has allowed for more centralization of global education efforts, creating more visibility for global education on campus and in the local community. Global education efforts are currently organized around a curriculum-based global certificate program that brings together coursework, experiential learning opportunities—both domestic and abroad—and co-curricular activities. CCC enjoys a close relationship with its surrounding local community, an important influence on both the rationales guiding the college’s decision to focus on global education and the ways in which that played out. Institutional Overview CCC is a publicly funded community college located in a primarily rural area in the United States and has been operating since the early 1950s. CCC serves approximately 5,000 students in credit-bearing classes annually, about 80% of whom are degree-seeking students. About 75% of CCC’s graduates are employed in the local area and about 85% are employed in the state. CCC also serves its community through an extensive extended education program, with about 10,000 non-credit students per year. While the local setting is considered rural, the community enjoys a robust seasonal tourist population because of its desirable coastal location. The coastal location also lends itself to numerous agricultural industries that form much of the local economy, including a growing wine industry. CCC is known for a number of unique professional programs, such as its Water Resources Institute, aviation, nursing, engineering, and 43 maritime technology programs. CCC also houses a thriving arts program that is connected to a large, robust museum on campus and several well-known performing arts programs in the area. CCC has three campuses, all within a few miles of each other. The main campus hosts most of the administrative offices, the museum, and the arts buildings. One of the satellite campuses has coastal access and hosts the water resources and maritime technology programs, while the other satellite campus is in an industrial park and hosts the aviation and engineering technology programs. CCC is home to a University Center where they partner with a number of public and private 4-year universities in the state to bring additional degree options to the area residents. Students can earn bachelor’s, master’s, and even doctoral degrees through partnerships at the University Center. Most students at CCC come from the local community, but CCC also attracts students throughout the region and the state, including a small number of students from a large urban area in the state. About 52% of students at CCC are female and 63% are enrolled part-time. These numbers are consistent with average community college enrollments in the United States. The age distribution of CCC’s student population is 12% under 17, 58% 18-24 years old, 19% 25-34 years old, 9% 35-49 years old, and 2% over 50. The racial/ethnic demographic of CCC’s student population is 84% White, 4% Hispanic/Chicano, 3% multiracial, 2% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 1% Black, 1% Asian, and 5% undeclared. CCC enjoys a close relationship with the local community and is seen as a resource for bringing arts and culture as well as jobs into the region. A guide to services brochure found on campus proclaimed, “CCC. . . is a major cultural resource and community partner.” All participants interviewed at CCC talked about the importance of the campus museum and the prominence of support for culture and arts in the community. Global education was often linked 44 to the community as both a response to and an influence on the local appreciation for culture and arts. Carrie, program assistant in the international education office and native to the area noted: We're fortunate in that we have a community that appreciates the arts and likes exposure. We have the film festival every summer that brings so many thought-provoking films and perspectives, interesting people from other universities and college towns, and a lot of retired teachers, and a lot of people that live here love the film festival as well. . .. It's a very curious community that likes their recreation and likes to know about the world. Global Education at Coastal Community College The roots of the global education movement at CCC go back to its founding in the 1950s. Thanks to an active Rotary Club in the area and a robust exchange student program in the local secondary schools, CCC has been actively recruiting and hosting international students on its campus since first opening its doors. The first known strategy for increasing a focus on global education at CCC was to increase the percentage of international students on campus, as explained by Rachel, Director of Academic Advising: “They wanted to increase the international student population to at least 5% of our total. . . . We've had international students on campus since the mid-50s almost continuously.” However, the college has faced some challenges in meeting its goal of 5% international students, specifically the challenge of providing affordable housing in the area, as George, VP for Academic Affairs, explained: Housing is a challenge for us. I mean, housing in this region of the state is expensive, and so it's difficult for students to find housing if they're going to travel a long distance. And so, while we have had a goal now for some time for that 5% of the student population, which would be 200 to 250 students, we have no place to put them, and so we kind of put a pause on a real rigorous attempt. 45 Still, CCC sees international student recruitment as an important part of its overall strategy for global education. George explained the two-fold approach to global education that CCC recently adopted: President [Edwards] has been here since 2001, so it's over that time that we've really recognized that we have to do more. . . . It’s really kind of a two-fold approach. We have to find ways to give our students more international experiences, and we have to find ways to bring more international students to CCC. I mean, [this region] is fairly homogenous and so bringing diversity to the campus—obviously, you do it through experiences, you do it through learning, but it also helps to have international students here that can share their experiences. Early attempts to internationalize the home campus focused on the curriculum. CCC implemented a requirement for all associate degrees to include at least one cultural diversity course. These courses explicitly attempted to include global perspectives and two even took students overseas, one in engineering and the other in water resources. Water resources professor Camille described her early use of Skype to connect students at CCC to students in Argentina who were also studying water issues: In the first class that we designed, intro to fresh water studies, we had a project that was globally connected. For the students, it was such a stretch to think of Argentina or to even think that they could have connection with the people who lived in Argentina. Skype had just started becoming more common and it was very affordable to get an account, so we had conversations on Skype, but that was revolutionary. We had a conversation with someone who lived on Lake Titicaca. Oh, my goodness, people were like—everybody was talking about it. This was not even 10 years ago, so things have changed a lot. 46 Once CCC decided to put more emphasis on global education, an international office was opened and study abroad programs were housed there, including those that previously existed. Camille described this process and how it affected her program in Costa Rica, the first study abroad program at CCC: And the college created an international office. . . and it's been evolving. . . and the office has opened a lot of opportunities. The first group I took to Costa Rica, there were only two international opportunities in the whole college. . . . And we were really the first program that started taking students overseas under our own—we did everything. And then the college said, “No, we need to open it up to more programs, more opportunities, and have centralized administration taking care of all the legal paperwork and all the booking and the administrative part.” So, that's what the international office does. The most visible and campus-wide global education initiative at CCC is the global certificate program, which combined globalized coursework with on-campus events and experiential learning such as study abroad or domestic options and rewards students who complete the endorsement with a notation on their official transcript. The global certificate program is run by the Director of the International Programs office. Global Education Initiatives Most global education initiatives at CCC are tied into the global certificate program in some way. All courses at CCC are eligible to be globalized, which the curriculum committee has defined as containing at least 60% global material, along with other specifications. Courses that receive the globalized course approval are then eligible to count toward completion of the global certificate. Students must take 15 credits of globalized coursework in order to complete the global certificate. They must also collect a specified number of points, which can be earned by 47 attending internationally focused events on campus and in the community, participating in the international club, and studying abroad or completing a domestic global education experience. Experiential learning is required, but study abroad counts for more points than the domestic experiences, so students who study abroad could complete the endorsement without attending as many co-curricular events. Table 1 summarizes the various global education initiatives at CCC, all of which are in some way tied into the global endorsement program. Global Education Organizational Structure The International Programs Office (IPO) is the central location for administering all global education initiatives at CCC. The IPO tracks the progress of all students enrolled in the global certificate, tracks which courses have been globalized, partners with offices on campus such as student life and the campus museum to organize and advertise globally-oriented co- curricular events on campus and in the community, runs the international club, and administers all study abroad programs. The IPO is led by Paul, the director, and employs one full-time assistant/coordinator. The director reports to the VP for Academic Affairs. A faculty advisory committee was formed to advise on the creation and implementation of the global certificate Table 1 Summary of Global Education Initiatives at Coastal Community College Type of Initiative Academic/Curricular Academic/Curricular Academic/Curricular Student Life Student Life Student Life Faculty/Staff Development Community/Continuing Education Community/Continuing Education Community/Continuing Education Initiative Description Globalized Courses Global Certificate Program Study Abroad programs International Education Week International Club Passport Program Series (events) Global Literature Reading Group International Affairs Group Museum Exhibits and Cultural Events Globally-Focused Courses 48 program. The faculty committee occasionally meets to advise on any proposed changes to the program and members often serve as evaluators for students who present their final portfolio as a completion requirement for the program, however the committee is not involved in the day to day operations of the program. Additional faculty outside of the advisory committee also serve as student evaluators, using a rubric to evaluate student presentations. Most study abroad programs are still developed and led by faculty in the departments running them, but all administrative work for study abroad programs is led by the IPO. These duties include reviewing applications and interviewing applicants, all health and safety procedures, pre-departure orientation, and coordination of academic requirements with the curriculum committee. The IPO also organizes globally-focused events on campus, often in tandem with other offices such as Student Life, Extended Education, the International Affairs Forum, and the campus museum. Rationales Rationales for focusing on global education at CCC primarily fell into three categories: student centered, institution centered, and community centered. While aspects of students, institution, and community are intertwined in many of the rationales, categorizing the rationales in this way illuminates the driving force behind each theme and the primary concerns of individuals involved in global education programming at the college. Preparing Students The most prevalent rationales discussed by all participants had to do with preparing students for the future. Participants discussed this rationale both in terms of more abstract concepts such as the idea that society in general is becoming more global and in more concrete ways such as specific jobs of the future. The most common theme that arose was the idea of preparing graduates to compete in a globalized economy. This was often discussed with 49 reference to the local community. Participants noted many local students have never left the state and are not prepared to interact with people from different cultures and explained that many local employers operate in a global marketplace and need employers prepared for that reality. Another important student-driven theme was the idea that global education enhances student learning overall and prepares students for continued lifelong learning. Preparing students for the global economy. By far the most cited rationale for global education was the need to prepare students to compete in a global economy. Some participants even identified this as the specific vision of the president and preferred phrasing of the college, as described by one faculty member: I think that they [the foundation board] realized that the world needs people who are connected, and the students, if they want to be competitive in a global economy, they have to go abroad. So, that’s the line. The company line is that if you want to be competitive in a global economy, you have to go abroad and make connections and network with people from other countries. Participants described this sentiment as a clear message from the college president. Preparing students specifically for employment is an important and undeniable role of a community college, as Richard, political science faculty member, described: President [Edward’s] view in terms of the economic environment that our students are operating within because, as a community college. . . . People are aware that you're not just coming here for a liberal arts education. You're coming here to develop a skill set that's also economically useful, and given the nature of globalization right now, as an institution, we have, I think, a decent level of awareness for how globalized our domestic economy is and how globalized, basically, the world has become, that a knowledge of 50 other cultures, other economic systems, other political systems, the international political economy, and this type of thing is a very important thing for our students to understand because they're not really going to be able to capably navigate in our economy without that knowledge. In addition to talking more abstractly about the global economy, participants also talked about the specific nature of jobs of the future, citing these jobs require students to have global competence. Carrie, assistant in the IPO, used the example of future teachers: They're going to work with an international world as a teacher in the classroom, and you have students from different cultures, so you have students who speak a different language maybe at home, so it's just getting students—giving them some tools to work with people with different perspectives, different histories, different experiences. Participants also expressed concern that there will not be enough jobs available locally for all students who graduate, and felt it was therefore important for CCC graduates to be prepared for jobs outside the local area, as noted by Paul, Director of Global Education: I want our students to look at opportunities outside of [city] and outside of [state] because they're going to have to find them there. I mean, it's not like—we've got a lot of college graduates now and job-wise they may need to look at those things. It's not as easy as it was 20 years ago. . . . It's important that they develop a curiosity for that. Preparing students for a globalized society. Participants at CCC talked about the ways society in general has become more connected globally, the ways in which that affects daily lives, and why it is important for students to gain an understanding of the impact of these connections. Technology was frequently cited as both a reason why the world is more connected and an important vehicle for students to use in order to connect and learn about the world. 51 Faculty member Camille stated, “the world is becoming more connected, so it's not such a novelty to [talk with someone overseas via skype or other technology],” and international programs director Paul echoed, “it's important for students these days to understand what the world is because they interact with it. It's so easy to interact with it, certainly through the technology we have.” Paul also noted that the college is working on ways to use technology to help students connect to the world: “We live in an interconnected world now, so they need to Face time, they need to Skype somebody that’s [sic] in that country. We're working on that.” Richard, faculty member in political science, discussed the sociocultural and political ramifications of remaining unaware of global systems, noting a shift in the local workforce as one of several reasons why students need global education preparation: A lot of my students, when you think of things 50 years ago, graduating high school and then going into manufacturing as kind of a viable thing to do, and that's not really the case anymore, and won't be the case. I mean it's not like we can return to 1960 on that front. That's just not happening, and. . . you have all this kind of resentment towards groups outside the United States, which is totally unjustified because automation is really the reason for much of the manufacturing disappearing in the United States, right? And nobody talks about it. . . . so, if my students don't understand the international factors and the domestic factors on that front, they're going to make bad decisions. They're going to resent people who they shouldn't resent. They're not going to be empowered, but rather they're just going to be ignorant of what's really happening. Enhancing learning. Not only does global education prepare students for the future, but it also enhances and improves their overall learning—from the academic mission to the moral or liberal education imperative of higher education—and prepares students for future learning 52 should they transfer to a four-year institution or return to school later in life. George, VP for Academic Affairs, stated: “It's a case where the students get better opportunities if they have a richer educational experience and international education is a part of that.” He followed that statement with a specific example of a current partnership between CCC and China: The Chinese college there has facilities and expertise that compliment what we have here. And we have things that they need there, and so it is a partnership of expanding what we have to make the experience, both of the students there and here, much richer than it would be if we relied on our own. We cannot possibly do the kinds of work that our students could do if they were in China doing that kind of work. . . and so, to me, it's a case where it helps to enrich us, and enrich our student experiences, that we couldn't do otherwise. The personal transformative learning that occurs with study abroad was also cited as a rationale for global education by several participants, including faculty member Camille who regularly took students to Costa Rica: What I'm learning from the student is that by going abroad, they truly get transformed. . . . I've heard many, many stories that are powerful, but I think the most powerful are the ones that really touch someone's life in a way that you cannot get the same outcome unless they did that, unless they left their comfort zone, and stretched their boundaries, and started looking at their life from another perspective. Some participants talked about a different kind of learning characterized as moral education and expressed as equally important to academic learning. Political science faculty member Richard explained: 53 There's also a philosophical component that's about just kind of the value of recognizing the interconnectedness of peoples across the world. . . . I would argue that students morally should consider the obligations they have to their fellow citizens in the United States, and to their fellow human beings outside of the United States. Richard went on to express the belief that global education is about illuminating global systems and increasing understanding of how global events affect local individuals and communities. An additional aspect of enhancing learning through global education was the idea that students who participate in global opportunities will be better prepared to benefit from opportunities and learning experiences at transfer institutions. Paul, Director of International Education, explained: They may transfer to [state university] Okay? And it's like, “Okay, so we've got Kofi Annan is going to come in and talk.” And Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the UN, he's on the ball. He knows what's going on in the world that may affect those students. And if the student’s like, “I've never heard of that name. I'm not going to go to it,” then they miss out. But if they would've heard that name somewhere in a course here in international relations or something like that, all of a sudden, they're like, “Wow, this guy. He's somebody important. Maybe I should go listen.” Or they go down there and they room with an international student. How do you try and understand that person? And how do you open yourselves up to share cultural aspects together? And there's a richness when that happens. However, Paul also felt it was important to point out that not all students at a community college will transfer, and students whose time at CCC will be their only college experience deserve to be exposed to global education ideas as well, “Because we know that not all students are going to finish a bachelor's degree. Some may stop at the associate degree. So then how do they get 54 information on the world? They're not finishing those higher-level courses that others would be. So, if there's a chance to pique their interest and get them involved, I mean, what a great opportunity.” Reflecting and Strengthening the Institution Participants also expressed rationales that were driven by the needs of the institution as well as by factors within the institutional environment. While student-driven rationales and motivations were always expressed as the most important reason for developing global learning initiatives, the reality is that an institution must remain competitive and relevant to thrive in today’s educational marketplace. Peer benchmarking, completion rates, and visibility emerged rationales for a focus on global education in order to enhance the competitiveness and prestige of the institution. Additionally, factors within the environment of the institution itself influenced development of global education programs, such as the personal beliefs and experiences of faculty and administrators and the strong vision of the president. This section explores these ideas as they were expressed by participants at CCC. Institutional leadership and the president’s vision. Nearly all participants at CCC cited the current president as being a strong influence on the college’s decision to focus on global education. Most participants described the president as having a vision that graduates of CCC see themselves as global citizens and be prepared to function within a global economy and society. Jeffrey, faculty member, explained, “The president of the college. . . has been a big generator of this kind of thing. He's quite interested in making sure that students get a global experience. That it's part of their education and they see themselves as global citizens.” George, VP for Academic Affairs, shared this view: “Cultural diversity has always been an important part of [the president’s] leadership, and I think his view of a global society and economy for which we need 55 prepare our students is something that has certainly been with him ever since he came here as president.” The president’s strong vision for global education led him to create a global scholarship fund, which receives private donations and supports student travel overseas. “One of the reasons is the president, his vision and he started the fund. The global [scholarship] fund was created by him and his wife,” noted faculty member Camille, who went on to explain that the existence of this scholarship has been fundamental in helping CCC students go overseas and in turn has helped launch the global certificate program. While the president was cited by all participants as the most influential leader for global education, several participants also noted past leaders who laid the foundation for the current global education work to be successful. Mariana, VP for Lifelong Learning, who has been at the college for over 30 years, noted the influence of a past president: Two presidents ago, [past president’s name], who had been an exchange student to the United States and then relocated here permanently and became a U. S. citizen. . . who was both our first woman and foreign-born president, she brought a trifecta into the college. . . . She had set as a platform to be more thoughtful and directive in what we were doing. President [Edwards] took it a step further. A former VP was also cited as promoting global education at CCC. Paul, Director of International Programs, explained the influence of this prior VP, and also described the relationship between the current president and the board: We had a vice president in here for. . . about 5 years. . . and she had lived in China and done work there. She was my boss when I was in the admissions office, so she was my vice president and she believed in it, and she had the president’s ear all the time, but she was the one that really pushed to have this office start. Some people say well, was your 56 board behind this? I think our board had to be convinced, honestly. I don't think the board was the key push for this. . . . I think the president, his relationship with the board had a lot to do with that. Personal experiences of faculty and staff. Several participants noted that the international experiences of many faculty and staff members at CCC have influenced the growing movement around global education. Some talked about the influence of their own experiences on their current work, while others talked about the history of global education at CCC and the ways that personal experiences of faculty and staff members have influenced the overall movement. Faculty member Camille referenced the former foreign-born president and posited that foreign-born faculty and staff are more often the ones pushing global education within institutions: “She really opened the possibilities and the opportunities to the college, as someone who was born and raised in a different country. . . because many times those are the people pushing international global connections—people who are from another country.” George, VP for Academic Affairs, recalled the early establishment of international partnerships that came from existing faculty relationships, “For some years we had a faculty member who traveled to Russia, he was an engineering instructor, and so he established an articulation agreement.” Mariana, VP of Lifelong Learning, also foreign-born, discussed the influence of her background on her teaching, “My life experience would make it impossible to be teaching anything without a broader than [state] perspective.” Carrie, assistant in the IPO, who was born and raised in the local area, also talked about her background as well as her previous career as a social studies teacher in local secondary schools and the influence that work had on her personal educational philosophy: 57 I also grew up doing a lot of volunteer work, a lot of service learning, and I think being a social studies teacher I believe in democracy, I believe in global citizenry, standing up and fighting for people who don't have the same rights and abilities in a country or a culture and just seeing the value of how unique we are but then also how similar and so just finding those common threads. Many participants talked about the culture at CCC and the willingness to embrace and call on the backgrounds and experiences of the faculty and staff to enhance the educational environment. Rachel, Director of Academic Advising, noted: I think you bring your personal connection because that's how we operate here. . . . I think the backgrounds and experiences of our faculty and staff and the fact that we have said as a campus community, “This is important to us,” we then tap them for that background and experience. We say, “How can we learn from you? How can we take some of what you learned when you did this and bring it to your classroom?” . . . . And I think people are encouraged on the faculty side to do that with their curriculum and to explore ways to expand their curriculum to include a global perspective. Mariana echoed these thoughts, also noting the culture of CCC that encourages faculty and staff to utilize their backgrounds and experiences, “It's just the group of people attracted to work at this college. It would be impossible for us to not include the world in the daily work. . . . There is freedom in our organization to leverage life experience into educational experience.” Institutional competitiveness. Several participants talked about global education at CCC as something that sets the college apart, something the college is known for in a higher education market that is competitive and where students have many choices. Faculty member Richard explained this view: 58 It came to be because the administration - I mean, administrators these days at public institutions think a lot more like for-profit companies than they, I think, used to. . . how do you define your institution, right? What distinguishes it? And so certainly. . . we have a variety of programs that we kind of like to have to define [CCC], to distinguish [CCC], and certainly, the international/global one is one of those. Participants also talked about the influence of peer community colleges and the recent focus among community colleges on aspects of internationalization such as attracting international students, developing international partnerships, and creating academically-focused global education programs for students. The development of the global certificate program and its subsequent success has attracted attention to CCC from peer institutions and created a visible presence for global education at CCC. Faculty member Camille described this phenomenon: I think that the college was also responding to messages that were circulating among community colleges. . . and I think that had an influence on the president, too. “We have to get with the program if we want to attract students, too, and then, see and there's another college sending students to China, we have to catch up with that.” A lot of talk about funding and how we could promote more exchange, more traditional agreements that would benefit us financially, so that was a big piece of it, and it's still a big question mark. How are we going to attract students to come here? So, the [certificate]. . . came up when our college was having a stronger presence among community colleges, and I saw it as a way of showing we have something organized here. . . . We started getting a lot of recognition for what we had done in terms of validating students’ interests in global issues, in global work. 59 Some participants linked global education programs with student persistence, retention, and success. Dean of Students, Melissa, referenced current student affairs on students’ sense of belonging, and noted the connection between global education and completion. She said, “one of the key factors he found. . . that sense of belonging then leads to a student sticking around and completing their degree, or their educational goals, was their ability to have conversations with diverse groups of students.” Melissa credited global education programs with increasing students’ ability to have conversations with diverse others, and in turn potentially increasing their sense of belonging and their likelihood to complete their educational goals. Completion is an important and timely theme in the current environment of the community college sector, where many students utilize federal financial aid and getting students to complete a credential before leaving can be a challenge, as VP for Academic Affairs George noted: Certainly the federal government wants college students to complete, and of course, it's always a challenge because as a community college, some students don't come here for an associate's degree they come here to transfer to a four-year university, or to take a class or two. . . so completion is an importance piece in that because we know that students who have a completion goal are retained more effectively than a student that kind of drifts in and says, “Well, I really don't know what I'm going to do. I don't really know why I'm here” . . . . Clearly, the federal government with IPEDS [Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System] data is emphasizing this and of course now with the more stringent rules with federal financial aid they're insisting upon it and for good reason. George also referenced the idea of completion and credentialing as a rationale for designing the global certificate program as a 15-credit visible pathway: “So the global opportunity, the 60 certification there is part of all of our efforts that we want you to be here to complete things so that you can move on.” Reflecting and Strengthening the Local Community Many participants referenced specific aspects of the local community as rationales for developing global education initiatives at CCC. Community-driven rationales commonly fell into two categories: local/student demographics and local businesses and organizations. Participants had plenty to say about the unique combination of mostly rural local natives, the large number of transplants, and a booming tourism industry that combined, provided many important motivations for focusing on global education at CCC. Local and student demographics. Most participants described the local and student demographics as primarily White and not culturally or racially diverse, noting that many students at CCC grew up in relatively isolated rural areas and had limited exposure to cultural or ethnic differences or even the idea of global travel. Faculty member Camille stated, “This is still a region that is very centered around itself. We don’t see a lot of diversity, racial diversity, cultural diversity. People who move here long for that.” Camille went on to imply that one reason CCC is investing in global education is to bring more diversity to the local community, something that the transplant population longs for. This population includes many retirees, who settled in the area for its tourism attractions such as the coastal beauty and recreation, the wine industry, and increasingly, the arts and culture emphasis in the local community. A film festival held each summer in the area was referenced by many participants as one of several ways that a focus on arts in the community has brought in a more international perspective, as Camille noted: “The film festival has made a huge difference in our community, and people are more interested in issues and topics that they might not have even thought about.” Other participants noted that this 61 exposure is reflected in the willingness of students to engage with global education. Faculty member Jeffrey reflected on his experience as a leader on a study abroad program: My experience with the students that we've traveled with. . . they all seem to be quite open-minded about traveling. . . whereas people that generally come from these kinds of rural areas, they're not going to be that interested in that kind of thing, and if they are, they're generally a lot more guarded about it. As the demographics of the local area have shifted during the past decade due to the influence of tourism and the arts, so has the local economy. Mariana, VP of Lifelong Learning, believed that these changes in the community will support long-term sustainability of global education at CCC: “I do believe the commitment to global impact and international presence will transcend the current leadership and have long-term impact in the community.” Local businesses and organizations. Many participants identified the large number of local businesses with global connections as an influence on the global education initiative at CCC. Some of these businesses, such as the many wineries and a successful coffee company, had more obvious global connections, while others were not as apparent. Faculty member Camille described the wine industry’s global connections and noted other local industries with global connections as well: If you look at our local businesses, a lot of them have connections overseas. Most of the wineries, well, all of them, really, all of them have connections, both locally and globally. Many wineries bring people from abroad—bring grapes from abroad—and they have to learn farming techniques from people that come from overseas. And they spend time here with workers, with local workers. Many restaurants have chefs that have come from overseas. We have manufacturing companies that sell parts overseas. 62 Participants thought that preparing students for jobs in the local economy requires providing global education because of the global nature of so many local businesses and the tourism industry. Some even went so far as to say that employers have expressed the desire to have globally competent hires, as faculty member Jeffrey noted: I know that that's one thing the president says is that the employers want students to have these kinds of experiences. They want them to feel comfortable that when somebody comes for a job, and if they say to them, “Well, can you go to Mexico and work with our branch that's down there?” that they're not going to say, “No, I don't know anything about Mexico.” You know what I mean? Like, “I don't have a passport” or “I don't have any clue about any of that stuff,” right? Referencing the local economy in a different vein, VP for Academic Affairs George explained that students need to be prepared to find work outside the local area and that requires global competence: It's not uncommon for students to have never left the state. . . much less gone abroad, but we don't expect you to all live in [region] for your whole life. We expect you will have the skills to reach out and to work beyond your current community because. . . there are not enough jobs for all the students that graduate from us. So, it's a case that we have to prepare them better than just locally. We live in an area that just does not have enough jobs for all the graduates that we have. Local organizations have also motivated CCC to focus on global education. Several participants talked about the large local Rotary Club and a number of additional internationally-focused community organizations. Carrie, Assistant in the IPO, described a unique local organization that works with CCC to bring speakers to campus once a month: 63 We have the [International Affairs Group] and [Paul] sits on a board with that group where they pick the speakers that come once a month. And that's where I was telling you, we have a lot of former diplomats, ambassadors, people who've worked for the CIA. So just even having those events, we have a lot of students that will come to that, but the majority are community members, I would say, that come to that. Participants expressed the idea that because of the number of retirees with significant international experience now living in the local area, this has been an important resource for the college to draw on for guidance in developing global education initiatives. In addition, many community members have expressed a strong desire for more international presence in the community and therefore the college sees itself as serving the local community by bringing these things to campus and making a large number of events open to all. The campus museum was discussed enthusiastically as an important cultural resource for the local community, with many participants noting its rich history of exposing the campus and community to international art. While on campus at CCC, I visited the museum and enjoyed exhibits on native Inuit art, Icelandic photography, and Chinese watercolors. Extended education programs, such as an international cooking class series, and speaker series are additional examples of global offerings that are open to the community. Strategies This section focuses on the strategies employed to develop and implement global education programs at CCC. Three key types of strategies arose as important: Information Gathering and Buy-in, Focusing on Internationalization at Home, and Institutionalizing Global Education. Within each of these broader themes, specific examples of how the strategy was enacted are discussed. 64 Gathering Information and Establishing Buy-In While the President’s vision may have been the catalyst for the current global education movement at CCC, a collaborative approach was used to solicit feedback, brainstorm ideas, and make decisions about program design and implementation. The college administration led the movement but involved both internal and external stakeholders in the process, while also reaching out to network with peer community colleges. Through these strategies, global education leaders were able to gather information, consider multiple perspectives, establish buy- in, and make informed choices about how best to move forward. Involving stakeholders. Internal stakeholders involved in the process of designing for global education at CCC included faculty, staff, and students. One of the first attempts to involve internal stakeholders was a series of meetings to discuss how and why the college would move forward with global education initiatives. One stated objective of these meetings was to establish college-wide understanding and agreement on the terms that would be used and establish shared understanding. Later meetings moved into more practical questions and specific plans. VP Mariana described these meetings: We had institutional conversations to try to bring some thinking into focus. . . . “What do we want to include in the college's definition of globalization in the context of other things?” . . . and so, we distinguished between global experience and internationalization ... the participants in [the first session] were the whole college. . . . The [second] session was working with the larger leadership group. So, anyone who was a director or coordinator. . . . We'd come into a big room. . . break out in small groups and facilitate our discussions—what do we include, what exists, what's the gap, what isn't global. . . . We needed to understand what are people thinking about this. How are they using the 65 language? What is our capacity to administer the exchange of people back and forth? Do we have an office that understands Visas? Do we know how to do all of that? How do we price it? What are the regulations? And then global, which is our conceptual-- what's the learning experience? What's the experiential value that we can place on a transcript or a project outline? Yeah. So, these conversations helped our…organization try to find some unifying language around which to build procedures and policies and to measure. Eliciting input from internal stakeholders also served the unstated purpose of establishing ownership or buy-in of the concepts and programs. Several key strategies came out of the series of meetings, such as the idea to create an international office and to establish a global certificate program. Once these strategies were decided upon, the administration continued to involve internal stakeholders by creating committees to guide those initiatives. These committees were primarily made up of faculty and administrators with international experience or interest or prior involvement in global education activities at CCC. Students were invited to meet with the committees to offer feedback and help shape the programs. Richard described his involvement on the advisory board that guided the initial development of the global certificate program: “My role there has been to. . . help to design the program, and I was very active with that board probably two years ago. Since then, we've had the program designed, and I think we have a meeting coming up in a week or so, but we don't meet intensely right now just because the program's pretty well established.” Faculty members were also highly involved in decisions about how to globalize courses and what would count for the global certificate requirements, through both the advisory committee and the college-wide curriculum committee. The college also involved a number of external stakeholders in the design and implementation process. As faculty member Camille explained, “We have very prestigious 66 people [in the community] that have done a lot to push international topics, so that helps.” One prominent example is a former U. S. Ambassador who has relocated to the area in retirement and has formed a local organization focused on bringing international events and speakers to the area. Local business owners were also invited to join the global education advisory board. Paul, Director of the IPO, described the involvement of community members: So, it was a nice collection of not just faculty, not just business, but a nice equal representation so that—it’s that idea too, that we know we're preparing students to be contributors in our communities, so how does the community feel too? And also, we were able to use some of the resources and connections that people had. So, we still do that. We still have an international advisory board that we meet with. Involving and establishing buy-in with community members and local business owners positioned the college to utilize local resources to enhance global education programs at CCC. While it was critical to involve internal and external stakeholders in shaping the global education initiative, leaders of the movement also felt that it was important to learn more about what other community colleges were doing and network with colleagues involved in similar work in order to make informed decisions. Peer benchmarking and networking. As Director of the IPO, Paul was tasked with gathering information through peer benchmarking and networking with other community colleges and relevant professional organizations to help shape the specific vision for global education at CCC. He described his visit to a peer community college in the same state to learn about their global education initiatives: I had spoken with the director of that, who was a faculty member, a couple of times. Now what their program was, it was just academic courses. There wasn't anything else 67 involved with it so, they had a newsletter that they would put out, and they would highlight Latin America one semester, and people would write stories about Latin America, and that kind of thing, but it was just classes. And I went to the VPs, and I said, “We need something more robust. We need something that encompasses more than just an academic component. There's got to be an experiential component to it.” Paul then started to look outside the state and reached out to some professional organizations including CCID to learn more. He began attending professional conferences focused on community colleges and/or international education and developed a list of programs that he felt were good examples. Carrie described this process: He was looking at some things that some other schools were doing and knew that he wanted to do something like that here. But some of them were strictly academic. Or some of them were only with study abroad. And it was just a way to kind of use a matrix of different things because they all have a value. Paul then met with the executive leadership and the global education advisory board and shared his research and ideas. Together they came up with the blueprint for the global certificate program. Once the program was designed, internal and external stakeholders, including students, were asked to provide feedback and the program was modified several times though this process. Focus on Internationalization at Home While study abroad and recruitment of international students remain part of the overall vision for global education at CCC, the college decided that it needed to focus on internationalizing the home campus in order to bring global education to more students. VP for Academic Affairs George discussed the importance of focusing on the home campus: 68 When you're talking about giving them the experiences to prepare them to think outside of [the state], or even outside the United States, it means that we have to find ways to engage their learning. And part of that is going abroad, but, obviously, that's going to be a relatively small percentage of the total population of the college. Part of it, of course, and I would say the lion's share of it, will be through on-campus activities. CCC internationalized its campus by focusing on three elements: the curriculum, the co- curriculum, and partnerships with the local community. VP George described how these three elements come together in the context of the global certificate program to provide a well-rounded global education experience for students without having to leave the country: And a student could do a global certificate never having left the country. I mean, obviously, you get more points by being in that situation, but there are ways that you can do it by taking a number of international courses, courses dealing with some kind of international theme, taking advantage of a number of extracurricular activities that we provide. We have an [international focus group] where we bring in diplomats, and state department personnel, and political leaders who give talks to the community… and you can get points for that. So, a student that wants to develop an international-- a set of international experiences but doesn't have the ability to go abroad, can find them through the curriculum and through extracurricular activities. In this section, I share the ways that CCC integrated global education into the campus through the curriculum, the co-curriculum, and community partnerships. Curriculum. The roots of curriculum internationalization at CCC can be traced back several decades to the 1990s when multiculturalism became an important movement in higher education. CCC responded to that movement with an initiative involving “curriculum infusions,” 69 one of which was focused on cultural diversity. Courses were developed in each discipline that focused on other cultures, for example a course on Native American history was developed during this time. This initiative eventually morphed into the current requirement that all associate’s degree students must take at least one cultural diversity course, as George explained: Over time the curriculum has changed, and now we have a requirement that in order to get our Associate's in science and arts degree, a student must take at least one cultural diversity course, which can be something—it could be like African-American history, but it also includes global courses, as well. And so, it was kind of the seeds, at least from a curricular point of view, how we developed an interest in cultural diversity, as well as global education. With the creation of the global certificate program, more courses were needed that could be designated as globalized courses and counted toward the certificate requirements. This incentivized faculty to revise existing courses that did not meet the requirements set by the curriculum committee of at least 60% course content being global in nature. According to faculty member Richard, the college encourages faculty to internationalize courses and even provides some funding, but the global endorsement program provides a more concrete incentive: The college has consistently promoted internationalizing any number of different classes when possible. . . with the [global certificate], students are required to take. . . I think it's three classes that fit the criteria for international learning. . . and so that incentivizes faculty to kind of have a larger component that's international, so that they can fit the criteria because that pushes students to those classes, right? And as faculty, we're always conscious of the fact that—I mean, if our classes aren't filling up, then we're not going to be teaching those classes. So, that really incentivizes you to have that component because 70 it's essentially pushing the students to your classes if you have that. At the end of the day, if you don't have any students, you don't have a job. Several participants believed that increasing the number of globalized courses at CCC would increase the overall number of students exposed to global education, even outside of those who enroll in the global certificate program. George talked about the college’s effort to globalize courses that are more mainstream, such as English composition: Trying to find more ways to enrich our curriculum, even some of our courses that wouldn't naturally be courses that would be culturally diverse, but adopting sections of English composition, for instance, and having international themes built into those. Those are the kinds of things that we are doing. Utilizing technology to enhance pedagogy has become an important strategy for internationalizing courses at CCC. Faculty member Camille described her early use of Skype to connect students in her classes with students in Argentina, “Skype had just started becoming more common and it was very affordable to get an account, so we had conversations on Skype, but that was revolutionary. We had a conversation with someone who lived on Lake Titicaca.” Since that introductory use, technology is now employed in many courses at CCC to connect students with the world. The IPO Director Paul, who also teaches courses at CCC, talked about his use of Skype to connect students in his classes with students overseas. He also described how technology is being utilized to create a rigorous domestic experiential learning option for global certificate students who cannot go overseas. One domestic option is to do an intensive research project with specific requirements, including the use of technology. According to Paul, 71 They can't just Google things and do their research that way. They have to be live. We live in an interconnected world now, so they need to Facetime, they need to Skype somebody who is in that country. We're working on that. While curriculum is a critical area of focus for campus-based global education at CCC, the co- curricular experience is also very important, and provides a venue for attracting participants from all across the campus and the local community. Co-curriculum. Students completing the global certificate program must participate in a number of globally-focused events or groups on campus or in the surrounding community. The International Programs Office markets many of these events and helps global certificate students track their attendance at them through the use of a passport series program. Students can pick up a paper passport which lists the various events offered that semester eligible for certificate points, then when they attend the event they get a stamp on their passport. Students who are not enrolled in the global certificate program can also participate in the passport series, and many do. Director of International Programs Paul described the passport series and some of the events that take place in coordination with his office, noting his belief that the passport feature helps advertise events and encourages students to attend them: We do an International Education Week celebration in the fall, and then a Window on the World week in the spring. . . . If the museum brought in the Chinese acrobats, right, they would still bring in the Chinese acrobats, but would students go to that? Some would, but now that they can get the stamp on their passport which sounds juvenile, but it's kind of cool. . . . They only have to get four, but some students fill the whole thing up, and they want to get more stamps in there. 72 The IPO also puts on events in coordination with the Office of Student Life and the local International Affairs group. Events coordinated with the community organization are typically geared toward community members, but since the creation of the global certificate and the passport program, more students have started attending these events, according to Paul: We bring in someone that's had some experience in the state department or on the world stage or an author, things like that. . . The audience for that is usually older folks. . . 60 and over. There's always a dinner afterwards. . . . We've got one coming up next week, so two of my students. . . are going to be able to eat dinner with the presenter who has written books. . . looking at social media and the recruitment of ISIS members and things like that. . . that would not have happened without the global [certificate], without the international office kind of pushing that. Many co-curricular events include international students and aim to highlight their experiences and perspectives. Once a month an international student is chosen to give a presentation on his or her home culture, an event that is sponsored by the IPO in coordination with the International Club and is purportedly well attended. International students are invited to attend and sometimes speak at the local International Affairs group events and in extended education classes, and are regularly featured on an intercultural radio program hosted through the campus’s public radio station, as IPO Assistant Carrie described: We have a radio station here, and that has a real following. I'll seek out three or four different international students, and then they bring in a few selections, a traditional and then a contemporary piece [from their culture] and they play that on the radio. . . so for people that might not know anyone from Turkey, when they hear someone. . . on the radio, and he talks about life in his home country, and they know the first name, they 73 know where they're from, and then they hear the music, and then he picks Turkish rap music, It makes it very personal. Through campus events and globalizing curriculum, CCC has focused on internationalizing its campus, but the relationship between the college and the local community has played a critical role in its ability to do this. The influence of a well-known local arts academy, the international film festival, the tourism and agricultural businesses, and the number of local transplants with international experience have all contributed to a community that is full of resources to draw upon for global education programming. In turn, the college also fulfills its mission to serve the community by providing enrichment opportunities for local residents. Community connections. Participants clearly expressed their belief that partnering with the local community was critical to the success of global education at CCC. Community connections helped the college to increase funding for and expand study abroad programs, offer a rich array of globally-oriented events and speakers, and provide internships and other experiential learning opportunities for students in the global certificate program domestic track. The college in turn was able to offer international education programming to the community through extended education courses, campus events, and programs at the campus museum. While much of the global education focus at CCC has been on internationalizing the home campus, there has also been an effort to increase study abroad programming and find ways for more students to travel abroad. Many participants expressed the belief that finances are a major barrier to studying abroad for community college students. In order to help offset the cost of travel for students at CCC, the president and his wife started a private-donation fund which supports scholarships for student travel. VP George described the fund: 74 I would say that from an institutional point of view, [the] president, with his focus on trying to have our students understand a global society, a global economy, felt very strongly about supporting an effort. And thus, as a result, he and his wife…created the Global [Travel] Scholarship Fund starting with a $10,000 donation, and that fund has grown and has enabled students to go to a great variety of different countries, helping to reduce the overall cost of international travel. Another scholarship opportunity was created in partnership with the local International Affairs group. IPO Director Paul described that scholarship: I helped set up another scholarship with the international affairs board. . . called the first- generation scholarship, or first-generation student stipend. So, it adds a little bit more money to those students that are first generation [to travel abroad]. All donations to the funds are private donations and there are many community members willing to donate. Faculty member Jeffrey noted: There's people around that say, “Hey, I'll give money for that,” or, “I'll help get that going.” We have people that live in town, like ambassadors. It shocks me. I see these things and I think, “How'd they ever find this person?” Well, they live here in town. Jeffrey stressed that these scholarship funds consist of money donated from private donors and that the college does not use money from the public budget to pay for students to travel abroad, noting the importance of that distinction. Other participants noted the local Rotary organization as helping to fund travel abroad for a number of students as well. Many participants discussed the importance of community connections for bringing speakers to campus, organizing educational events, and providing internship opportunities for students in the global certificate program, as faculty member Camille explained: 75 If you look at our local businesses, a lot of them have connections overseas. So, one strategy for the international office. . . is to get those companies that have international connections to be more actively involved with our international programs. And that's a little trickier, because that's not their mission, so, partnering with businesses is always— there are always limitations and challenges. They're not part of our regular life, so we have to create those bridges, those connections. We have some businesses that have helped us, for example, with the interns. . . we've partnered with the [coffee and wine companies]. . . that have. . . international connections. Paul noted several examples of global certificate student internships with local businesses, such as with a coffee company and a plastics corporation, each with global connections. The aviation and engineering programs have benefitted from the connections of local businesses in establishing partnerships overseas that led to the creation of education abroad experiences for students. Carrie, Assistant in the IPO, talked about extended education offerings that are very popular with community members, and many also count as co-curricular points for global certificate students: We also offer extended education classes. There's a small fee involved, but those are non- credit classes that are for the community. So, if someone wanted to take an Indian curries cooking class, they could pay, go to that class, learn a little bit about the culture, and we would count that as an event. Many participants expressed the idea of a symbiotic relationship between CCC and the local community, each providing something the other wants and needs in terms of global education. Cultivating relationships with local community members, organizations, and businesses has been an important strategy for internationalizing the campus and designing global education at CCC. 76 Institutionalizing Global Education In order to fulfill some of the rationales that drove CCC to focus on global education, it needed to become a visible and tangible part of the institution. Many participants talked about the importance of being able to track what students were doing and to show completion and credentialing, an important aspect of accountability in the current federal financial aid system. CCC took several important steps to institutionalize global education. First, they created an IPO with dedicated staff members. Second, they created the global certificate program. Once international programs were more centralized and trackable, they focused on marketing, both internally and externally. International Programs Office and global certificate program. The IPO was created to organize and centralize existing international programs. Faculty member Camille described the shift that occurred when the new office opened: And the college created an international office. . . . It didn't start just as that, but it's been evolving, and the office has opened a lot of opportunities. The first group I took [abroad], there were only two international opportunities in the whole college. . . . We were really the first program, local program, that started taking students overseas. . . . We did everything. . . . We organized everything, and then the college said, “No, we need to open it up to more programs, more opportunities, and have centralized administration taking care of all the legal paperwork and all the booking and the administrative part.” So, that's what the international office does. We still do our program. . . but they do all the paperwork. The office was not created from scratch, but rather was added to an existing office which was already handling both service learning and veterans’ affairs. Paul, who previously worked in 77 Admissions and dealt with international students, became the Director of the new office and led its reorganization. Eventually, veterans’ services moved to a different office. Carrie, Assistant in the IPO, explained that as with most offices in the community college context, the international office wears multiple hats, “We do international services and service learning. . . . We work to connect our students to those events. . . and then design some of our own programming too.” Eventually, the global certificate program was created and was also housed in the International Programs office. The IPO is also home to the International Club, a student organization for both international and domestic students. The creation of the IPO and the global certificate program provided a venue and a mechanism for bringing together a community of like-minded individuals interested in global education within the institution, as faculty member Richard pointed out: I think we have a lot of students who are interested in. . . international issues. And so, one thing that it [the global certificate program] does is it creates a cohort of folks that are interested in looking at international issues. So, it brings students together. It incentivizes students to take advantage of things that we offer here. It was also very important for the college to be able to track and report quantifiable data about what students were doing in the area of global education. The passport series and the global certificate program were important mechanisms for tracking, Carrie explained: “We wanted to find some way to document the acquisition of skills, attitudes, and experiences in a way that a student could officially document that and say, “Yes, I've had these experiences, and this is how I've done it.” VP George talked about the strategic design of the global certificate program as a trackable credential because of the current emphasis on completion in the U. S. higher education landscape: 78 We wanted to establish a goal in the form of some type of college certificate that would identify them as a successful completer of a program, and so by creating the global certificate, we established something that a student would collect these points and then have a capstone experience where they would take their portfolio and share it with a committee that would then sign off that yes, they have accomplished these outcomes. And so, it's really more in terms of more of a competency-based approach that leads to some kind of certification that the students can say, “Yes, I have this global certificate, because of these things that I have accomplished” because so much of our work is focused on completion now. The IPO office keeps track of all students enrolled in the global certificate program. Carrie talked about the need for the college to track what students have done, and the added value of this for students: It was a way to make it a trackable—so we want a trackable way just to show those awesome experiences. How do you detail that? How do you collect the data? How do you know there's value to it? So, it's just a trackable way to show that our students were globally involved, globally connected, globally curious, that they were going above and beyond just earning their degree. . . . It’s another way for them to distinguish themselves. Once global education became more organized and visible, the college focused on increasing visibility and informing stakeholders about its efforts with a variety of marketing tools. Participants shared examples of a variety of marketing tools that were used to increase the visibility of global education CCC. Faculty member Camille shared an issue of the college’s monthly magazine in which her study abroad program was featured on the cover. She noted the importance of sharing students’ success stories after study abroad in order to promote programs, 79 “Giving a lot of attention to success stories, when students come back with good stories about what happened when they were overseas. . . . They get publicity, they get attention.” Camille also noted that the most recent issue of the college magazine featured a story about a program taking place within the local community and shared her belief that every time a story about an international program goes out into the community, it has to be followed by several stories about local programs in order to ensure the public that the focus continues to be on the local community, a priority in the community college landscape. Internal marketing was important, especially for getting the word out to students about the opportunities available and the potential benefits of global education. Carrie shared examples of some internal marketing strategies used by the IPO: We do emails, group emails. We'll put a visual in there with the details, like earn your global points now, earn your global points this week. And we'll list what those opportunities are. Having signage out there. We'll do tabling outside at the cafeteria, or outside of our office. When we meet with faculty at the department meetings—[Paul’s] gone there to talk to the faculty from different departments—and then we also—any events that we're pushing, promoting, we'll put those on the monitors. We'll filter that into our PR department. They'll put it in the student newsletter. Getting the word out to students remains a challenge. Partnering with student affairs offices such as academic advising and new student orientation programs have been important internal marketing strategies to ensure that students are aware of the global certificate program as an option. Paul noted the importance of marketing for the global certificate: We've got to keep it in front of their face. We need to make sure people don't forget about it. . . . That's what I said in my original proposal. I said, “Marketing, marketing, 80 marketing. How are we going to get people to do it?” It's not going to be an easy sell because you have to do a little more work. Not a ton, you just have to work with your advisor to adjust the classes, decide how you're going to do that experiential piece… External marketing has also focused on keeping alumni informed and sending updates to partners in the local community. Marketing was a key strategy for institutionalizing global education at CCC and ensuring its sustainability. Chapter Summary As a small college in a relatively rural area, CCC has a close, symbiotic relationship with the local community it serves. What was once a very isolated and homogenous community has experienced changes in the past decade due to increased tourism and the globalization of its local agricultural and business base. The community surrounding CCC is a case in point that globalization is everywhere and global is local. The strong vision of the president to make global education a signature program at CCC drove the college’s recent expansion of global education initiatives. Faculty and administrators expressed the view that increasing global education at CCC would benefit students, the institution, and the local community. Among these rationales, preparing students for a global economy was the strongest rationale that was discussed by all participants. Interestingly, participants expressed the view that students would need to be prepared for globalized workplaces whether they stayed in the local area after graduation or left it. CCC employed a number of key strategies to design and implement global education initiatives, including preparatory activities such as gathering information and establishing buy-in and strategies for institutionalizing global education such as establishing a dedicated office and staff and designing a trackable academic program (the global certificate program) that can appear on student transcripts. Although CCC continues to operate a number of study abroad programs, 81 recruit international students, and maintain key international partnerships, the current emphasis for global learning is on internationalizing the home campus through focusing on the curriculum, the co-curriculum, and connecting with key community partners. 82 CHAPTER FIVE—METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM A decade ago, two faculty members at Metropolitan Community College System (MCCS) discovered a shared vision for a stronger, more unified global education focus at the college. Together, the two faculty members drafted a proposal for their vision and formed a committee of like-minded faculty and staff to help the movement gain momentum. Today, MCCS enjoys a robust global education program across its three main campuses. The current global education program at MCCS is still led by the initial faculty committee, which has been expanded to include three subcommittees, a director, and over 20 active members. Global education initiatives at MCCS include study abroad programs and recruitment of international students, however the primary focus is on internationalizing the home campus, with a strong focus on faculty and staff development and curriculum internationalization. MCCS has recently developed a global certificate program in which students who complete a specified number of internationalized courses including two sequential language courses, attend a number of co- curricular events, and complete an international or domestic intercultural experiential learning experience are awarded an academic credential. This program has served to increase visibility of global education on campus and provide a centralizing mechanism for the various global learning opportunities available to students at MCCS. A strong culture of faculty leadership and a focus on teaching and learning have guided the global education movement at MCCS as it has grown and expanded since its inception. The recent award of a federal humanities education grant will allow MCCS to move forward with several plans for continuing expansion of its global education initiatives over the decade to come. 83 Institutional Overview MCCS is a large, multi-campus community college system serving a major metropolitan area in the continental United States. The college is comprised of three main campuses and three satellite campuses. The three main campuses operated as individual community colleges prior to consolidating and forming a county-wide community college system about 20 years ago. Over half of the county residents who attend undergraduate postsecondary education enroll at MCCS, making it a critical educational resource in the local community. Currently, MCCS enrolls about 30,000 students in credit-bearing courses and about 30,000 students in non-credit bearing continuing education courses, for a total approximate enrollment of 60,000 students. Most credit students are enrolled part-time. Overall enrollments are currently down and have been on a downward trend for the last 5 years. This reflects the general trend in community college enrollments in the United States, which spiked for several years after the economic collapse in 2007, peaked in 2011, and began to decline again in 2013. Because the three main campuses were originally separate colleges, they retain some of their unique characteristics even 20 years after the merger. The communities surrounding each of the three campuses largely define the student demographics, as well as the history of programs offered. For the purposes of this study, the three campuses will be referred to as Historic Campus, Modern Campus, and Vocational Campus. One study participant described the three campuses this way: I've been mostly at Historic Campus. This is heavily African American here. It's become increasingly so over the past few years even. We have a lot of students here who are on financial aid. Modern Campus draws from the wealthiest areas that we have in the county. It is also diverse, but I think it's majority White still there. Vocational Campus is 84 very White; that's a very working-class area. There used to be a steel mill there where much of the community had somebody employed [until] that closed. So, it's a little bit economically depressed, but that's where we have a lot of people who've not been outside the area. About 60% of MCCS students identified as female and 40% male. Overall, the college racial/ethnic makeup was minority-majority with about 42% students identifying as White, 39% Black, 8% Asian, 6% Latino, 3% multiracial, and 1% unknown. Over half of all MCCS students work 20 hours per week or more. Almost 40% of MCCS students receive Pell grants. Historic Campus is the largest of the three campuses. It was built on a local historical site and contains several historically registered buildings. Leadership and administration for the global education program is primarily housed on this campus, where the office of the director is located and where a new Center for Global Education is currently under construction. Historic Campus has a large library, a student center with a small café, a fitness center and an art building along with several academic classroom buildings and labs. The office for international students is also located on Historic Campus, along with a large academic advising center and administration for Continuing Education. Modern Campus houses most of the main administration offices, including the office of the president, the VPs and the office of student life. Modern Campus has a large, new library and many newer or recently renovated buildings. Vocational Campus is much smaller than the two other main campuses but has several classroom buildings and some administrative offices. Vocational Campus houses the Multicultural Affairs office, a large fine arts center, and a number of vocational programs, such as welding. I visited and conducted interviews at all three main campuses but did not visit any of the satellite locations. 85 There is a large English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) program at MCCS, serving both J-1 and F-1 international students attending MCCS and foreign-born students living in the United States. ESOL courses are offered through both credit and non-credit programs. International students comprise about 2% of the total student enrollment at MCCS, and currently, there are about 250 international students on campus. However, overall enrollment in ESOL courses is about 2500 students, meaning that domestic foreign-born students make up the majority of those enrollments. A senior academic advisor with 12 years of employment at MCCS noted, “Our ESOL classes—8 years ago, they could not really find enough students to fill the classes. Right now, they cannot find seats for students.” Associate Director of International Student Services noted the shift in demographics of the average domestic student at MCCS: Enrollments are down overall but take a peek at what has increased. Our number of students who identify as Hispanic or Latina. Not the number of students who identify as White. . . so the defense of the domestic student, the domestic student came from Nigeria, Vietnam, Burma, and at [Vocational] Campus they came predominantly from Russia. So, each campus has its own demographic because of where people settled in different communities in the county, but increasingly the domestic MCCS student is foreign born. Most participants expressed satisfaction in their work at MCCS and considered it a positive environment for students and employees. There was a general sense of a shared student-centered philosophy, as Carolyn, Director of Global Education described: Student success really is the main driving force for nearly all employees, and that's been really my favorite aspect of it. Everything we do, it's about how can we make this more accessible to students? How can we make it so they have a more fulfilling, a deeper 86 educational experience? And to be able to collaborate with others who share that motivation, it's the happiest I have ever been at work. Faculty member Bonnie also described MCCS as student centered and the administration as progressive. “I think we have a progressive administration at MCCS. . . open to, and very dedicated to. . . preparing students for the world that they’re going to live in. We’re a very student-centered institution.” Global Education at MCCS The current global education program at MCCS grew out of a grassroots movement led by two faculty members, science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) professor Denise Barfield and ESOL professor Jennifer Creighton. The two found they shared a mutual passion for global education and believed it should be more of a focus and priority at MCCS. While there were a number of global education activities happening at MCCS, there was little coordination between them. Jennifer and Denise felt that a more centralized approach would enable them to create a more unified and comprehensive global education movement at MCCS: Nothing was centralized, and people were sort of working in silos. So, rather than try to sustain these various different activities and efforts that were going on around the college, we tried to bring people together so that we could decide what our priorities were and give everyone an opportunity to work in collaboration as opposed to in silos. . . . And we felt that we needed to raise the profile of global education. One important impetus for expanding global education at MCCS can be traced back about a decade ago when new competencies—or student learning outcomes—were adopted by the board of trustees. Among the newly created areas for competency was global perspective and social responsibility. A college-wide assessment followed to get a sense of students’ current abilities in 87 the areas of the new competencies, and the results showed that students scored low in the area of global perspectives. In addition, student satisfaction evaluations consistently rated MCCS low on both cultural appreciation and global perspective. Riding on the momentum created by these assessments, Denise and Jennifer co-authored a proposal for a more organized approach to global education at MCCS, which they submitted to the VP for Academic Affairs who subsequently approve it. Their first step in getting organized was to form a committee made up of voluntary faculty and staff members who shared their vision for expanding global education at MCCS. Faculty member Nicole described the first meeting: A bunch of us got together and they served a lunch. We met around a long table and Denise and Jennifer presented and said, “This is what we'd like to do. What ideas do you all have?” And it just got started there. It was very well attended. From that initial meeting, the committee members established a set of initial goals and then formed subcommittees around those. While the structure of the subcommittees has morphed over the years since the committee was first formed, the goals have remained largely the same and the Committee for Global Education (CGE) has remained the guiding body for global education at MCCS. Global Education Organizational Structure All global education activity at MCCS is overseen by the Assistant Dean for Teaching and Learning, who also serves as Director of Faculty Development. A full-time faculty member currently serves as Director of Global Education, receiving course release time equivalent to four courses per semester for the role (a regular full load is five courses per semester). The Director of Global Education provides day to day operational and strategic leadership of all global education 88 initiatives, in coordination with the CGE. Jennifer, one of the founding faculty members, sits on the CGE and serves in an advisory capacity to the director. The CGE is the primary vehicle for developing and overseeing all global education initiatives at MCCS. Service on the CGE fulfills institutional service requirements for faculty members. There are currently three subcommittees: curriculum, professional development, and study abroad. Each subcommittee is overseen by a coordinator who receives release time equivalent to one course. In addition to the subcommittee coordinator positions, there are three official leadership roles on the CGE: chair, vice chair, and secretary. Subcommittee coordinators and CGE leadership positions are 2-year terms. Global education initiatives. There are a number of both large and small scale global education initiatives at MCCS. In this section, I provide a brief overview of global education initiatives at MCCS, organizing them into three categories: academic/curricular initiatives, student life initiatives, and faculty/staff development initiatives. Table 2 summarizes these initiatives. Academic/curricular initiatives. Internationalization of the curriculum is an important aspect of global education at MCCS, as evidenced by an active movement to globalize individual Table 2 A Summary of Global Education initiatives at MCCS Type of Initiative Academic/Curricular Academic/Curricular Academic/Curricular Academic/Curricular Student Life Student Life Student Life Faculty/Staff Development Faculty/Staff Development Faculty/Staff Development Initiative Description Globalized Courses Global Certificate Program Intercultural Conversations Program Study Abroad Programs International Education Week International Club Alternative Spring Break (sometimes international) Faculty International Travel Grant Global Education Symposium Faculty/Staff Workshop Series and Certificate 89 courses, especially general education courses. Faith, Assistant Dean and Director of Faculty Development, described the focus on working with faculty to globalize courses at MCCS: I think training faculty and having faculty globalize courses is very important. You know, we’ve gotten to the point where we have a lot of globalized sections of courses and now we’re beginning to see, you know, areas where all sections of the course are taught in a globalized way. And I think we have a really good system in place. Faculty interested in globalizing a course section, all sections of a course, or all courses in a department may submit an application to the curriculum subcommittee of the CGE, detailing their plans for globalizing the course and meeting the CGE requirements. The curriculum subcommittee then recommends changes or approves the application. Once a course is approved as a globalized course, it is added to the list of approved courses for the global certificate program. The global certificate program requires students to take 15 credits of globalized coursework, including a sequence of two language courses, and to complete an approved intercultural experience. Approved intercultural experiences include both international and domestic options. The domestic option involves students volunteering or interning with a local organization in a culture different from their home culture, while the international option includes a variety of study, work, or volunteer abroad programs. Another important academic/curricular global initiative is the intercultural conversations program, which promotes interactive dialogues between international or foreign-born students/faculty and domestic students/faculty on cultural differences and topics of interest. Students and faculty may apply to be guest speakers in classes, and faculty members may apply 90 to host speakers in classes and facilitate dialogues. Sometimes, entire classes will pair for conversations around a specific assignment or unit, as faculty member Heather described: So, for example, in my reading class, I teach the highest level of reading for ESOL, we combine with the human development class so it's a different discipline and they get in small groups and we have a list of questions and we have little table maps and questions. . . . A lot of people don't even know what their own culture is until they talk to somebody and they realize, “Wow, in your family, everybody knows the salary of everybody? Wow. In your family, everybody’s money is shared? You mean you all don't have separate bank accounts?” And, “Wow, in your family, your parents can actually tell you that you can't marry somebody, or they arrange your marriage with somebody you don’t even know?” So, a lot of ah-ha epiphanies happen because of that. Student life initiatives. Many of the global education initiatives that existed at MCCS prior to the creation of the CGE were associated with and administered by Student Life. The three most prominent of these initiatives that still operate at MCCS are International Education (IE) Week, the International Club, and Alternative Spring Break, which sometimes takes place in an international location. IE week was previously run by the Office of Multicultural Affairs and is now a group effort overseen by the CGE but still headed by the Director of Multicultural Affairs. IE week events include speakers, artists, performers, food, and cultural installations provided by community members, faculty, staff, and students throughout the three main campuses. The International Club is a student club that is still primarily housed in The Office of Student Life and was previously also part of International Student Services. Additionally, the Office of Student Life runs an Alternative Spring Break program, which sometimes takes place in an international setting. In the event that Alternative Spring Break occurs in an international 91 location, the Study Abroad Coordinator assists with pre-departure orientation. It is also possible for students to use the alternative spring break international experience as their intercultural experience for completing the global certificate program. Faculty/staff development initiatives. Faculty and staff development is a core aspect of global education at MCCS. Founding faculty member Jennifer explained: We felt like we couldn’t do a lot of work with students unless we reached faculty first because faculty needed to be prepared to actually integrate global content and perspectives into their own teaching. And then we thought, “Well, we can’t just encourage people to do that here and there. We should actually have a structured program in place that allows people to get development and then start to really sort of contextualize their classes so that they would have more global content.” The faculty/staff development workshop series consists of 2 days of intensive workshops led by a rotating cast of faculty and staff from the CGE. Participation in the workshop series is voluntary but is eligible to count for required faculty professional development hours and can also count toward continuing education equivalency hours that can be used to apply for promotion. Workshop participants are required to complete and submit real-world projects in order to receive a certificate of completion. Examples of past projects have included a revamped course syllabus, an in-depth global assignment or unit, a study abroad program, and a campus intercultural display (submitted by an administrator with no teaching duties). Other faculty/staff development initiatives at MCCS include the faculty international travel grant and the global education symposium. The faculty international travel grant awards up to two $2500 grants each year for faculty members to travel internationally in order to enhance their teaching and professional development through activities such as conducting a research project abroad. 92 Participants were careful to note that these funds are not for conference attendance as departments have separate funds set aside to support that. The global education symposium is a one-day, annual, campus-wide event for faculty and staff featuring a variety of speakers and workshops on global education topics and a culminating dinner celebration. Rationales Rationales for developing global education at MCCS fell into three broad categories: preparing students, strengthening the institution, and strengthening the community. Within each of these broad categories, a number of subthemes were identified. Preparing Students When asked why MCCS was focusing on global education initiatives, all participants identified the need to prepare students for a globalized economy and society as the primary reason. Participants discussed the need to prepare students both in terms of students’ future work environments as well as their interactions with society at large. Faculty member and longtime CGE member and curriculum subcommittee coordinator Bonnie explained: Our job is to prepare students. I mean, especially in the community college, we think about preparing students for, especially the local workforce. And I think if that's our job, then we have to fulfill our responsibility and prepare students to work in a global market and then an interconnected, globalized world in general. Bonnie went on to explain that this is especially true for community college students: Because these are the people who a lot of time are less prepared to navigate in a changing world, and I feel that that's one of the reasons that we have global education is to prepare our students to navigate in an ever-changing world that's going to be increasingly global. 93 Faculty member Stephanie also talked about the changing nature of society and the need to prepare students for it: Yeah, the world is shrinking. So, the chance of people interacting in professional capacities, even where they live, their housing, and doing their daily life. Going to the post office, going to the supermarket, the chances are greater and greater that they will need to interact with people that are very different from themselves. So, global education helps people really to have an understanding of other ways of thinking and doing things and promotes respect. And counting the assets involved with that and hoping to bridge the gap so that there's not so much prejudice. And yeah, to build alliances and to promote unity, really. Several participants stated that while most MCCS students will likely stay in the area and work locally after graduation, they will work with a globally and culturally diverse group of co- workers and likely work for a globally-connected organization. Some examples of local employers were cited, including several large hospitals in the area, the large metropolitan airport, the number of colleges and universities in the area, and the many large and small businesses with global ties. “I'll only be successful if the college sees this as preparing every graduate for every job and every job involves communicating with people outside of the U. S. that I know of,” stated Martha, Assistant Director of International Student Services. Several participants noted that MCCS has close ties with local employers who have expressed the need for employees with stronger global education. One participant shared the example of an MCCS graduate with a degree in nursing who might care for patients of different cultures at one of the large, internationally recognized hospital systems. If that patient does not speak English well, or has 94 different cultural norms around healthcare, that could present challenges for a nurse who was not prepared with some level of global competence. Participants at MCCS talked about the importance of preparing students to interact with diverse others outside of the world of work as well. They presented these skills as important in order to promote more peace and understanding in local communities. Recent community incidents involving bigotry and violence were cited as reasons why it is important for students to be prepared to interact with those who are different from themselves in their communities. Some participants noted that interacting effectively with people from diverse backgrounds is particularly important for community college students because they are less likely to leave their local communities. One faculty member expressed: Talking with students about who their classmates are, who their neighbors are, what industry they work in, and where those global connections already are in their lives that they might just not be noticing. And then talking about how these programs help us see things that we do here in the US in a totally different way. We're able to see how other people solve problems, maybe in a different way. Maybe some of those strategies might work here, too. Maybe there's ways that we can work together with people from somewhere else to do things in a better way, a more efficient way, a kinder way, things like that. So, we try to work a lot with students to see where they are and make connections to where they already are and then kind of introduce some new ways of thinking about things and new ways of thinking about possibilities that are open to them because a lot of our students plan to stay right here. This rationale had a strong social justice component to it, as faculty member, Bonnie, noted: 95 …and to foster understanding among different cultural groups, different nationalities, so ultimately, you get into this other side of global education that's about world peace and social justice, and that sort of thing. So, that's a part of it as well. Some participants noted that involvement in global education initiatives might help students who wish to transfer to a 4-year university from MCCS, preparing them for future educational opportunities. They felt that students who participated in global education initiatives would be more attractive applicants and thus more likely to be accepted for transfer, and also expressed the opinion that global education students would be better prepared for the environment of a 4-year institution. There are several existing articulation agreements between MCCS and local 4-year institutions—and one more in the works—that guarantee transfer admission to certain internationally oriented programs for students who complete the global certificate program (and meet other transfer requirements). Faculty member, Calvin, illustrated the point: This is known as a transition period, right? You know you come here you're going here for two years and hopefully transition to your 4-year. All right, so the thing is what we want to do is to make sure they're the best and the most prepared going into their next level, and what I think that global [education] does particularly is it gives them an experience that even 4-year students don't have a lot of the times—it gives them an insight and a perspective. I think that's why the graduation rates are so high. And we have articulation agreements. So, if you graduate from this community college—and it’s like this in other states—you can get pretty much accepted to any. . . of the public universities. 96 The idea that the world is more and more interconnected because of technology emerged as a rationale for global education in the community college. Participants surmised that most students are already connected to the global community through the internet and other media, even if they have never left their local community and whether or not they are prepared to interact with that global community. Therefore, they felt that global education is necessary to assist students in making sense of this interconnected world, finding their place within it, and successfully navigating it. Senior Instructional Librarian, Steven, shared his view that students will be connected to a globalized society through technology both in their life and employment, and should be prepared for that by the college: I think all college students need to have a globalized education in order to be able to-- you cannot say someone who is going to graduate from [local community] is going to end up there. Even if they end up there, with the globalized technology they are going to be on the information superhighway. They will have to be connected with the outside world and in that case, I think all community colleges need to try. Strengthening the Institution In addition to benefitting students, participants also talked about how global education initiatives benefit the college itself. The most prevalent aspect of this rationale was the idea that global education programs can potentially help improve the campus climate for racial and ethnic diversity. Participants related stories of xenophobia on campus and acts of discrimination experienced by students and cited global education programming as an essential part of navigating and mitigating these experiences. Participants also talked about institutional accountability measures such as student assessments and transfer and completion rates as an indirect but still important way that global education initiatives benefitted MCCS. 97 Campus climate for diversity. MCCS is a racially and ethnically diverse campus. In addition to the 250 international students studying at MCCS, the domestic student population is increasingly culturally diverse and soon to be minority-majority. The faculty and staff are also racially and ethnically diverse. Some participants viewed global education initiatives as an important way to decrease xenophobia and racism on campus and create a more welcoming environment for international students and domestic foreign-born students, such as the large population in ESOL classes. Martha, Assistant Director of International Student Services, described some of the experiences related to her from international students at MCCS: Other colleagues and staff, who will literally say, “One of your students is up here. I don't understand them; I'll send them down to you.” There's sort of a—it’s an international student kind of thing. Yeah. So, all the bigotry and bias that follow women, people of color, disabled persons definitely follow international students. My students tell me in classrooms. . . faculty won’t call on them, won’t attempt to pronounce their name. So, there's a lot. There's a lot of work to be done here. Faculty member Nicole related some of the difficulties some faculty members expressed about working with non-native English-speaking students in their classes: While we have a lot of faculty who are interested in international issues and in bringing the world to our students, we also have some faculty who are, to say, much more old- school and maybe conservative-traditional in their thinking, “Why is this student making mistakes in articles and prepositions in their papers? They shouldn't be in my class; they need to go back to ESOL.” 98 Faculty member Stephanie explained her view that efforts to increase global education at MCCS are an important retention strategy, pointing out that not only are the students diverse, but the faculty are too: And not to mention the fact that we're an incredibly diverse school. So if we're not doing things like that then there are going to be more misunderstandings. And people are not going to feel that they identify as much with the school--and faculty too because we have faculty that are not American. It just helps people to feel included more. . . . I think having [global education] is all about helping our retention rate of our students. Because students, how much are they going to put up with situations in which they’re misunderstood, they’re not shown respect? They’re, unfortunately, victims of prejudice in situations. And it can also lead to conflicts on campus. Accountability. Some participants referred to measures of accountability when discussing rationales and motivations for global education initiatives at MCCS. Institutional assessments of student learning, student evaluations of the college, and transfer and completion rates were the primary accountability measures that emerged in relation to global education. Assessment. Several participants noted that students scored lower on learning outcomes in the area of cultural appreciation on college-wide assessments, and that faculty were reluctant to assess students in this area at all. Concerns about this assessment led to the decision to require all general education courses to incorporate at least one global education learning outcome. Jennifer explained the assessment process and how the realization that this was an important area to remedy came about: We do an assessment on a regular basis for our general education courses. . . . And every course that has the general education designation has a common graded assignment that’s 99 given every semester and is assessed on a regular basis. And there are. . . six categories on a rubric, and faculty have to choose five, and one of those categories is cultural appreciation. And we found that most faculty were choosing not to even assess that category, so we felt that that indicated that they weren't comfortable teaching it. And then those who did, those students tended to perform worse in that category. So, we thought that that was another... indicator that this was something we needed to do more work on. Associate Director of Multicultural Initiatives, Sofia, also talked about the general education assessments, noting that the low scores were an important impetus for a number of global initiatives at MCCS, including one she is directly involved with: Through an assessment that they did college wide. . . it was noted that students at [MCCS] were not very knowledgeable in reference to global issues, and because of that initiative [MCCS] has been very intentional. For example, in response to that assessment, I've been working with Professor [Smith]. I created a lesson on culture. What is cultural? What is your cultural script? And I go into the classroom. We do this lesson and we have tapped hundreds and hundreds of students by just doing this lesson every semester in all of his speech 101 classes and it has been very successful. Transfer and completion. Several participants also discussed the idea that global education, and in particular the global certificate program, would help students transfer more successfully, as Senior Academic Advisor, Asim, related: Schools in [state], 4-year institutions are. . . They encourage the students to have foreign language classes and courses of a global nature. So, I believe having that certificate under their belt probably will be a good point for them to be accepted in a 4-year institution. . . . It mostly likely helps their transfer credits too. 100 Participants also noted the need for more students to complete a credential before leaving MCCS. Global Education Director, Carolyn, discussed the decision to change the former global recognition program into an official academic certificate: We’ve had a lot more participants coming through [the global recognition program] than our completion numbers would reflect, and that's been an ongoing challenge for us. So, we're actually transitioning into making that a real certificate program. . . not just a little line on the transcript that we just make up. It’s a real credential that can be a stackable credential, which community colleges are all over lately. Faith, Director of Faculty Development, also discussed the merits of earning an official certificate over just academic recognition: My understanding is that we wanted a way to attract students to do kind of a certificate or to have a credential that they could have on their transcripts that would show to 4-year colleges and to employers that they had engaged more and with a higher amount of effort and quality in activities that are globally focused. In the current environment of community college accountability, credential completion rates and transfer rates are important indictors of institutional effectiveness and student success, and in some states, these measures even affect funding and financial aid (McPhail, 2011; Xu & Trimble, 2015). The current movement toward stackable credentials and creation of more certificate programs reflects this trend. Strengthening the Community Many participants expressed the belief that by offering global education programming to students, MCCS added value to the local community. This was thought to happen in two ways: 101 by better preparing students to live and work within the diverse local environment and by preparing students to meet the needs of local employers engaged in the global marketplace. Local diversity. Participants cited the racial and ethnic diversity of the local community and specifically the growing immigrant population, expressing the belief that it is the responsibility of MCCS to offer educational opportunities that reflect this diverse population and that prepares local residents to live in a diverse community. Lynn, a faculty member, pointed out that the state plan specifically calls for this type of support from its educational institutions: Look at the state plan right now, and you'll see it. . . . They specifically say that we are wasting human capital if we ignore the immigrants in our community, and their education needs, and if we don’t start valuing and finding ways that are outside the box to innovate and to educate them in the way that they can best be used in our economy. . . . The homegrown people have to also be educated globally so that they're not intimidated and keep putting barriers up to what's happening and what has already happened. It’s already inevitable. It’s happening. Many participants cited the demographic changes in the local community over the last 20 years as important rationales for having a strong global education program at MCCS. Faculty member, Stephanie, expressed this responsibility as a social justice imperative: It's becoming a more globalized world whether you're educated or not. Just your comings and goings you're going to face diversity. . . . Hopefully, through global education experiences, they’re going to do better when they go to McDonald’s and the person serving them has an accent. They’re going to do better when they need help, and they call for support on their computer and the person is in India with an accent. . . . Maybe they’ll give a better tip when they get their nails done at the Vietnamese salon. 102 Some focused more on local employers’ needs while others focused on the idea of social harmony, but either way, participants felt MCCS should reflect the diversity of the local community in its educational offerings. Local economy/employer needs. While the mission of the community college is often linked to workforce development, it is not typically linked with the idea of global education. However, participants at MCCS frequently linked global education with workforce development, citing examples of local employers that operate in the global marketplace, employ diverse teams, or otherwise require employees with global competencies. Several participants pointed out the strong connection between MCCS and local employers, noting that most MCCS graduates will remain and work in the local economy: The college tries to kind of keep its finger on the pulse of the local economy and is very sensitive to the labor needs of the local economy and tries to provide programs that serve the needs of the local community. I don't know the statistics, but most of our students are going to stay here. . . and they're going to work. In discussing the changing demographics of the local community, faculty member Lynn expressed her belief that local business leaders are aware of the need to have globally aware employees, “Everybody, all the business leaders know that we need to be current and we need to have a well-informed globally aware group of employees.” While most participants talked about the general focus on global education at MCCS as being attractive to local employers, some participants cited specific programs as particularly beneficial. Faculty member, Stephanie, discussed the global certificate program as providing a way for local employers to identify students who have received global education: 103 I think it was created because it shows a distinction and it shows a hot commodity in terms of what employers are looking for. They want people that can work on diverse teams and have a global perspective. So, it distinguishes those recipients from people that don't have that training. The rationale that global education at MCCS strengthens the local economy was often intertwined with the idea that global education prepares students for jobs that will require global skills. Global education programs were cited as benefitting students, faculty, the institution and the local community, and participants often made these points simultaneously, or in relation to each other, illuminating the symbiotic relationship between students, institution, and community. Strategies In this section I discuss various strategies that emerged as a key part of developing and sustaining global education programs at MCCS. These key strategies can be captured in three broad themes: faculty leadership, the importance of organizing, connecting, and finding support, and a decision to focus on both teaching and learning. Faculty Leadership The current global education movement at MCCS was initiated by two faculty members and continues to be led primarily by the faculty. Faculty member, Calvin, stated, “I would be comfortable to say most of the global initiative comes from the faculty.” Creating an environment where faculty are encouraged and supported to develop and implement initiatives such as the global education movement has been a successful strategy for MCCS. Assistant Dean for Teaching and Learning, Faith, explained her belief that faculty leadership is critical to the success of global education at MCCS: 104 Global education has grown out of very organic grassroots effort that was based on the passion of a number of key faculty members. . . a group of faculty who were already passionate about global education and global programming and exposing students to global education, and I think because it grew so organically and over time, it’s not an effort that has ever felt to faculty and staff like it was top down. And I think that’s the main ingredient in why it has been embraced. Two faculty members, Denise and Jennifer, created the impetus for the current global education movement at MCCS by first writing a proposal for a more comprehensive approach to global education at MCCS. They then led the formation of the CGE, a committee that is largely made up of faculty members who are tasked with organizing, developing, and overseeing global education initiatives at MCCS. Faculty are able to serve in leadership positions within the committee because of administrative support in the form of course release time, a phenomenon that reflects the broader culture of support for faculty leadership and faculty innovation at MCCS. For example, each academic department appoints a coordinator responsible for coordinating courses for that department across the three main campuses and satellite campuses. These coordinator roles, and other administrative roles at MCCS, are typically filled by faculty members who receive course release time to fulfill the administrative duties. The global education proposal co-authored by Jennifer and Denise, eventually submitted to and approved by the VP for Instruction, included ideas for such strategies as forming the CGE and placing a strong focus on faculty development alongside student programs. Jennifer and Denise reviewed academic literature on international education in higher education and gathered data from professional organizations. Jennifer described some of their initial ideas for global education at MCCS: 105 I think at that point it was called international education, and we liked global better. We thought it was more encompassing than international and in a review of the literature, we felt like it was a more comprehensive, more appropriate term to use as well because it wasn't just international students, it wasn’t just travel, it was really a variety of things that we wanted to introduce to our institution. . . . So, we wanted it to really cover all aspects of global education. . . not just study abroad, not just, you know, celebrations. . . . We thought, yeah, okay, so, those are pieces of global education, but that’s not enough to ensure a meaningful global experience for all students and faculty. Once the proposal was approved and the administration committed to supporting their efforts, Jennifer and Denise organized an open meeting to form the CGE. They knew that there was a network of like-minded faculty and staff members at MCCS who also believed in the need for a stronger focus on global education and that they would be stronger if they united. By forming the CGE as the main vehicle for developing and overseeing global education initiatives at MCCS, Denise and Jennifer put faculty leadership at the forefront of the global education movement. The CGE also served as a way to centralize and organize all of the various global activities happening at MCCS, as Academic Advisor, Asim, explained: There were also major goals that were not being achieved having all these separate departments—like globalizing the curriculum. . . as international student counselor, I did not talk to the faculty about internationalizing. The ESOL department did not talk to them. So, there were pieces that were falling through the cracks and were not really picked up by having these silos. But having one global board that found out where we are lacking and started fortifying these issues that we were weak in. Yeah, and I think that 106 was one of the good things that the [committee] created is—it touched on all the global education areas that—to make it a wholesome experience. Faculty also receive course release time for serving in administrative leadership roles on the CGE. There are three subcommittees in the CGE, each with its own coordinator position filled by a faculty member who receives release time for one course. For example, one faculty member serves as coordinator of the professional development subcommittee, overseeing all faculty and staff development programming such as the semi-annual workshop and certification series and the annual campus symposium and a year-long lecture series. The use of course release time to support faculty work on the CGE was not an initial part of the leadership structure but was created over time as the program expanded and gained momentum. Founding faculty member Jennifer explained: After a while, when we demonstrated to the administration that we were meeting some of the competencies that we had identified originally, then they made some reassigned positions available. We were able to hire a couple of coordinators [faculty members] who could oversee professional development, who could oversee student programs, and that helped a great deal. Because we didn't have anyone who was solely dedicated to our global initiatives. So now we actually have a director. . . . We have coordinators working in different areas. So, I think we identified needs, we identified priorities, we brought together the right people, and then we really evolved. This reflects the statements made by several participants that administration is supportive but hands-off as to the day to day running and development of programs. The faculty, primarily through the CGE, remain the key leaders for global education at MCCS. 107 Organizing, Connecting, and Finding Support The second key theme that emerged in the area of strategies at MCCS was the importance of organizing, connecting, and finding support, especially in the early stages of developing the global education program. Global education leaders at MCCS employed a number of strategies to meet these needs. They created the CGE, organized a consortium for global education with other community colleges in the state, wrote and won a proposal for a large national grant, and found administrative support within the institution. Asim, Senior Academic Advisor with 12 years at MCCS, described the importance of organizing and connecting: I was here when this all started. . . . We were separate initiatives. We were not connected to each other. So, I was at International Services trying to do events and activities with international students, and international club and everything. There was Multicultural Affairs who also were trying to do events and activities, and there was also the ESOL department, which is a totally separate department, and they were also trying to do some of their initiatives, and we were not talking to each [other]—we were in silos. But the [CGE] and the [global certificate program] kind of gathered all these initiatives in one place and we started to be able to direct and to focus more in our efforts together. The creation of the CGE provided a vehicle for organizing the various global and international education initiatives that had previously been taking place in isolation from one another, without a coordinated strategic plan. The newly formed committee provided a means for like-minded faculty to connect and gave them a way to become more visible and powerful, as faculty member Nicole expressed: [Denise and Jennifer] felt that. . . there's so much more that we can do when we're organized and when we're working in tandem, and without it, there’s really nobody 108 championing global education. So, the reason the [CGE] began is so that there would at least be a division of people that champion it by promoting various programs, organizing certain events and programs, making sure that curriculum becomes globalized, helping students to get distinctions... It was important to connect departments and areas across the multiple campuses of MCCS, and also to connect faculty with student affairs staff and other types of programs. Founding faculty member, Jennifer, explained the need to ensure all areas of MCCS involved in global education work were represented on the CGE: And then, the other piece, within the global education framework, we didn't really have one group working specifically to develop co-curricular events, but we realized that there were many areas of the college that were already offering events that were global in nature. So, we thought we should join forces because a lot of what we would want to do would overlap anyway. So, we just made sure that those areas, Student Life, Multicultural Affairs, and so on, we made sure that they were represented on our [CGE] so that we could all be in communication with one another about what was going on. Another way that global education leaders found connection was through collaborating with other local community colleges through a statewide consortium for community colleges interested in global education. Membership and participation in the statewide consortium has resulted in several important collaborations for MCCS, including a number of joint study abroad programs, the initial development of the global certificate program, and the formation of a faculty learning community. The consortium-run faculty learning community holds an annual conference where faculty can share their research, experiences, and best practices around issues in global education programming. For the last several years the conference has taken place 109 outside of the United States, giving faculty the opportunity to learn about and experience another culture and to research programs and partnerships abroad in addition to learning from one another. It was also important for global education leaders at MCCS to make and utilize connections within the local community. One way MCCS connected to the local community was through the creation of an external advisory board for global education, primarily comprised of local employers and leaders of community organizations. During the initial organization for global education at MCCS, faculty member Lynn, a founding member of CGE and the first Director of Global Education at MCCS, felt it was important to form an external advisory board of community members to advise the CGE: It's comprised of local business partners that we thought could inform what we're doing in terms of teaching students. . . All programs at the college have an advisory board. So, this was an advisory board for global education in college. And it's like when you do an employer survey. What do you want our students—what do you think our students needs to know in terms of living and being a productive worker in the global environment? The CGE also utilizes the college’s community connections by calling on local community members to serve as speakers at global education events and working with community organizations and local employers to offer internship options for the domestic experiential component of the global certificate program. Anna, adjunct faculty member and Coordinator of the Global Certificate Program, discussed the importance of finding local speakers for global education events: We strive to get local people. . . . If we wanted to have somebody prominent, and who would definitely give a great speech, but may be from a different state, this would not be 110 the first choice. We would still want somebody from the area because maybe it would reach to the students in a better way. Part of Anna’s job has been to find placements with local organizations for global certificate students who choose a domestic option to complete their required intercultural experience. She explained that there are many organizations willing to work with MCCS students, “We have quite a good database of—I wouldn't call them companies—but institutions that are willing to have our students intern for them, and the result is always great.” Finding support. The faculty leaders who organized the global education movement realized the importance of gaining the support of the administration early on. Many participants stated that the administration is very supportive of global education, but then noted that this support does not necessarily come in the form of budget allocation. One faculty member stated: I will say this program has grown very organically starting from the first meeting I told you about to what we have today, but it has had a lot of support from the administration. . . . The administration has been extremely supportive. That doesn’t mean we get money, but we do get support. Another faculty member noted: We still don't have an official operating budget, but over the years our administration has been supportive because they’ve seen that it’s a very hard-working group of people who are passionate about this and want to bring these opportunities to our students. Forms of support cited by participants were the use of course release time for administrative positions on the CGE, the inclusion of global education work such as globalizing a course, serving on the CGE, and participating in faculty development workshops to count in the annual performance review and promotion policies for faculty and staff, the existence of the faculty 111 travel grant and broad encouragement to students and faculty to attend global education events from executive-level administrators, including the president. Course release time was one of the first support mechanisms from the administration, as explained by founding faculty member, Jennifer: “After a while, when we demonstrated to the administration that we were meeting some of the competencies that we had identified originally, then they made some reassigned positions available.” Support for faculty development initiatives was also critical, as the Director of Faculty Development explained, “Faculty members who choose to globalize a course will then be able to use that on their annual professional summary and also as part of their packet for promotion.” Steven, Instructional Librarian and CGE member, described support in terms of the faculty international travel grant, “The faculty international travel grant comes from the office of instruction, the VP’s office budget, and that gives. . . another $2,500 individual grant that's awarded annually. So, I think $5,000 total to our faculty or staff that can [apply] for these grants.” While these various forms of administrative support have been beneficial, as the work of the committee picked up speed and global education began to grow at MCCS, faculty leaders realized they needed greater monetary support to attain some of their larger goals. A group of faculty members from the CGE co-authored a grant proposal for a large, national, matching grant and successfully won a substantial award with support from administration. One planned use of the funds is to build a Center for Global Education and hire additional administrative support staff. The grant award funds will also be used to bring scholars and speakers to campus to speak on global topics for faculty development and student events and to put more money into faculty development workshops. 112 Focus on Teaching and Learning While many global education programs in higher education focus primarily on student learning and development, global education organizers at MCCS decided early on that teaching would be a primary focus, through faculty development workshops and curriculum internationalization. Jennifer described the initial decision of the committee to focus on faculty development: We formed a [CGE] and the first time we got together, we decided what our priorities were going to be.. . . . Those three areas that I mentioned. . . faculty development, student opportunities, and then sort of opportunities for everyone in the college, more co- curricular, extracurricular. We decided that we would focus on two main things: faculty and students. So, we developed this Global Education Workshop Series for faculty, and it was offered through our center for faculty development. Assistant Dean for Teaching and Learning, Faith, also stressed the importance of focusing on faculty development for global education, particularly within the context of a community college: And we're pretty clear that, you know, as a community college and a very, very large community college, one of the best ways to expose our students to global experiences is—or to expose all of them—is through the experiences of their faculty. You know, we will never get to the point with this population where everybody can study abroad or everybody can have that kind of experience, but we want to make sure to the extent possible that all of our students are exposed to global education. While the workshops are primarily focused on faculty, they are also open to other staff members, with an overall goal to increase the awareness of global education across all areas of the college. 113 Each workshop participant must produce a final project, which for most faculty members is the globalization of a course or series of courses. Jennifer described this aspect of the workshop series: [The] workshop series has evolved quite a bit over the years, but the idea was to introduce faculty to the basic tenets of global education, intercultural competencies, intracultural conflict resolution, how you could globalize curriculum in your own area, and then some people decided that they would globalize a whole course. Some decided that they would globalize part of a course. The outcome of this workshop series had to be a project. So, it was very outcome oriented, and the idea was to get faculty and staff and administrators—it was not just restricted to faculty—but the idea was to get them to create something, in the end, that would have a positive impact on their students within a global perspective's framework. . . . So, for example, we had a campus dean, he wasn't teaching, but his project was to bring—it was horticulture focused. He brought in trees that had come from different parts of the world originally, that were endemic to those parts of the world. And then we had these little plaques that described where these came from. And he brought a peace pole to the campus. All new faculty must participate in a general introductory faculty development series during their first semester at MCCS, which also features a global education component, as described by faculty member Calvin: “Your first year basically you have to take a faculty development class, it's required. They give you a one course buyout. . . and they teach you everything about the college. . . and part of the push is definitely global.” Faith described one strategy for the inclusion of global education in these new faculty workshops: 114 I run a new faculty learning community for our new full-time faculty. And we have often had an intracultural [conversation] in which we’ve had three or four students from different countries and different cultures come and do a panel discussion and question- and-answer with the faculty about their experiences at MCCS and as students in the American higher education community college world, and that's so enlightening for our faculty. Curriculum internationalization is also an important focus of global education work at MCCS. Global Education Director, Carolyn, described her perception that internationalizing the curriculum is particularly important for community colleges: Our students, about 60% of them, live near the poverty line and receive federal financial aid to cover their classes and tuition, and we thought a lot of our students were not going to have the means to go abroad, which you could argue is a great way to have a global encounter, a global experience. So, one phrase that we used a lot, and it sounds a little corny and clichéd, but we said, “We really have to find ways of bringing the world to our students.” And we have to do that through our curriculum. It's not enough to get students to go to events or encourage more students to study abroad. We need to make sure that every single student is going to have a meaningful global experience through their coursework. While many faculty members choose to globalize a course as part of their participation in the global education workshop series, they can submit an application to globalize a course at any time through the curriculum subcommittee of the CGE. One member of this subcommittee described the application process: 115 So, it fell to the CGE to establish criteria for what is global course. . . . Criteria for determining if a course would be considered a global course. . . we came up with that, and based on that, we wrote a global course application. So, we put in place a process for globalizing courses and so faculty who were interested would fill out the application. . . and send it to the CGE who would approve or make suggestions, so the CGE then had the role of voice approving the course. Courses that are successfully globalized then get designated as GL in the college course catalogue. Students who are completing the global certificate program must take at least 15 credits of GL designated courses to complete the certificate. An early and critical initiative of the CGE curriculum subcommittee was to propose at least one global education outcome included in the syllabus for every required general education course at MCCS, as described by faculty member Bonnie: One of the first things that I certainly wanted was to steer the committee in the direction of doing something far-reaching. I think some people wanted to just talk about, “This is an activity that works well in my class and it has an international global flavor,” or something. But like I said, I thought we needed to. . . work on a bigger scale. So, the first thing that the committee did was we decided that we would work with the general education group. . . to make a requirement that all [general education] courses have at least one objective on their common course outlines that was global in nature. The strong focus on teaching and learning at MCCS is reflected in the organization of the CGE into three subcommittees, two of which are the curriculum subcommittee and the faculty and professional development subcommittee. 116 Chapter Summary MCCS serves a large and diverse urban community, which is reflected in the diversity of its student and staff population and the breadth of programs offered at the college. The current global education movement at MCCS was a true grassroots effort, initiated by two faculty members with a passion for global education and a belief that global learning should be a priority at a diverse institution such as MCCS. In a proposal to the college administration, these two pioneering faculty members called for a shared leadership model that took the form of the CGE. The CGE is primarily comprised of faculty members and oversees all global education initiatives at MCCS through its three subcommittees along with a Director for Global Education position. The most commonly cited rationales for global education at MCCS were in the category of student preparation. Participants felt that a stronger focus on global education was necessary to prepare students to work in a globalized economy, to live in a global society, to interact effectively with the world through technology, and to successfully pursue further education including transfer to a 4-year institution. Participants referred to many aspects of the local community when discussing these rationales, citing the global nature of local jobs and the globally diverse communities in which many local graduates will live. Participants at MCCS also felt that global education was an important strategy for addressing incidents of xenophobia and racism on campus and improve the campus climate for diversity. Recent assessments of student learning outcomes at MCCS revealed low scores in the area of cultural appreciation and global perspectives, as well as reluctance on the part of many faculty members to engage students in these topics. This led the CGE to focus on faculty development and curriculum internationalization as strategic priorities for global education. While study abroad and recruitment of international students remain a part of the overall global 117 education program at MCCS, many participants felt that focusing on curriculum and faculty development was the best way to ensure that a majority of students were exposed to global education. Faculty leadership, a focus on teaching and learning, and a desire to reflect the diversity of the campus and the surrounding communities reflect the aims of the global education movement at MCCS. 118 CHAPTER SIX—CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS In Chapters 4 and 5, I provided findings from each of my two cases in relation to my first two research questions: (a) What rationales are driving community colleges to design for global learning? and (b) What strategies are community colleges using to design for global learning? In this chapter, I compare rationales and strategies across the two cases and consider my third research question: (c) In what ways is local context related to designing for global learning in community colleges? There were many similarities and a number of differences between the two cases in terms of rationales and strategies. Elements of local context that most influenced rationales and strategies were found at two levels: the local community and the institutional environment. In general, there were broad similarities in rationales and strategies across both cases but differences in the ways rationales were formed and strategies were enacted. These differences were often attributed to elements of local context within the local community or the campus environment. Through cross-case analysis in this chapter, I provide an overview of these similarities and differences along with an integrated discussion of the role of local context. Rationales Understanding rationales for global education provides insight into the ideas and motivations that drive the design and development of these programs at the institutional level. Rationales for global education at both case sites fell into three broad categories: student centered, institution centered, and community centered. In this section, I compare rationales across the two cases within three broad categories of student, institution, and community- centered rationales and discuss the role of local context in shaping rationales at each case site. 119 Student-Driven Rationales The single rationale overwhelmingly identified as most important by participants at both CCC and MCCS was to prepare students for the global economy. The overall message for this rationale in both cases was the same: students need to have some level of global competence in order to be prepared to succeed in the workplace, whether they stayed in the local community after graduation or left. Even though the labor market contexts of the two local communities surrounding each case were very different, participants at both sites referenced local jobs and local employers when talking about this rationale. CCC is located in a smaller, mostly rural area where tourism, manufacturing, and agriculture are the dominant industries. Participants at CCC talked at length about the global nature of jobs in each of these industries, identifying local companies that are globally connected and describing ways that students with global knowledge and skills will be better prepared for these jobs. Participants also noted that because of the size and rural location of the community, there would not be enough jobs for all graduates locally, and therefore, some graduates would need to leave to find work. Participants at CCC believed that global education would better prepare these students to find work outside of the local community as well. Similarly, participants at MCCS talked about the global nature of jobs in their local community. MCCS participants believed most of their students would stay in the local area after graduation, citing college statistics to back up this claim, but still felt strongly that students should be globally competent in order to be successful in local jobs. Some examples of globally connected local employers included large global corporations, hospital systems, universities, airports, and the government sector. 120 The local community surrounding MCCS is large, urban, and culturally, linguistically, and racially diverse—very different than the community surrounding CCC. Yet, at both institutions, participants cited the local labor market as a primary motivation for developing global education programs. At MCCS, participants added an additional rationale in relation to local jobs: the idea that one will need to work alongside culturally diverse coworkers as a condition of employment at most local workplaces. This rationale was not discussed at CCC, a point of difference, which could possibly be attributed to differences in the demographics of the two local communities, with MCCS being in a more ethnically and racially diverse community. Participants at both sites also believed global education to be necessary to prepare students for a globalized society. Participants at CCC connected this rationale with the idea that society is becoming more globally connected in general, especially through technology, while participants at MCCS were more likely to reference the cultural diversity within their local community. At CCC, participants believed it was important to increase students’ understanding of global systems and cultural differences in order to better equip them to interact effectively in the global media environment. Similar sentiments were expressed at MCCS, however, participants there were focused more on the cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and racial diversity in their local community. MCCS participants talked about the local immigrant populations, changing demographics in certain neighborhoods and recent acts of xenophobia and racism in the community. They felt global education had the potential to increase students’ abilities to interact with diverse populations in their own neighborhoods on a daily basis and with the larger world through technology. Demographics of the local communities were an important influence on student-centered rationales at both sites. At CCC, where the local demographics were relatively homogenous, 121 participants felt that students would benefit from exposure to cultural diversity through the college since they were not typically exposed to these differences in their community. At MCCS, where local demographics were more diverse, participants felt students needed to be better prepared to interact with culturally diverse individuals in the local community. MCCS participants also felt students from ethnic minority groups would benefit from global education by feeling more visible, valued, and included in the campus community. Participants at both cases also believed that global education programs enhanced students’ overall learning experiences and academic preparation. At CCC, participants linked the development of global learning opportunities across campus with an overall strengthening of the curriculum and deepening of student learning. CCC participants talked about the personal transformative learning experienced by students who studied abroad, and cited examples of specific courses in which the addition of global perspectives has enhanced curriculum. For example, an engineering water resources program that integrated a unit on water resources in China was touted as an example of how integrating global education into academic programs made them stronger programs. Participants at CCC also felt students who participated in global education programs were better prepared to transfer to larger four-year schools and even go on to graduate school. Participants at MCCS discussed global education as important in preparing transfer students for future academic success. As preparing students to transfer is a primary mission of the community college sector, it is not surprising that the transfer mission was linked to rationales for global education at both schools. Institution-Driven Rationales Participants at both colleges identified rationales for global education that were centered around the need to serve and strengthen the institution. These rationales were often driven by 122 existing elements of the institutional environment, including a strong vision by one or more key leaders. At CCC, participants overwhelmingly agreed the current president’s vision of preparing students to succeed in a global economy was a major reason for the development and success of the college’s global education initiatives. A past president as well as a past VP were also cited as having influenced the college to move in the direction of global education. The global education initiative at MCCS was initiated by two faculty members whose strong vision and leadership were often cited as the most important impetus behind the success of the movement. Another element of the institutional environment that influenced rationales for global education at both sites was the personal experiences of students, faculty, and staff. At CCC, faculty and staff with international experience were considered influential on the decision to focus on global education. At MCCS, the ethnic and cultural diversity of faculty, students, and staff was cited as a rationale for focusing more on global education. An additional factor at MCCS was the perceived need to improve the campus climate for diversity in light of stories of xenophobia reported by students and faculty. Participants felt strongly that increasing global education programming was an important way to create a more welcoming environment on campus and potentially increase retention rates and improve student satisfaction. Participants at both colleges believed global education programs improved measures of institutional accountability and strengthened institutional competitiveness. At MCCS, a majority of students scored low in the area of cultural appreciation on a recent college-wide assessment of specified student learning outcomes, which took place in first-year general education courses at the end of the semester. These learning assessment results were identified as a rationale for strengthening global education on campus. Participants at MCCS also believed that students who participated in global education programs would be more successful in transferring to a 4-year 123 institution and more likely to complete a credential. Participants at both institutions talked about the importance of completion and credentialing in relation to federal policies that affect financial aid and other funding, reflecting the shared context of the community college sector. One key rationale at CCC that was not mentioned at MCCS was institutional prestige. At CCC, participants talked about global education as a recognizable specialization of the college, a signature program that would help set them apart and make them more competitive in the current higher education landscape. This idea was attributed to the strong vision of the president. Community-Driven Rationales Although the local communities surrounding each case site were very different, participants at both colleges cited local demographics and the local labor market as important influences on rationales for global education and believed that global education programs served the local community. At CCC, participants linked a lack of cultural and ethnic diversity in the local population to the importance of global education programs at the college. Although increases in tourism and the arts have brought more global influence to the area, the resident population remained largely White and English speaking, and many incoming students at CCC had never left the state or even the county. Because of its strong relationship with the community, participants at CCC believed that global education programs were an important way to expose local residents to more culturally diverse perspectives. At MCCS, the surrounding community was culturally and racially diverse. Because the majority of MCCS students continued to live and work in the local area after graduation, participants viewed global education programs as a tool for increasing tolerance in the local community. Despite differences in the local labor markets surrounding the colleges, participants in both cases viewed global education programs as serving the needs of local employers. Many 124 noted that local employers had explicitly expressed the desire to hire employees with global competence. Participants at both case sites clearly stated the belief that the mission of the community college is to serve the local community through workforce development and that global education programs are critical to achieving that mission because of the global nature of local businesses. Strategies In this section, I look across the two cases at the strategies employed in designing, developing, and implementing global education programs. There were broad similarities in strategies between cases, yet differences in the ways these strategies were enacted. Many of these differences could be attributed to differences within the institutional environments of the two cases. Preparatory Activities Leaders of the global education movements at both case sites conducted what I call preparatory activities. These activities occurred in preparation for and prior to the actual design, development, and implementation of global education programs. While participants at both case sites discussed the importance of such activities, there were notable differences in the ways in which they were carried out. Preparatory activities at CCC primarily consisted of information gathering and establishing buy-in with a range of stakeholders. Information gathering activities at CCC included peer benchmarking and networking with other community colleges in the state and through professional organizations. These activities were primarily carried out by the Director of the International Office, who used the data he collected to author a proposal for the design of global education programs at CCC. Another key preparatory activity at CCC was establishing 125 buy-in from a variety of key stakeholders. Establishing buy-in was accomplished through a series of college-wide meetings held over 2 years and attended by administrators, staff members, students, faculty, and community members. Some meetings were open to all members of the college and community while others were by invitation only. Attendees of these meetings were asked to offer input on the design and implementation of global education programs at CCC. Because the global education movement at CCC was initiated by the president and led in a top- down manner with a few key administrators at the helm, it was important to gain buy-in from the broader college community, and to tap a variety of sources for information and input. The strong relationship between CCC and its surrounding local community resulted in the inclusion of a number of community members and organizations in the planning meetings. Preparatory activities at MCCS focused on organizing, connecting, and gaining support. At MCCS, the movement for global education was initiated by two faculty members and was subsequently led by a group of faculty members through a CGE. The two initiating faculty members conducted information-seeking activities in order to co-author a proposal in which they advocated for more comprehensive global education programs at the college. This information gathering was important but was not explicitly identified as a key strategy by participants, as it was at CCC. Rather, participants at MCCS identified the submission of the proposal to the administration as a key strategy. Once the administration was on board, the founding faculty members organized a series of open meetings for any interested faculty and staff members. Those who opted to join the CGE had input on program design and implementation. Holding a series of open meetings and then forming a committee was an important strategy for connecting like-minded faculty and staff across the three campuses interested in supporting global education initiatives. Once the committee became active, they connected with other community colleges in 126 the state through an existing community college consortium. The consortium connection resulted in a number of programmatic strategies for MCCS, including the development of its global certificate program and a number of joint study abroad programs. Institutionalizing Global Education A key strategy at both case sites was to establish structures and methods for institutionalizing global education within the college, an important way of ensuring that new programs and initiatives remain a part of the institution even after key advocates and implementers have left. At both sites, key institutionalization strategies included establishing leadership structures and designing programs so that that they could be hard-wired into the institution (awarded credit, added to course catalogues, and denoted on the official college transcript). While these broad strategies for institutionalization of global education were similar, there were some differences in the ways in which these strategies were enacted. At CCC, the establishment of leadership structures for global education followed a more traditional path. An office for international education was established and an administrative position was created to lead it. A global education advisory committee was composed of faculty, staff, students, and community members to offer feedback and guidance on the development and implementation of global education programs, but the day to day work itself was carried out by the Director and Assistant of the International Education office. MCCS took a different approach to establishing leadership structures for global education. Members of the CGE, largely composed of faculty members from a variety of departments, assumed collaborative responsibility for the development, implementation, and oversight of global education programs through three subcommittees: (a) study abroad and student programs, (b) professional/faculty development, and (c) curriculum internationalization. Each subcommittee is led by a coordinator 127 who would serve for 2 years. The coordinator role has been filled by a faculty member who receives release time equivalent to two courses per semester. A Director of Global Education position, filled by a full-time faculty member who received release time equivalent to four courses per semester, oversaw day to day operations of all global education initiatives, in collaboration with the CGE. There was not an established office or center for global education at MCCS, but there were plans to establish one in the future. At both colleges, participants talked about the importance of designing programs in ways that optimized institutionalization. For example, the idea of transcriptability was mentioned at both sites. Participants stressed the importance of finding ways to reflect global education participation on a student’s official transcript. At CCC, a student’s successful completion of the global endorsement program resulted in an added line on the transcript. CCC also denoted study abroad on the transcript. CCC needed to develop a way to identify in the college course catalogue which courses were designated as globalized and therefore could be counted toward the global certificate. At the time of this study, MCCS was in the process of converting their global endorsement program to an official academic program certificate. As an academic certificate, the program could be earned as a credential all on its own, versus needing to be added to another official program, and as such would appear differently in the college catalogue. One benefit of the conversion to a certificate was that academic advisors would then have to know more about it in order to talk about it with students. Participants felt this was an important strategy for further institutionalizing global education into the fabric of MCCS. Since professional and faculty development around global education was an important focus at MCCS, policies and procedures 128 needed to be created in order to ensure that faculty and staff could receive credit toward promotion and tenure for participating in these programs. Internationalization at Home Programmatically, both institutions focused on strategies that internationalized the home campus. At MCCS, there was a strong emphasis on faculty and staff professional development and internationalization of the curriculum. At CCC, the focus was more on internationalizing the on-campus experience for students and connecting with the local community. At MCCS, the global education movement grew out of faculty interest and faculty members continue to be the primary leaders of the movement. The choice to focus on faculty development, strengthening teaching around global issues, and internationalizing the curriculum seems logical within the context of faculty leadership at MCCS. Participants at CCC talked about the need to both find and create cross-cultural experiences for students on campus and in the local community, and the need to engage local community members in campus programming. They referenced the lack of cultural diversity in the local community and saw the mission of the institution as filling that need for community members, students, and faculty members. Through tourism, the arts, and industries with international connections, the local community did offer some resources for CCC to draw on as it sought to find ways to offer global experiences to students. CCC developed a number of co-curricular opportunities for students by coordinating with the campus museum and drawing on the international student population on campus. The strong connection between the institution and the local community was an important influence on the global programs developed at CCC. 129 Funding As with many programs and especially those that include an international dimension, finding funding was an important strategy at both schools. At CCC, the president led a successful campaign to establish a scholarship fund for students to travel abroad, conducting fundraising activities both on campus and in the local community. While funding for study abroad is important at most higher education institutions, many participants were quick to point out its critical role at a community college where many nontraditional students view international travel as a major luxury. The student travel scholarship at CCC was established by the president himself by way of a large personal donation, and then supported by the college foundation reflecting the influence of strong administrative leadership at CCC. At MCCS, there were some offhand references to scholarships for student travel abroad, but most participants talked about funding as an important strategy for two purposes: supporting faculty development/travel and creating a more permanent infrastructure for global education on campus. The faculty international travel grant is awarded to two faculty members every year to enable international travel for professional development purposes. Funding to create more permanent infrastructure for global education on campus was accomplished when two CGE faculty members applied for and won a federal grant. Funds from the grant were to be used to build a Center for Global Education, which would feature administrative offices, classroom space, and technology to enable global connections. Funds will also be used to create support staff positions and to bring speakers to campus for student events and faculty/professional development seminars. 130 Chapter Summary In this chapter, I highlighted similarities and differences in the rationales and strategies guiding the development of global education programs across my two case sites. Rationales for global education at both sites fell into three broad categories: student centered, institution centered, and community centered. Differences in the development of individual rationales can be linked to elements of the local context, especially the local community and the institutional environment. These broad similarities and more nuanced differences led me to develop a model of macro and micro rationales, which I describe in Chapter 7. Similarities in strategies at both case sites included the importance of conducting preparatory activities, the need to create mechanisms for institutionalizing global education programs, an emphasis on internationalization at home activities, and finding funding. There were some differences in the specific ways each of these strategies were enacted within each institutional environment, many which can be attributed to differences in local context. In the next chapter, I discuss key findings from the study, propose a framework and model for understanding rationales for global education in the community college, and identify a number of implications for practice, policy, and future research. 131 CHAPTER SEVEN—DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION At the beginning of this study, I set out to better understand how and why community colleges are designing programs for global learning. Employing a multiple case study design, I investigated the development of global education initiatives at two U. S. community colleges with active, campus-based global education programs. I physically visited both colleges, collected a variety of relevant documents, and interviewed a total of 24 faculty and administrators in order to answer three research questions: 1. What rationales are guiding community colleges to design for global learning? 2. What strategies are community colleges using to design for global learning? 3. What is the role of local context in designing for global learning at community colleges? In Chapters 4 and 5, I shared findings from each case relevant to questions one and two about rationales and strategies. In Chapter 6, I provided a cross-case analysis in which I compared the rationales and strategies from each institution and discussed the role of local context. I found broad similarities in the types of rationales and strategies present at both cases, yet there were differences between cases in the specific ways that strategies were enacted, and rationales were constructed. Many of these differences could be attributed to contextual differences between the two cases. Two aspects of context were found to be the most salient: the local community surrounding the institution and the institutional environment itself. In this chapter, I discuss key findings across both sites for all three research questions. While I discuss rationales, strategies, and the role of local context in distinct sections in this chapter, the reality of how these elements play out at the institutional level is that they are interdependent. Ultimately, rationales drive strategies and together rationales and strategies drive 132 program design, policy, and intended outcomes. I then close the chapter by discussing implications of my findings for practice, policy, theory, and future research. A Service-Oriented Framework for Global Education Rationales At the beginning of this study, I set out to gain a deeper understanding of the various rationales motivating community colleges to design for global learning. Despite the critical role of rationales emphasized by Knight (2004, 2012), Knight & de Wit (1999), and others, there has been little research that has explored rationales for internationalization at the level of the institution and even less that has explored this idea in the community college sector. Findings from my study confirm the importance of rationales and further our understanding of rationales by reflecting differences at the institutional level as well as similarities and differences at the sector level. In this section, I offer a new framework for identifying global education rationales in the community college sector, developed using key findings from this study and integrating elements of Knight and de Wit’s (1999) original framework for internationalization rationales. A thematic analysis of rationales from both case sites revealed three broad categories of rationales: student oriented, institution oriented, and community oriented. Participants at both sites primarily discussed global education initiatives by identifying who or what would benefit from the initiative: students, the institution, the local community. After my initial round of thematic analysis, I conducted a second round of analysis during where I experimented with grouping participants’ rationales into these three broad categories (student-, institution-, and community-oriented). It became clear that these categories reflected the most authentic expression of participants’ views. During my third round of analysis, I attempted to group the rationales by applying Knight and de Wit’s (1999) four categories of internationalization rationales framework (academic, economic, political, and sociocultural) in order to determine the 133 usefulness of their framework in the community college context. Ultimately, I found it more useful to first organize rationales by who/what was the intended beneficiary of global education programs and then apply Knight and de Wit’s (1999) four categories to further differentiate rationales within those broader service-oriented categories. In this way, I was able to identify very broad rationales, as well as sub-rationales. I call the adapted framework a service-oriented framework because it begins with grouping rationales into student-, institution-, or community-driven categories based on whose needs are being served by global education initiatives. Applying Knight and deWit’s (1999) framework allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the various sub-rationales within these three categories. Table 3 illustrates the application of Knight and de Wit’s framework within the three service- oriented categories to identify rationales and sub-rationales for global education in the community college environment. Global Education Prepares Students Student-oriented rationales were the most frequently expressed and were viewed as the most important rationale by every participant in this study. This is in line with findings from the Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses study (ACE, 2017) in which the top reason for internationalizing across all U. S. institution types (doctoral, master’s, baccalaureate, associate, and special focus) was to “improve student preparedness for a global era” (p. 5). However, simply naming this broad rationale provides no insight into what it means or how the rationale was derived at the institutional level. By applying Knight and de Wit’s (1999) four categories to 134 Table 3 A Service-Oriented Framework for Identifying Rationales for Global Education at Two U. S. Community Colleges (1) Strengthen students’ overall academic experience (2) Increase relevance of curriculum (3) Provide transformative learning opportunities Sociocultural Academic (1) Prepare students for a globalized society (2) Prepare students for a diverse local community (3) Prepare students for interacting with the world through technology (1) Improve institutional climate for ethnic and racial diversity (1) Engage faculty in professional development work; increase faculty retention and productivity (2) Improve transfer rates and other accountability measures Political (1) Prepare students to participate in and better understand political systems, both locally and globally (2) Mitigate misinformation and misunderstanding about globalization (1) Global Education is a priority because of the strong vision of specific institutional leaders (champions) – either faculty or administrators (1) Global Education promotes awareness and engages citizens in being more politically active Student-centered rationales Economic (1) Prepare students for future jobs locally or elsewhere Institution-centered rationales Community-centered rationales (1) Increase competitiveness of Institution by being known for specializing in international education (1) Local businesses are globally connected and want employees with global competence (2) There are not enough jobs in the local community for all graduates and global education will prepare them to better to pursue jobs elsewhere. (1) The local community is diverse and global education will prepare citizens to engage with each other better resulting in less community strife (2) The local community is not as diverse so global education brings more diversity into the local community and exposes citizens to important perspectives this broad rationale, I gained a more nuanced understanding of specific ways participants believed that global education prepares students. All participants stated that global education was 135 necessary to prepare students for a global economy. To most participants, this meant preparing students for local jobs or jobs in other communities, for present day jobs and for jobs in the future. They believed that global education ideally prepares students for the technical aspects of employment, or direct job skills, but also for interacting with fellow employees who are more likely to be culturally diverse today and, in the future, due to the local effects of globalization. The second most frequently cited student-oriented rationale was that global education is necessary to prepare students for living in a global society. At MCCS, where the local community is very diverse, this was often discussed in local terms. Participants at MCCS hoped that global education initiatives could contribute to increased tolerance of and appreciation for cultural differences in local communities surrounding the institution. Even at CCC where the local community is not as culturally and racially diverse, participants believed that global education has the potential to produce more tolerant citizens, ultimately helping students to develop a more informed lens through which to interpret what they see happening in the world around them. Academic and political sub-rationales were also found within the broader rationale of preparing students. Several participants referenced the most recent U. S. presidential election and the growing anti-globalization and anti-immigration movements in the United States and around the world. By better understanding global systems, participants hoped that students participating in global education programs would be better equipped to handle current and future political conversations with more informed opinions. A number of participants expressed the belief that global education improves students’ overall academic experience by providing a more relevant curriculum and more curricular opportunities for transformative learning. Participants emphasized the important role of experiential learning opportunities such as study abroad 136 programs and domestic intercultural immersion experiences in providing students with transformative learning experiences. At both institutions, the global endorsement/certificate programs included a required intercultural experience, either domestic or abroad, reflecting the perceived importance of these experiences. Experiential learning components were often integrated into globalized course designs. Thus, through the growing practice of course globalization at both case sites, the curricular experience of all students was viewed as being enhanced, even those who do not study abroad or choose to pursue a global education certificate. Participants also noted the increase in globally-focused and intercultural co-curricular opportunities being offered on campus. Global Education Strengthens the Institution Rationales expressed by participants at both cases reflected the belief that global education is important not only for preparing students but also for strengthening the institution itself. Key institution-centered rationales that arose included improving measures of accountability, improving faculty retention and productivity, improving the institutional climate for diversity, and increasing the prestige and competitiveness of the institution in the higher education market. Participants at both cases believed that global education programs helped improve assessment measures across the institution. Some of these were direct measures of student learning, such as the institution-wide course assessments used at MCCS to measure student learning on specified outcomes. At the time of my visit to MCCS, participants were awaiting analysis of the most current campus-wide assessments of student learning to see if their efforts to improve global education had resulted in higher scores in the area of cultural appreciation. This particular rationale was strongly linked to efforts to internationalize the curriculum in as many 137 courses as possible, which was a major global education initiative at MCCS. Other institutional measures linked to global education programs were transfer rates, credential completion rates, and student satisfaction surveys. These metrics are some of those used by federal agencies to determine student success and financial aid eligibility for community colleges in the United States (Xu & Trimble, 2015). Participants at MCCS believed creating a global certificate program as a stand-alone credential would improve credential completion rates. Participants at both sites believed students who participated in global education programs would be more likely to transfer, have a better chance of being admitted to a more prestigious four-year institution as a transfer student, and would be more academically successful after transferring. Another institution-centered rationale was the idea that global education would increase the attractiveness of the institution to potential students and thus make the institution more competitive in the higher education marketplace. This rationale was found primarily at CCC. Participants at CCC described the explicit vision of the President that the college would be known for its global education programs and that this type of signature program would set the institution apart from other similar community colleges. Both de Wit (2002) and Knight (2004) identified institutional prestige as a rationale for internationalization. Seeber et al. (2016) pointed out that highly internationalized universities tend to be perceived as being high-quality, and posited that the prestige rationale has become more important since the rise of international rankings, which often include international outlook as a performance indicator. Since community colleges do not compete for international rankings and traditionally are not competitive in the international marketplace, one might not expect to see prestige as a rationale for global education at the institutional level in this sector. However, with increasing competition among community 138 colleges for international students and an increasingly competitive marketplace for higher education in general, it is possible that this rationale will become more prevalent in this sector. Institutional climate for diversity. One institution-centered rationale that was particularly interesting was the idea that increasing global learning opportunities could help improve institutional climate for diversity. This rationale was primarily expressed by participants at MCCS where the student, faculty, and staff are racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse; however, some participants at CCC felt that increasing global education programs would create a more welcoming environment for international students and help them become more involved on campus. At MCCS, some participants believed that a strong global education focus was a concrete action the institution could take toward mitigating xenophobic incidents on campus. Participants who talked about this rationale expressed two different ways that global education could improve the institutional climate. First, a strong and visible global education focus at the institution would send a message to student and staff from diverse cultures that the college values their presence and make them feel more comfortable. Second, global education programs were viewed as having the potential to increase understanding and tolerance around cultural differences. One faculty member at MCCS who leads faculty development workshops had received complaints from faculty members about the difficulty of teaching students for whom English is not their first language. This faculty member felt that these comments reflected the need for faculty as well as students to be engaged in global learning programming. Much has been written in the last two decades about diversity on college campuses, institutional climate, and students’ sense of belonging (Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012), but little of this research has been conducted in the community college sector. 139 Global Education Serves the Local Community There were two primary ways that global education was viewed as serving and strengthening the local community across both cases: workforce development and citizenship education. First and foremost, global education programs were framed as an important response to the needs of local employers. Even though the primary industries and local labor markets differed across the two communities, employers from both colleges’ surrounding communities had explicitly stated the desire to hire more globally competent employees. These findings support prior research stating that community colleges are tasked with preparing students to enter the local workforce and should tailor program offerings to meet the needs of local employers (Raby & Valeau, 2016; Treat, 2016). While participants stressed the importance of this sub- rationale, it is important to recognize that the mission of the community college was likely a strong influence on participants. The more personal beliefs of participants as to why global education programs are important for community college students were related to socio-cultural and political rationales. However, being public employees in the community college sector, participants at both sites were clearly well aware that supporting the local economy was the primary mission of their institution. For example, global education was viewed as serving the local community by better preparing students to interact with diverse others, and thereby promoting increased tolerance and understanding in surrounding communities. For many participants, it was clear that they personally believed this to be the more important rationale, but that the company line, if you will, was that preparing students for a global economy was most important. Despite a growing number of scholars and practitioners who have argued international education in community colleges serves the needs of the local community, there has remained a pervasive belief that going global is the opposite of serving the local (Raby & Valeau, 2016). 140 The findings from my study counter this belief by demonstrating that a primary motivation for developing global education programs at both colleges was to better serve the needs of the local communities, economically, politically, and socio-culturally. In large-scale surveys of campus internationalization such as the Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses (ACE, 2017) survey, respondents are often asked to identify their top three reasons for engaging in internationalization. Sadly, serving the needs of the local community is not even offered as a response option, perhaps reflecting the traditional focus on large research universities in the area of internationalization research. Macro and Micro Rationales One purpose of my study was to understand the role of local context in designing for global learning at community colleges. While many of the broad rationales previously discussed in this chapter were the same across the two institutions, a deeper examination revealed differences attributable to elements of local context, specifically the local community and the institutional environment. Based on these difference, I propose that it is helpful to think of rationales in terms of macro-rationales and micro-rationales. Macro-rationales may be similar across many types of higher education institutions or may be similar across institutions from the same sector, such as community colleges, while micro-rationales often differ and are typically connected to aspects of local context. For example, a macro-rationale might be global education strengthens the institution. A micro-rationale following that might be global education improves the institutional climate for diversity. A further micro-rationale following that might be global education can help mitigate instances of xenophobia experienced by international and foreign- born students on this campus. 141 As more lenses are applied to institutional-level rationales, rationales become more specific and micro-rationales can be identified. Using the service-oriented framework I described above, the first lens applied is to ask what entity is being served by global education: student, institution, or community? The next lens is to apply Knight and de Wit’s (1999) four categories of rationales for internationalization. Finally, applying the lens of local context, either that of the local community or the institutional environment, the most nuanced level of rationales, which I call micro-rationales, appear. Figure 1 illustrates this process. Identifying and understanding the micro-rationales that drive global education initiatives can help leaders advocate for the advancement of global education on their campuses, establish buy-in with stakeholders, make critical connections with community resources, and design programs with purposeful and targeted elements. For example, in the macro-to-micro rationale progression detailed above, the desire to mitigate incidences of xenophobia on campus could result in a number of specific programmatic interventions, based on further information- gathering about the types and locations of the incidents in question. At MCCS, where this micro- rationale was identified, several faculty members described incidents where international Figure 1 Macro- and micro-rationales for global education at community colleges. 142 at MCCS developed a faculty workshop on teaching international students. My model for identifying macro- and micro-rationales for global education can be a critical tool to assist global education leaders in identifying and understanding the nuanced rationales at play in their environment. Key Strategies Two primary types of strategies were important for designing for global learning across both case sites. The first type of strategy involved administrative or organizational processes, such as establishing leadership structures and developing ways to institutionalize global education programs. The second type of strategy involved the design and development of global education programs themselves. In his comprehensive discussion on institutional strategies for internationalization, de Wit (2002) differentiated between these two types of strategies, which he referred to as organizational strategies and programmatic strategies, emphasizing the importance of both for successful campus-wide internationalization efforts. Prior to the comprehensive internationalization movement (Hudzik, 2011), many institutions followed an activities approach to internationalization, in which international education programs were developed in isolation from other programs within the same institution or at least without an institution-wide strategic plan (de Wit, 2002; Knight, 2004; Nolan & Hunter, 2012). Similarly, participants at both CCC and MCCS described an activities-based approach as the state of global education at both colleges prior to the current initiatives, which were characterized as now being strategic, coordinated, and centralized. Organizational strategies were important in the initial stages of designing for global learning at both colleges for creating visibility, establishing buy-in, and integrating global education programs into the fabric of the institution, all key elements of a 143 sustainable systematic effort for international education (de Wit, 2002; Hudzik, 2011; Nolan & Hunter, 2012). Participants at both case sites described similar organizational strategies, such as conducting preparatory activities, creating mechanisms and structures to institutionalize global education, and seeking out or creating funding for global education initiatives. However, the ways these strategies were enacted sometimes differed according to elements of the local institutional context. Programmatic strategies are the more visible part of global education; they are the activities that an institution chooses to develop and implement. Programmatic strategies reflect the priorities of global education leaders within the institution, and as such, also reflect the rationales that guide the global education movement. At both CCC and MCCS, the most important programmatic strategies fell into the category of internationalization at home. Student mobility programs such as education abroad and recruitment of international students existed at both institutions, but the emphasis during the time of my study was on developing campus-based global education learning opportunities for students, faculty, and even community members. In this section, I discuss the most critical organizational and programmatic strategies identified at both case sites. Preparatory Activities Once the decision to move toward a strategic, institution-wide global education movement was established, leaders at both colleges followed a series of actions to begin the design and development process. Leaders at both institutions gathered information from a variety of sources, established buy-in from necessary stakeholders, and organized existing international programs into a centralized structure. The movement to focus on global education at CCC began with a clear vision from the president. This vision was shared with the broader college 144 community in a series of college-wide meetings held over 2 years, during which various stakeholders were asked to collaborate in the process. The first meeting involved all college faculty and staff. Follow-up meetings primarily involved those in leadership positions around the college and focused on forming advisory committees, some that included students and community members, and getting more concrete in terms of strategies for enacting the global education plan. At MCCS, the process was more bottom-up, with the initial vision for a more centralized global education movement coming from two faculty members with a strong vision. The two faculty members conducted research and co-authored a proposal for global education, which was then submitted to the executive leadership of the college. They then held an open meeting for all interested faculty and staff who wanted to support a global education movement at MCCS. Out of this initial meeting, the CGE was created. The CGE was important for connecting like-minded faculty and staff and organizing disparate individuals already engaged in international work. This created a stronger and more visible cohort of advocates behind the proposal to the administration, where buy-in was most needed. Once the administration was on board, they were able to move forward with more concrete programmatic strategies. The only known institution type where the impetus for internationalization is likely to come from the faculty is in associate- granting institutions (Woodin, 2016). Institutionalizing Global Education Leaders of the global education movements at both colleges employed a series of strategies to institutionalize global education within their campus environments. An initial strategy was the development and implementation of leadership structures. Leaders at CCC followed a more traditional approach, creating an office for international education to be led by a 145 Director of International Education and staffed with a full-time coordinator position. Designating a physical office space with dedicated full-time staff signaled to the broader campus community that executive leadership was committed to international education and it was not just a passing fad. The physical office space also increased visibility for global education programs, and previously distinct programs were administratively moved to the office for international education to be administered by the director. At MCCS, the leadership structure was less traditional with the CGE collaboratively supervising all global education initiatives with the support of several administrative positions filled by faculty members who received course- release time. In order to institutionalize global education, it was important to design programs so that they could be fully integrated into institutional processes. For example, at MCCS, the decision to create a stand-alone certificate program for global education meant that it could be listed in the college course catalog as an academic program, giving it more legitimacy and increasing the likelihood that academic advisors would know about program requirements and be more likely to talk with students about the program. At both colleges, processes had to be created for globalized courses to be denoted in the course catalog as well as reflected on student transcripts. Both colleges also devised methods for study abroad and other international experiences to be reflected on students’ transcripts. Finally, integrating global education into college policies served to further institutionalize global education. For example, at MCCS, faculty tenure and promotion policies award continuing education credits for participation in faculty development programs for global education as well as service points for serving on the GEAB or other committees related to global education, including leading a study abroad program. 146 Raby and Valeau (2016) and others (Noah & Hunter, 2012; Opp & Gosetti, 2014) contended that internationalization often centers on an individual champion whose vision shapes advocacy efforts and programmatic changes across the institution. They argue that while often necessary, the danger in this strategy is that when the individual champion leaves the institution, a replacement must be found for the initiatives to continue to thrive. While individual champions were indeed responsible for the initial push at both case sites in my study, the organizational strategies employed to create shared ownership of programs and to further institutionalize global education throughout the institution will hopefully ensure sustainability over time. Internationalization at Home Both CCC and MCCS were focused on developing ways for students, faculty, and staff to gain global competence through experiences on the home campus. Participants at both colleges expressed the importance of internationalization at home for community colleges in particular. While study abroad can be a rich learning experience, number of barriers can prevent students from participating such as lack of financial resources, family obligations, work obligations, and stereotype threat and they are generally less likely to study abroad (Twombly, et al., 2012). In addition, faculty at community colleges have fewer opportunities to travel abroad since research is not a requirement for most faculty positions and there are fewer study abroad leadership opportunities (Bista, 2016). In this section, I discuss three strategies that stood out as key to successful internationalization at home initiatives at CCC and MCCS: the global certificate program, faculty and staff professional development, and connecting with community and campus resources. Global certificate programs. Both institutions developed global certificate programs with similar structures: a required number of internationalized credit-bearing courses, 147 participation in global or internationally themed co-curricular activities, and an experiential learning component accomplished through international or domestic options. These programs were an important strategy at both institutions and served a number of purposes. The existence of global certificate programs increases the odds that students who study abroad will enroll in globalized courses and participate in globally-focused co-curricular activities, therefore increasing other students’ exposure to their experiences. Global certificate programs help to increase visibility of global education opportunities at the institution and provides a centralizing mechanism for the various global education opportunities available to students across campus. Through marketing of the global certificate program, students learn about globalized courses, co- curricular opportunities, study abroad programs, and available domestic intercultural experiences. Global certificate programs also help incentivize faculty to internationalize their courses. Having a course approved for inclusion in the GCP was viewed as an additional incentive for students to enroll in that course by some faculty members. Global education certificate programs are growing in popularity among higher education institutions as a strategy for internationalizing the curriculum and integrating study abroad into the curriculum (Rodriguez, 2016; Stearns, 2009). Global certificate programs are an especially good fit for community colleges and other broad-access schools where leaders are focused on internationalization at home strategies in an attempt to reach a broader range of students who may not be able to study abroad. Describing the process of developing an International Studies Certificate at Santa Fe College, Rodriguez (2016) called this approach “integrative,” “intentional,” and a way to bring about “permanent systemic change,” emphasizing the role of certificate programs as an important tool for institutionalization of global education within the 148 institution (p. 225). Rodriguez (2016) identified the concept of the global certificate program as an “all-encompassing alternative to curricular internationalization alone” that: function[s] as an umbrella under which international initiatives coalesce and gain intentionality and exposure. . . a dynamic structure where new ideas find a home. . . They facilitate the creation of cross-campus partnerships, encourage the engagement of a variety of stakeholders, promote shared ownership, and build on institutional strengths. (p. 226) My findings mirror those of Rodriguez (2016). The global certificate program is a promising strategy for community colleges and other broad access institutions who wish to integrate global education into the campus environment. Faculty and staff professional development. Global learning is not just about students. It is important for faculty and staff to develop global competencies as well. As the primary institutional contact for most students at a commuter campus, faculty members must be globally competent themselves in order to offer global learning to students. At MCCS, where the global education movement was initiated by and continues to be led by faculty members, faculty and staff development is an important part of the institutional strategy for global education. Faculty at MCCS developed an intensive workshop series on global education topics offered twice a year. It was also important to develop tenure and promotion policies that rewarded participation in global education professional development, and to provide some funding for faculty travel, which MCCS did through the faculty travel grant. Funding for faculty development is not always robust at community colleges, but there are creative ways to find or create those resources. For example, Bermingham and Ryan (2013) described how one community college directed a portion of all profits from international student tuition toward professional development for 149 faculty and staff in the area of global education. At MCCS, faculty members on CGE were in charge of developing and leading the workshops, and received credit for required service for doing so, illustrating a creative way to internally fund professional development if funding is a concern. These strategies are in line with recommendations for internationalizing the curriculum in community colleges made by Raby (2007), who noted that “administrative leadership must create and support opportunities for in-service training, conference attendance, and overseas professional travel” (p. 64) and further observed that “international emphasis should be a defined criterion for promotion, tenure, or release time,” (p. 65). Raby (2007) posited that while top- down leadership is important for internationalization efforts, faculty buy-in is the most critical component for the long-term survival of global education programs, and Green (2007) echoed this sentiment. Focusing on the development needs of faculty and including recognition for involvement in global education in promotion and tenure policies are important strategies to ensure faculty buy-in. Support for faculty leadership of global education goes even further toward ensuring its longevity at the institution. Using community and campus resources. In order to successfully internationalize the campus, global education leaders at both sites utilized existing resources on campus and in the local community, creatively incorporating them into global education programs. The global dialogues program at MCCS serves as an example where any student, staff, or faculty member at MCCS with an international background could apply to serve as a speaker, and faculty members could request to have speakers participate in their classes to bring a specific international perspective. Often these dialogues are structured as panels, featuring more than one speaker. At CCC, the campus museum has a strong international emphasis, regularly hosting international 150 exhibits and visiting performers and speakers. Museum-sponsored events might count as co- curricular activities for the global certificate program. In addition, the museum often drew on the experiences and knowledge of local community members, inviting them to serve as guest speakers or to collaborate on exhibits. For example, during a recent exhibit of visiting Chinese acrobats, international students from China and faculty with experience in China participated in additional events put on by the museum. At CCC students can also earn co-curricular points by attending monthly presentations given by international students about their home country culture, events that are often followed by a dinner featuring the international student’s home cultural cuisine. At both MCCS and CCC, local employers with global connections offer internships for Global Certificate students, and often participate in campus events or serve on advisory boards for the college. Each of these examples, and many others not mentioned here, illustrate ways that both institutions drew on existing campus and community resources to design global learning opportunities. The Question of Context Because the mission of the community college is to serve its local community, I felt it was important to understand the ways in which the local context played a role in designing for global learning at community colleges. To get at this question, I intentionally chose two cases with very different local communities: CCC is located in a mostly rural area with a primarily white population while MCCS is located in an urban metropolis with a racially and ethnically diverse population. In addition, there are significant differences between the labor markets of the two communities. While the local context of the surrounding community was my focus at the outset, the findings of my study revealed that aspects of the institutional environment also played an important role in shaping rationales and strategies for global education. 151 Local levels of context such as the institutional environment and the local community did not matter as much at the macro-level for both rationales and strategies but did make a difference at the micro-level in the ways that rationales were formed, the ways that rationales ultimately affected strategies and program design, and the ways that strategies were enacted. Similarities in broad rationales and strategies between the two cases could sometimes be attributed to the shared context of the community college sector. For example, The Director of Global Education at MCCS, Carolyn, shared her thoughts on the need to design short-term study abroad programs for community college students: I was always skeptical about short-term study abroad when I was at the university level. They were always trying to push semester or year. Short term seemed like something that was vacation-y. . . but for our students, it's all they can do. Most of our students can't get away for a long period because of the job, the family, the money issue. So now that I'm actually doing that and seeing the level of transformation that can happen, it brings it home even further. . . . For our students, it's really dramatic and life changing. We’ve had students come back and change their major, add a major, get a job in a new field rather than just working for entry-level position This quote illustrates one way that the community college context affected program design, or strategy, for global education. Adding in the lens of the institutional environment, we might then see how a specific study abroad program relied on certain faculty or offered certain subjects because of elements of the local context. As Deem (2001) contended, the influence of local factors is often overlooked in favor of identifying similarities across sectors and countries. I believe my study demonstrates that local context plays an important role at the institutional level 152 in determining how rationales are formed, how they affect program design and intended outcomes, and the ways that strategies are enacted. Implications and Recommendations Findings from my study have numerous implications for practice, policy, theory, and future research. In this section, I first detail a number of recommendations for practice and institutional policy within the community college sector. Next, I consider implications for theory based on the framework and model proposed earlier in this chapter. Finally, I offer suggestions for future research topics and considerations for scholars studying international education in the community college sector. Implications for Practice and Policy Global education leaders should take time to identify the rationales driving initiatives. Using the macro-micro model developed from this study, leaders can better identify and consider the role of local context in forming these rationales. Macro- and micro-rationales can then be mapped to intended outcomes and program design with a goal to align rationales, outcomes, strategies and program design. Identifying the ways that local context influences rationales for global education may also provide leaders with valuable information to advocate for expansion of global education initiatives within the institution and the local community. It is critical that practitioners and leaders acknowledge and embrace the ways that global education serves the local community and the institution in order to dispel the notion that focusing on global education is the opposite of fulfilling the mission of the community college to serve the local community. Considering the needs of the local community and targeting global education programming to fulfill those needs will make the local-global connection more concrete. Creating advisory boards to elicit input from local employers and community members and 153 drawing on local resources will also add to the local-global connection, further dispelling the pervasive myth that global is the opposite of local. Institutions wishing to develop or expand global education programs might consider the viability of a faculty leadership model. While this type of model may not work for all types of institutional contexts, it seemed to be quite successful at MCCS. There was some evidence from MCCS that a collaborative faculty leadership model potentially creates a more sustainable program that will have a better chance of outlasting leadership changes at the executive level. Making faculty professional development a primary strategy for global education and focusing on improving teaching and internationalizing curriculum are additional ways to engage faculty members in ownership of global education initiatives, something that was identified as important at both sites. It is also important to incorporate global education into promotion and tenure policies in order to engage faculty. Faculty-centered strategies often overlap with internationalization at home strategies, which I recommend as the primary programmatic path for community colleges. The global certificate program emerged as an important strategy for internationalizing the home campus. Developing and offering a domestic immersion option for the global certificate program can help make global learning more accessible for students who cannot travel overseas and also further emphasizes the local-global connection. Finally, it is critical to acknowledge that models for campus internationalization, while useful, cannot be blindly followed. Aspects of local context must be considered, including the type of institution and the institutional culture for leadership. For example, many models for campus internationalization are built around an assumption of administrative leadership for global education programs; however, a faculty leadership model was very successful at MCCS, 154 where a culture of faculty leadership already existed. At CCC, on the other hand, an administrative leadership model was very successful, primarily because of the strong vision of the president. Local and institutional contextual factors must be considered during the planning phase of campus internationalization. Implications for Theory Knight and de Wit’s (1999) four categories of rationales for internationalization have been discussed, expanded and added to many times over the two decades since they first appeared in the literature. Knight and de Wit’s framework was developed within the context of research universities and has been mostly used to understand rationales at the national and global levels; however, Knight (2004, 2012) and others have long recognized that there is a need to understand how rationales are formed at the level of the institution and to consider the role of local context. Although the framework as developed in the context of the research university, Knight (2004) purposefully left it broad enough to be applied to a variety of contexts. Having applied Knight’s (2004) framework to a previously unexplored sector of higher education (the community college), I offer a new framework for understanding rationales for global education in the community college. This new framework utilizes aspects of Knight’s original framework in several ways, adapting it for the community college context, but ultimately finding it not that useful or illuminating on its own at the level of the individual institution. Participants at both sites in my study first categorized rationales in terms of who or what was being served by global education initiatives, namely students, the institution, or the community. After first categorizing rationales into these three service-oriented categories, it was then useful to apply Knight’s (1999) four categories to gain further insight into the rationales. I call my framework a Service-Oriented Framework for Rationales for Global Education, a name that reflects the tendency of participants 155 to discuss rationales first in terms of who or what was being served by global education programming. I then utilized the service-oriented framework to create a model for identifying macro and micro rationales through three levels of lenses, with the local context being the final and most specific lens. I believe that the combination of the service-oriented framework and the macro- micro rationales model offer an important new conceptual way of thinking about rationales for internationalization at the level of the institution and particularly in the community college context. Most notably, my framework places emphasis on the idea that global education serves the local community. Existing frameworks for global education rationales do not even mention this idea. Leaving out the idea that global education serves the local community misses a critical aspect of global education at the institutional level in the community college sector, and likely within other broad-access institutions that are similarly closely linked to their local communities. Implications for Future Research Large surveys on campus internationalization, such as the ACE (2017) Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses study, are useful for painting a broad picture of the state of internationalization at a variety of institution types. However, there are important differences among sectors and individual institutions that are difficult to reflect in such large surveys. It is important that findings from small studies such as mine are utilized to add contextual details to these large studies when possible. Based on my findings, I recommend that the Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses study add a question, or at least offer an answer option to the question on rationales, to reflect the idea that global education serves the needs of the local community. If large surveys truly want to include the views of community colleges and other 156 broad access institutions with local missions, they must consider the differential needs and perspectives of these institutions and reflect those in study designs. Several participants in my study expressed the belief that global education better prepares community college students for transfer to larger universities and possibly even makes them more competitive transfer applicants. Future research could compare transfer students with and without global education experiences, looking at admission rates, retention rates, and elements of student success. Community college transfer students with global education experiences could be surveyed or interviewed to gain a deeper understanding of the ways their global education experiences in the community college have affected their subsequent educational experience, if at all. The emphasis on faculty leadership for global education at MCCS was an interesting and somewhat surprising finding of this study. Contingent faculty are the fastest growing category of faculty among all higher education sectors (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011), and the National Center for Education Statistics (Planty, et al.,2008) reports that the majority of faculty members at community colleges hold part-time appointments. It is often the case that certain types of activities such as study abroad or efforts to internationalize the curriculum are initiated by faculty members, but leadership of a comprehensive, strategic, institution-wide global education initiative is typically top-down in nature, and led by the administration (Croom, 2010). Future studies could explore the phenomenon of faculty leadership, perhaps linking it to factors in the institutional environment such as the presence of a faculty union. It would be interesting to find out if other community colleges are utilizing a faculty leadership model, and if so, what other similarities might exist between those institutions and MCCS in their global education rationales and strategies? Participants at both sites noted that sustainability of initiatives, such as global 157 education programs, was a potential concern. Too often these types of programs die once their institutional champion leaves the institution, especially in the case of a strong administrative champion such a president. Participants at MCCS implied that a more collaborative, faculty- driven leadership model has the potential to create greater stability and sustainability for global education programs. Future studies might explore the link between leadership structures and program sustainability. Since this study was limited to community colleges with global certificate programs at part of the site selection criteria, it could be beneficial to conduct a similar study with colleges that do not have global certificate programs, perhaps targeting sites that are prioritizing other aspects of international education, such as student mobility programs. Comparing the rationales for global education at these types of institutions could lead to increased understanding of the ways that rationales affect programming choices or vice-versa. A large-scale study of rationales for internationalization at community colleges could potentially explore additional aspects of context, such as including those in suburban settings in addition to urban and rural, union versus non-union institutional environments, and more. We also need more understanding of community colleges who are not engaged in designing for global learning and what barriers they face. There is a need to know more about the role of certificate programs in community colleges. The overall number of certificates awarded in community colleges has increased steadily over the last decade, yet we still know little about the impact of these certificates on students (Xu & Trimble, 2016). Long-term and vocational certificates have been shown to moderately increase employability and pay for completers, but short-term and general education certificates have not shown the same returns (Xu & Trimble, 2016). However, completion rates 158 are higher for certificate programs than for associate degree programs (Berkner & Choy, 2008), perhaps providing an incentive for institutions to offer higher numbers of certificate programs. While economic benefits of certificate programs for students are still unclear, Xu and Trimble (2016) emphasized the importance of measuring benefits in multiple ways, rather than purely based on earnings. Rodriguez (2016) described a variety of ways both students and institutions benefitted from a global certificate program. Findings from my study echo the idea that global certificate programs may offer a variety of benefits for students and institutions. Future studies might further explore the impact of global certificate programs on both students and institutions. As a sector that often serves a disproportionate number of students of color and ESOL students, institutional climate for diversity in the community college should be viewed as a much more important topic for future research. Participants in this study believed that global education programs have the ability to increase tolerance among students and staff, mitigate incidences of xenophobia, and improve the climate for diversity on campus. Future studies should explore the relationship between global education programs and institutional climate for diversity on community college campuses. Conclusion We all live in the same world and the forces that are at work nationally and internationally affect our students as much as they affect somebody with a master’s or a PhD, in fact, maybe even more so because these are the people who a lot of time are less prepared to navigate in a changing world. I feel that's one of the reasons we have global education—to prepare our students to navigate in an ever-changing world that's going to be increasingly global. Faculty member, MCCS In this study, I set out to understand the rationales and strategies driving community colleges to design for global learning. I performed an in-depth case study of two community colleges with active, campus-based global education programs in order to understand why and how they were engaged in designing for global learning. The findings from this study reflect the 159 beliefs of participants that global education at community colleges is beneficial not only to students, but to the institution and the surrounding community. While differences in local context were important in understanding how global education plays out in different settings, they ultimately did not affect whether or not the individuals on the ground performing the work of designing, implementing, and administering global education programs believed it was important work to be doing. By taking time to identify and understand institution-specific rationales, identify and connect with community and campus resources, and incorporate relevant programmatic strategies, any community college can develop a thoughtful, relevant, and vibrant global education program. Based on findings from my study, a good place to start is with identifying rationales based on how such a program might benefit students, the institution, and the local community. By identifying macro and micro rationales for global education, it is possible for institutional leaders to develop global learning programs that reflect and are responsive to the needs of the local community and the institutional environment. Macro and micro rationales can be used to advocate for developing, growing and sustaining global education programs. Community partners can and should be involved in global education programming on community college campuses, and the idea that global is not the opposite of local must continue to be emphasized. Hopefully, future research can continue to uncover and explain the relationship between global and local and the profound importance of global education in the community college context. 160 APPENDICES 161 Table 4 Participant List Pseudonym Paul Carrie Jeffrey Camille Richard George Mariana Melissa Rachel Carolyn Lara Jennifer Anna Faith Stephanie Bonnie Calvin Lynn Asim Sofia Steven Martha Nicole Denise Institution CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS MCCS APPENDIX A Participant List Title/Role Director of Global Education Assistant/Coordinator of Global Education Faculty Member, Fine Arts Faculty Member, Water Resources Faculty Member, Political Science Vice President for Academic Affairs Vice President for Extended Education Dean of Students Director of Academic Advising Director of Global Education Faculty Member, English Founding Faculty Member of CGE Faculty Member and Coordinator of Global Certificate Program Assistant Dean for Teaching and Learning Faculty Member, ESOL Faculty Member, ESOL Faculty Member, Sociology Faculty Member, Sociology Senior Academic Advisor Associate Director of Multicultural Affairs Senior Instructional Librarian Associate Director of International Student Services Faculty Member, ESOL Retired Founding Faculty Member of CGE 162 APPENDIX B Interview Protocol Participant background and role 1. I would like to get started by getting to know you better. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself and your professional role at INSTITUTION NAME? a. Probes: i. How/why did you get involved in that? ii. How long have you worked at INSTITUTION? iii. What type of work were you doing before that? iv. What professional organizations are you involved with? Global Learning Rationales 1. Do you feel comfortable using the term global learning? Is there another term that is more commonly used at this institution? 2. Why do you think that INSTUTION NAME is designing for global learning? 3. Why do you think the GLOBAL PROGRAM specifically was created? a. Probes: justify it? i. How does/did the college or the people involved in getting the program off the ground ii. What rationales were or are used to talk about the program publicly? 4. Do you think global learning is important for community college students? Why or why not? Global Learning Strategies and Processes (How) 1. Before we talk about your specific program, I’d like to know as much as possible about what INSTITUTION NAME is doing to engage students in global learning. Can you briefly list all of the initiatives you know of? a. Probes: i. Are there any other global learning initiatives at INSTITUTION NAME that you know 2. Now I’d like to get a more in depth understanding of 1 or 2 specific global learning initiatives and how/why they came to be. Can you tell me about how the GLOBAL PROGRAM got started? a. Probes: i. Was/Is there any resistance/opposition to the program? Can you tell me about that? ii. Was the process fairly smooth then, or was it more complicated than that? of? 163 3. Can you describe the basic structure and goals of the program and talk about how/why it came to be designed in this way? Context 1. In what ways, do you think the environment at INSTITUTION NAME influenced the GLOBAL PROGRAM, if at all? a. Probes: i. Was there anything going on at INSTITUTION NAME during the time the GLOBAL PROGRAM was created that might have influenced it or affected the design or process? ii. Are there any specific aspects of INSTITUTION NAME that made it seem important to develop global learning initiatives here? iii. Do you think the student population or the local population influenced the GLOBAL PROGRAM? 2. In what ways do you think characteristics or aspects of the local community surrounding INSTITUTION NAME influenced the creation of the GLOBAL PROGRAM, if at all? a. Probes: 3. In what ways do you think aspects of the state context influenced the creation of the i. economic aspects ii. academic/educational aspects iii. political aspects iv. sociocultural aspects GLOBAL PROGRAM, if at all? a. Probes: i. economic aspects ii. academic/educational iii. political aspects iv. sociocultural aspects Conclusion 1. Is there anything else you would like to add? 2. Is there anyone else I should interview for this study? 3. Can I follow-up with you via email for more information if needed? 164 165 REFERENCES American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2018). Fast facts. Retrieved from https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/ American Council on Education (2012). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/news- room/Documents/Mapping-Internationalizationon-US-Campuses-2012-full.pdf American Council on Education (2017). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/news- room/Documents/Mapping-Internationalization-2017.pdf Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2018). Global learning VALUE rubric. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/global-learning Altbach, P. G. (2016). Global perspectives on higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know; what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485-1509. doi:10.1177/0002764211409194 Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2 Bermingham, J., & Ryan, M. (2013). Transforming international education through institutional capacity building. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(161), 55-70. doi:10.1002/cc.20048 Bradshaw, G. W. (2013). Internationalization and faculty- led service learning. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(161), 39-53. doi:10.1002/cc.20047 Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., & Merrill, K. (2009). Assessing progress in global learning and development of students with education abroad experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 101-118. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ883693.pdf Berkner, L. K., Choy, S. P., & Institute of Education Sciences (U.S.). (2008). Descriptive summary of 2003-04 beginning postsecondary students: Three years later. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. 166 Bista, K. (2016). Faculty International Experience and Internationalization Efforts at Community Colleges in the United States. In R.L. Raby & E.J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges: Themes, practices, and case studies. New York City, NY: Springer. Brewer, E., & Leask, B. (2012). Internationalization of the curriculum. In D. Deardorff, H. Wit, J. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education. (pp. 245-267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cantwell, B., & Maldonado-Maldonado, A. (2009). Four stories: Confronting contemporary ideas about globalisation and internationalisation in higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(3), 289-306. doi:10.1080/14767720903166103 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Croom, P. W. (2012). Internationalization and institutional strategy. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3, 99-119. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241–266. doi:10.1177/1028315306287002 Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deem, R. (2001). Globalization, new managerialism, academic capitalism, and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37(1), 7-20. doi:10.1080/03050060020020408 De Wit, H. (1998). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. International Higher Education (International Issues), 2-3. Retrieved from: https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/viewFile/6477/5700 De Wit, H. (1999). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. International Higher Education, 15(1), 2-3. doi:10.6017/ihe.1999.15.6477 De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Douglas, J. A. (2005). How all globalization is local: Countervailing forces and their influence on higher education. Higher Education Policy, 18(4), 445-473. Retrieved from https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt3z26h30n/qt3z26h30n.pdf 167 Encyclopedia.com. (2018). Global Education. Retrieved from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses- pictures-and-press-releases/global-education Engberg, M. E. (2013). The influence of study away experiences on global perspective-taking. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 466-480. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0073 Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Fried, J. (2006). Rethinking learning. In R. Keeling (Ed.) Learning Reconsidered 2: Implementing a Campus-wide Focus on the Student Experience, (pp. 3-9). Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Beacon. Green, M. F. (2007). Internationalizing community colleges: Barriers and strategies. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(138), 15-24. doi:10.1002/cc.277 Green, M. F. (2012a). Global citizenship: What are we talking about and why does it matter? Trends & Insights, NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Retrieved from: https://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/ti_global_citizen.pdf Green, M. F. (2012b). Improving and assessing global learning. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/resourcelibrary/Default. aspx Green, M. F. (2016). Preface. In R. Latiner Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges (pp. 189-201). New York City, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 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. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4 Harder, N. J. (2010). Internationalization efforts in United States community colleges: A comparative analysis of urban, suburban, and rural institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35, 152-164. doi:10.1080/10668926.2011.525186 Hovland, K. (2009). Global learning: What is it? Who is responsible for it? Peer Review, 11(4), 4. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2009/fall/hovland Hovland, K. (2014). Global learning: Defining, designing, demonstrating. NAFSA: Association of International Educators and Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from www.nafsa.org/GlobalLearning 168 Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization. NAFSA, The Association of International Educators. Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/_ /File/_/downloads/cizn_concept_action.pdf Hurtado, S., & Ruiz, A. (2012). The climate for underrepresented groups and diversity on campus. Higher Education Research Institute at UCI. Retrieved from: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/83067/UnderrepresentedDiversityC ampus.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Institute of International Education (IIE). (2012). Open Doors Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2013). Graduate attributes and the internationalized curriculum: Embedding a global outlook in disciplinary learning outcomes. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17, 165-182. doi:10.1177/1028315312473655 Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. London, England: Routledge. Kegan, R. (1995). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kezar, A. (2013). Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up. Higher Education, 65, 761-780. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9575-7 Killick, D. (2015). Developing the global student: Higher education in an era of globalization. London, England: Routledge. King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 571-592. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0060 Knight, J. (1995). Internationalization at Canadian universities: The changing landscape. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED409791 Knight, J. (1997). A shared vision? Stakeholders' perspectives on the internationalization of higher education in Canada. Journal of Studies in International Education, 1(1), 27-44. doi: 10.1177%2F102831539700100105 Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of Higher Education. In Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE). doi: 10.1787/9789264173361-en Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832 169 Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 27-42). London, England: Sage. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE). doi: 10.1787/9789264173361-en Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281-309. doi:10.1023/A:1014699605875 Marginson, S., & Van Der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education. OECD Education Working Papers. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/173831738240 Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Morais, D. B., & Ogden, A. C. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 445-466. doi:10.1177/1028315310375308 Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmö. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 27-40. doi:10.1177/1028315302250178 Noddings, N. (Ed.). (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness. New York City, NY: Teachers College Press. Nolan, R., & Hunter, F. (2012). Institutional strategies and international programs: Learning from experiences of change. In D. Deardorff, H. Wit, J. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 131-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Olson, C., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 116-137. doi:10.1177/102831530152003 Opp, R. D., & Gosetti, P. P. (2014). The role of key administrators in internationalizing the community college student experience. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2014(165), 67-75. doi:10.1002/cc.20092 Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R… and Kemp, J. (2008). The condition of education 2008. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008031.pdf 170 Raby, R. L. (2007). Internationalizing the curriculum: On-and off-campus strategies. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(138), 57-66. doi:10.1002/cc.282 Raby, R. L., & Valeau, E. J. (2007). Community college international education: Looking back to forecast the future. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(138), 5-14. doi:10.1002/cc.276 Raby, R. L., & Valeau, E. J. (Eds.). (2016). International education at community colleges: Themes, practices, and case studies. New York City, NY: Springer. Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2010). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Robertson, J.J. (2014). Student interest in international education at the community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39, 473-484. doi:10.1080/10668926.2013.879377 Rodriguez, P. (2016). Global certificates: Bringing intentionality and ownership to comprehensive internationalization. In R. Latiner Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges: Themes, Practices, and Case Studies (pp. 223-236). New York City, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). Why do all the study abroad students look alike? Applying an integrated student choice model to explore differences in the factors that influence White and minority students’ intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 123-150. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9191-2 Schattle, H. (2009). Global citizenship in theory and practice. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 3-20). New York City, NY: Routledge. Schuerholz-Lehr, S. (2007). Teaching for global literacy in higher education: How prepared are the educators? Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 180–204. doi:10.1177/1028315307299419 Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J., & Paleari, S. (2016). Why do higher education institutions internationalize? An investigation of the multilevel determinants of internationalization rationales. Higher Education, 72, 685-702. doi:10.1007/s10734-015- 9971-x Sipe, D. M. (2016). Internationalization and the influence of environmental factors. In R. Latiner Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges: Themes, Practices, and Case Studies (pp. 189-201). New York City, NY: Palgrave Macmillan Soria, K. M., & Troisi, J. (2013). Internationalization at home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(3), 261- 280. doi: 10.1177/1028315313496572. 171 Stake, R. E. (1981). Case study methodology: An epistemological advocacy. Case study methodology in educational evaluation. Proceedings of the Minnesota Evaluation Conference. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED249285 Stearns, P. N. (2009). Educating global citizens in colleges and universities: Challenges and opportunities. New York City, NY: Routledge Treat, T. (2016). Mentoring in an international development program. In R. Latiner Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges (pp. 39-56). New York City, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Treat, T., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2013). Resituating the community college in a global context. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(161), 5-9. Twombly, S. B., Salisbury, M. H., Tumanut, S. D., & Klute, P. (2012). Study abroad in a new global century: Renewing the promise, refining the purpose, ASHE higher education report. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Willis, I., & Taylor, J. (2014). The importance of rationales for internationalization at a local level–university and individual. European Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 153-166. Woodin, S. (2016). Calls for accountability: Measuring internationalization at community colleges. In R. Latiner Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), International education at community colleges (pp. 143-162). New York City, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Yemini, M., Holzmann, V., de Wit, H., Sadeh, E., Stavans, A., & Fadila, D. (2015). The drive to internationalize: Perceptions and motivations of Israeli college directors. Higher Education Policy, 28, 259-276. doi:10.1057/hep.2014.9 Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Xu, D., & Trimble, M. (2016). What about certificates? Evidence on the labor market returns to nondegree community college awards in two states. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 272-292. doi:10.3102/0162373715617827 172