u- . .. V... ...i 3.3... 18-. . s. i! x. 91:.)«17: w! .. .V... 3.43.1.1 V . {$0913. :«34...V.4......§... V 4243?..Vihuqltaile... ; . Eulhtuauwvwi!. 4L. . f, u . . .“V..finm}.3..«r.. . :12. 4.3.1.4.... i . . , 3113.494: 4......bfit. ...u...V..Vci... . .. h. . . V . V- . V 5.)?) . V. . 12...... 3.5.1.: .4... 2i . . . . .. iflszfinfibaflbfifi.1154.55.44.35... . I). t I. s. . , V .. v . ‘\s(7.\\?.|l Ia)\\t\|7. ., 41.26.... :11". in... 4.5.133? , . . . . . at... t.‘ . . . . “5...... .....V..\4¢ . . .42:V..._V;...7 4.4V. . V, .. V..- 5:41:44 Vi- {4.244. 2.3.4544: V! ..... 47:24:. 2 . .r . . 1.. I a I. ,3." at". .1 ii A I i‘ V in... E‘V lmi 91"}? _ is. I U!..|.L~.Yhhi~5l§h V11 a 1.2311! 1 n s. taunt 7.5.10.2}... a VI...‘ I31...) 41% Mix; ‘52:: _ . . 9:3.\§\\A\. 309.4! 4.7! , 5% \ 38%“. V . .Ilqslvlp . s '9. «i “‘1 Pfiztll. 13.32. ,. .uflti.z n3€L>§£IK~V itd..l<\¢~.li£l5 1‘1 '5 4 13.1 xii-711:! ( 35555. $5.53 sLs 2.. ‘13:]..‘117. V I... V. A . ‘2‘)Av SIC-1“?! \ii’ii.5§‘huflki‘n.l‘ul \zzilvq1 u is. \ . \§ 65‘! .51. «ultioh‘l D$|Towi 41.5 31!.Al\ ll fr ‘i.’ . Iii ‘E’hflll‘l‘fivnl§\1§§ 5": 3 .- .‘ivg v a g! ........ 33 L‘Vll"\ (‘ in} ,\.\~\9.t.«‘u n\ 4:31 V .l\.\hi\w ~. u \f o vV.Vv .\V . 4.1 .. a ‘- . . 3 an... El. V». 63:. at. :1 :1 _‘ Y‘i . r r S 19.1.1434... . V . v.17 35!!!! In wiltiyiavah. . it ‘11:. . n. 1....,Esfixhhi..4drfiiwlfia1fififiwa§k§5..zfiafi, 2...... .2531. .v... a . . .12..{495.511ifihbgialhrdfi.. :4 V hon , u .34. 4 n. .3... a It... .. . 42.44. V V V a. . . V .. ivfi_t:fia$xilfim§u¥l~li 1932.1“?! k..." 0 V \ O Lt 1|. 125...} . ‘ 1:34 A . .1 VIer. 1. V. g. . . . . . . £5,131... a at . Epic-\L 1‘ V F... I . 1) i .V! I, 5 .21. ~&.. 4.... 8!. \hllt‘Azfi“ .. i . . Vinita {It}!!! . Iris-“N1 3Y1)? : , ~ .! l . wi . ‘ a, x V) a 7.. Ix} a liar... . I‘m“! Vi.A\C:.(A_§O‘$‘~£\lV . V . 3 . . . {£1.11}, 11 I. a? .’ kw. If um. .L {I . C .84, iiiét‘i at!!! it: iV‘IVVsE. V . 1 .\ . higl‘is 1 932.. . I. . . f ‘1... . V , . :«v!‘\.....$\ it} £1.23); .h.|£.1?a\u¢~ Lnkz.\|l‘\1!sfflv(lc,‘\)\ V . . It‘s-.3: It a 330’! . . r 35!...)‘lh i2i§ui46i~r‘¢hlll. V . ‘Ei‘i‘?|'t!l\|\(tyt‘<$ .( E . 2333‘!1gt.«ré r 253.53 Va... ‘31: tIulyzt. {\DIA%h§JV‘4OVD~Sv?-11. I‘zgzvh . D..l::1ixul!1ldnului a! .V 1 I? 1». I .ifii} 5‘97 \ .r.“a\).ll\ . hhfizkflls 13‘)!“ . _ V. . . t It I . with! . ail I [ {V4 c I! P _ in gun-”I... . 3‘15... > A - 2". . a 53:1 E§\-K\V§ II 3.3...“ . . ‘3 : l'yr . Q1 .- .V4u§1flLg.ulfirflfivuwnai .3: . . grin! E2137"! . tV . V ., . v .5 5.9.3.1. . q u. «95: 90-115."? an , . V V V. I.) V v. HIIXngrfiw 3 , .,.V . . “.112? 1 3‘5““; it}, i haul. 1.... ’iVlnmfiiil , . .iiliifixkl.ilxtfil1\§ é) . . . . , V 1‘ .5. r V , . .1?! Illvl..l!\l.1.‘11nl2 I! ‘3. 1 . .. 5 g 4 Y I , . V V 3A. 11.3...txuaauu‘aes‘ill.’ .- II, . _ H . .. .. . .d V .5...) Ina-filli). if: ...9.-lvv :0" _ V \. . . 53 lacs! . V i I). “clawhhnafln. 1 .321: A, . a. . .. V V. VV-i . q 1.: I .n . , 4 . E. . s. . V ., . .§n¥,q,ushuw..v 17.}.T5JMWWH. .u 4 1.. . VJ: , , , ..H¢numw1m_w\mm§nfi%afi . .. 4x4211.§%¥ $r\v.1\x.ll...\.4Ti.v..VV hurt. \ H%1xixx71 ‘Rav\&\ihs.wx\ifl1fi1 x¥1“1.\4\—1‘V w‘t . I Vflmnfitfiufi L44. . 2. .. lay... . . 3 . .11. 2 9%... .4. . VVV. ; . hi»: _, . , .V .Vllflrnsl. 4. . V n . 3:411:11. V .. . . .3 4 vie.zluhmfuulo£unrfill. V V... 14.13.? .. Visas 8%,} V . V . 01A .- .1119)? putt-599851.? a 1 V. in . :.. 1 .. 1’01 $8.1 V n . Vt.) i. \iluhfllv‘lffiusLivlll v.7 . .V . V l . , . V . .. .V .. ; 16.1 51 . . V . ~ . 1a «(cfuiaxiitfgti li‘nflnl‘l . ..nw..4a.}V.Vfl.siV.a-I.N. finanflulvl. V. . .. 84 V. 2.4.1.4.}.11, .i. 3). V. . .. - .anVIw "n“ 1. 31,111 r .1 154.6913... V l :51.“- .o . Piaezfiuvafiildfiiwgv.f . .3h3Vi3fivN. .ihrxvlnwunnun (3.1.. «at: .. . 1345.3 n tgtifitl .- ”Lain . 171 t “Min! 0. 11L!) 3," ih‘ . .11... . 8%? V. fin V4 4. .z: . Ill, ”\- 1 , u . .ikiuhfluuuvikvi .. .VV . I. ifiwnihh, 1\.1 It“. i... I .. 44;! Egan.“ 71...}... 1 ... .h‘.“1 V by. V 1!. ). A. it 0.- vlflukikazuuv .. V 1 to“ if. ullkuhlhtslkb 5‘2. lug-3.234 I 5 ill»... .. Ibis iii}. .14 3559.)}... 1 \ (‘i‘ufiig\\~‘v~ink.lfflfi.~EhA é Influx“ .r2.{iuéit‘lflrivszid.i .14.. .i IsutII-t» A PIE. 1‘ 14,73 ~92 21“ n 4. .V. V .1! ,3 1.5.4937..- ‘u?. 7. .13 L7 \ . i V ( ldaV-ut.~l.i9.4 .ihfihg‘fl‘ 23.51.! 1!"!ou It“; ’41“ Iv, .1317 £51115 hut-It II. 81:11.33..." 4 Ir. i§t$lwl‘(§\\. LISA-31.; If?!“ {.‘Sg‘vl’va- i: v." 11:51.5.‘85. 4 a . . ; 4 . y \ p . ~ . .. . . (.I it»! 2.12.... 1‘! a. .x’7 gnu"? 3141.2 . I . i:\ V .V 4:»; 531(53155 < 4.4. 4 7.4715! ... . I .1. V . . 98.1.54“... .1... . i‘ilsaLafifi. v awn-2.41.. . .V 7:“; .4 u, Sagi£tfiuv . .salivlg‘kawt . u n . . 7).? iv .. .V . 1 is at 1. . .. . a... Ruiz: V. . . sailevflhéi 73 .3 21“) u x tsx‘afizlto-G ”(1.1.2. .qubwuwnm... h. .. . )th‘..vvzfaduiuv0u.\. .u‘ 4. 4 1‘ n ‘0‘: ‘AEVV‘u~\-..PV Elba-2.. 253.153.... I... . l3). 1.3.2.1 .. V .331... . -. i. 7 V 551.4: .xhu. . 2 hfia$1h£3erflnu83§u5¥4 . ... . V 11% {fill Lyn-.11; .5 n R- E: infizfi \- ‘1‘ . . I. at! .V . as... . V.. ifiuulnat z .2... . .Lw. ~ . . [I . . 3:4... 4 1.132464: . u .. L7. . .. V . 5| 1"}!!53‘ . . V O 8 : . a .41 . 1.: . ..:Oz..$x1i $21.11!! n3}! . :«rfiaiilhiflhyhg$732.3... wfla.i3....32va .V..fi§{‘lls§vi.és . 1.?!) 1V . é‘\7. 111.. 17.1.1150}. 1:0. tuvlsiiizl‘ .3 9.8.5.1415: . . 115-51.. :38“. . 4 . > \\ i. 3.35%!4..3\.‘11 :It .4. milk: V}. .2 .59.?th Uri-131...: 1.1 '1‘- I: .1... . 1.331... . , .1. .17 .1. 31$! 5%. $1 .. 3|. .:.§!Qd.w:~ .3 9.. )1. a .lvvtusLuiqb‘LA“. ILV} . .4 {arr-In iértfi 1 ‘ils-t‘ IISVI‘!§)|‘IQ:.§ silvzvli: 1.1.111! In énfl ‘v‘ Muss-3533.. iv}... 73-733.; iéfipfix.uixilnqza Enl‘Vsisn‘ ‘qhwflfinuuu... 1!... I...“.tkuflbiv3.23..,4..Zi!.2i...vy!.V 1:443“). .V. .. 7.5.1:. . 1:13... 22...... 4.. 1.». 5‘ .K 3.4.51... pi.l|.....§l....w.u......... 4...; .5. V . .4 kw... mum. 4.5.51“ i... {ind—l. 51.x“... Emil: .; 14d}... 3.1.5:?! “2. l. .5. . 1‘“. , 4. ‘\h.r1fra..v| N ‘9 $389!. 31.1.1. giant” 2.31. J. 1.119. I .5 ‘10? . £331. t Mlufil . a ‘1! 2.5.1 .111- '\ i ,, n... and“; Magi}... ... 3§3fi45§8lwk5 azflahiuu... Mtg}: I. I... “$831442 . . . , . «U . 4 ..§!4.§332....§i:.§3§&V . shavedbhsifihfiémfianfifirgaflhihwi xi :xzuaxflkttéuzfimiziifivetfili 4.4.4... ufil .4814! b.“ V . . . .. n. . 4 V ..V.. ‘10... V1.1. a}, sV...‘ V 2.: Jr: ”4.301.543. V... ad“. :yhflfilfiatfijfifi ;!$l£~.tnhnz§ 3%.. an... .il.h.dq.ir.flu.ud. :4..- in... F! .V . V .. . . VVJ. 0., :....,...., ....L «.2 .. 3.le Ivszq.:vl.t 50488114....(414133 . ... . V . . V Amufiiagfiumwgii hVaiit- 414:1...“ 'V VIII. V. , . .‘ v‘z... I.‘a..5$uiu . i3“: 1;.39s 4 ., F»... V. . 4. 1| 11979.3; . J. .929 7 x. . ,.!r .V... 4.... 1.. ..... E. .V ., V . , ~ i‘c . “nan . . .. . V . . . 4.1 1. n..V i. .V. ‘5‘)? .7, 1...! {taVYi-(Il .V. V V AV.V 4 ..x.V .V. 1%” \ 7 \- .. 7.. V4: . .l: ... 4. i. V » LIBRARY ; “#111301: State University fHESiS This is to certify that the dissertation fiwfismfifikd AN ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE OF K-12 TEACHERS IN AN AMERICAN-SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOL presented by Donald Louis Wieber has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in ur 1011 n& Major professor 0-7639 llI’ll/IlyllwlllflwmllIlljlflllfllml RETURNING MATERIALS: )V1€SI_] Place in book drop to LIBRARJES remove this checkout from £32... y FFFFFFFF d. FINES will b harged if book ' t rned after the d t t ped below. "2- -. , . . ,,_.l 14?”? 3 0 A 29 AN ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE 0F K-12 TEACHERS IN AN AMERICAN-SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOL By Donald L. Nieber A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum T982 4‘;77 iv 7‘94 m, ABSTRACT AN ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE 0F K-lZ TEACHERS IN AN AMERICAN—SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOL By Donald L. Nieber The purpose of this study was to measure the global knowledge of K-lZ teachers in an American-sponsored overseas school and to examine this knowledge relative to selected characteristics and back- ground of the teachers. The global knowledge was measured by an instrument developed by Educational Testing Services, Princeton, New Jersey. It covered thirteen global issues and stressed the themes of interdependence among nations, the problems of developing nations, and such historical changes as necessary to understand the modern world. The test is not an in-depth assessment of global knowledge about each issue but rather a survey whose strength lies more in its breadth than in its depth. Within the limitations of setting, population, and methodology, the major results of the study were: 1. Teachers assigned to teach mathematics or science scored higher on the knowledge test of global issues than teachers of elemen- tary, foreign languages, or humanities including social sciences. 2. Education majors scored lowest when compared to teachers with majors in mathematics, science, social studies or foreign language. Donald L. Wieber 3. There was no significant statistical relationship between the composite score on the global-knowledge test and the number of languages teachers know. Likewise, the scores of foreign language teachers were not significantly different from scores of teachers assigned to teach humanities, nor were foreign language majors‘ scores different from social science majors}. 4. A significant correlation, though slight, existed between both the number of countries a teacher visited or lived in and the length of time spent in such places, and their performance on the test of global knowledge. 5. With the variables of age, years teaching, years teaching overseas, highest degree earned, and the perceived training to teach about other cultures or countries, no statistically significant rela- tionship existed with the composite scores on the global knowledge test. 6. When rank ordering the thirteen issues, teachers scored well on tepics of geography, culture, health. With topics of religion, energy, and relations among nations, the respondents scored lowest. An examination of current teacher-preparation practices as well as the need for inservice programs in global education for teach— ers appears in order if students are going to be instructed to a level of knowledge considered necessary for an adequate understanding of global situations today. To Mary Jane, my wife, and Mary Lynn and John, my children. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This writer is indebted to a number of persons who gave of themselves during the time devoted to his doctoral program. A sense of gratitude is extended to a supportive guidance committee: Dr. Lois Bader, chairwoman of my guidance committee, whose guidance, continuous encouragement, and positive suggestions con- tributed to the successful conclusion of my doctoral program. With- out her assistance I would never have either entered or completed the program. In addition, she exemplifies so much in her person the goals of global education. Dr. Louis Romano, whose advice, encouragement, and support were needed during my doctoral work. Dr. Eugene Pernell, Jr., whose thoughts and support assisted me in completing my program and especially in making me more aware of the cultural and racial ramifications of global education. Dr. Benjamin Bohnhorst, who willingly served on my committee at the last minute due to the departure from the university of Dr. Lopis. I express my appreciation to him also for his probing questions relative to global education and encouragement for the future. Dr. James Page for his needed guidance and support in the program. iii III. Although he was not on my committee, I wish to express grati- tude and a sense of admiration of Dr. John Chapman, Social Studies Specialist at the Michigan Department of Education, whose support and assistance have proven invaluable during this project. To my wife, without whose support and practical assistance with typing and proofreading this dissertation might not have reached completion. I continue to count the ways of love. Finally, I am indebted to the students and parents of the many different cultures and nations I have had the privilege of know- ing and working with in my years overseas. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... viii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ....................... l Introduction ..................... l The Problem ...................... 3 Background and Rationale for This Study ........ 8 Purpose of the Study ................. lO Hypotheses ...................... l2 Hypotheses Relative to the Composite Test Scores . . l2 Hypotheses Relative to the Test Scores on the l3 Global Issues ................. l4 Delimitations ..................... 15 Population ..................... l5 Definition of Terms .................. 16 Summary and Overview ................. 23 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ 25 The Meaning of Global Education: A Definition and Its Component Parts ................... 25 Distinguishing Elements or Component Parts of Global Education ................. 34 The Global Perspective ............... 38 The World—as—a—System Concept ............ 46 Curriculum Issues ................... 48 Organization of Curriculum ............. 58 Materials Selection and Development ......... 65 Difficulties and Obstacles ............. 67 Readiness for Global Education ........... 75 Staff Development and Educational Change Required for Global Education in Schools ........... 79 Needs Assessment .................. 87 Personal Development Versus Remediation ....... 90 Peer Support .................... 9l Implications of Research for Inservice ....... 97 Unit for Change ................... lOl Summary ........................ lO3 III. METHODOLOGY ....................... Introduction ..................... American-Sponsored Overseas Schools .......... Description of Subjects ................ Instruments Used for Data Gathering and Measurement . . Collection of Data .................. Data Analysis ..................... IV. DATA ANALYSIS ...................... Hypotheses and Statistical Tests ........... Teaching Assignments and Composite Score ...... Results ....................... Teaching Assignments and Scores on 13 Issues . Results ....................... Citizenship and Composite Score ........... Citizenship and Scores on 13 Issues ......... Languages and Composite Score ............ Other Languages and Scores on 13 Issues ....... Educational Background and Composite Score ..... Results ....................... Educational Background and Scores on 13 Issues . Results ....................... U.S. Degree and/or Teaching Certificate and Composite Score .................. U.S. Degree and/or Teaching Certificate and Scores on 13 Issues ................... Number of Areas and Composite Score ......... Number of Areas and Scores on 13 Issues ....... Amount of Time in Foreign Countries and Composite Score ....................... Amount of Time and Scores on 13 Issues ....... Years Teaching and Composite Score ......... Years Teaching and Scores on 13 Issues ....... Years Teaching Overseas and Composite Score ..... Years Teaching Overseas and Scores on 13 Issues . . . Number of Languages and Composite Score ....... Number of Languages and Scores on 13 Issues ..... Age and Composite Score ............... Age and Scores on 13 Issues ............. Highest Degree Earned and Composite Score ...... Highest Degree Earned and Scores on 13 Issues . . . . Perceived Training to Teach Cultures and Composite Score .................. Perceived Training to Teach Cultures and Scores on 13 Issues ..................... Results by Rank Order of Global Issues ....... Summary ........................ vi Page 104 104 104 110 111 116 117 118 119 119 120 122 122 129 129 132 132 133 134 136 140 151 Page V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 156 Introduction ..................... 156 Major Results ..................... 156 Discussion and Implications of the Findings ...... 158 Recommendations for Future Study ........... 169 Summary ........................ 172 APPENDICES ........................... 175 A. STATISTICS CONCERNING AMERICAN-SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOLS, 1980—1981 .................. 176 B. FACT SHEET: AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, VIENNA, AUSTRIA, 1980-81 ................... 178 C. FACT SHEET: "AMERICAN-SPONSORED" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS OVERSEAS: 1980-81 .......... 181 D. CRITERIA GOVERNING ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOLS ........ 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 189 vii Table LIST OF TABLES Means for Each Group for Global-Understanding Test Composite Scores of Teachers as Per Teaching Assign- ment--Mathematics/Science, Elementary K-5, Foreign Language, Humanities, and Other ............. Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Composite Test Scores on the Global-Understanding Test for Teachers According to Classroom Assignments ........... Multivariate Test of Significance for Differences on Scores for 13 Areas of Global Knowledge Between Teachers of Math/Science Versus Teachers of Foreign Language and Teachers of Humanities/Social Sciences . . . Means for the Groups in Test Scores on the Individual 13 Global Issues for the Teachers as Per Teaching Assign- ment--Mathematics/Science, Elementary K-5, Foreign Language, Humanities, Other ............... Multivariate Test of Significance for Differences on Scores for 13 Areas of Global Knowledge Between Teachers of Elementary Grades Versus the Foreign Language Teacher Group and the Humanities Group ............. Multivariate Test of Significance for Differences on Scores for 13 Areas of Global Knowledge Between Foreign Language Teachers Versus Teachers of Humanities/ Social Science ..................... Multivariate Test of Significance for Differences on Scores for 13 Areas of Global Knowledge Between Teachers Classified "Other" Versus the Math/Science, Humanities, Foreign Language, and Elementary Teacher Groups ..... Means in Global-Understanding Composite Test Scores of Teachers With U.S./Canadian Citizenship and Those of Other Citizenship .................... Means for Differences in Test Scores on the Individual 13 Global Issues for the Teachers as Per Citizenship, Languages, Educational Major, U.S. Degree or Not viii Page 121 122 123 125 126 127 128 129 130 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Multivariate Test of Significance for Differences in Scores for 13 Areas of Global Knowledge Between Teachers Who Have U.S. or Canadian Citizenship and Those Teachers of Other Citizenship ........... Means for Global-Understanding Composite Test Scores of Teachers With a Foreign Language and Those Without a Foreign Language ..................... Means for the Groups for Global-Understanding Composite Test Scores of Teachers According to Undergraduate and Graduate Majors ..................... Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Composite Test Scores on the Global-Understanding Test for Teachers According to Undergraduate and Graduate Majors ...... Multivariate Test of Significance for Differences on Scores for 13 Areas of Global Knowledge Between Teachers With Education Majors Versus All Other Majors ...... Multivariate Test of Significance for Differences on Scores for 13 Areas of Global Knowledge Between Teachers With Math or Science, Math or Science/Education Majors Versus Social Science, Social Science/Education, or Foreign Language Majors ................. Means for Differences in the Global-Knowledge Composite Test Scores of Teachers With a U.S. Degree and Those Without ......................... Multivariate Test of Significance for Differences on Scores for 13 Global Issues Between Teachers With U.S. Degrees Versus Those Without ............... Pearson's Correlation-Coefficients Summary Table for the Composite Test Scores on the Global-Understanding Test and Number of Areas, Years Teaching, Years Teaching Overseas, Number of Languages, and Age .......... Pearson Correlation-Coefficient Summary Table for the Scores on the 13 Global Issues and the Variables ..... Spearman's Correlation-Coefficients Summary Table for the Composite Test Scores on the Global-Understanding Test and Highest Degree Earned and the Variable of Perceived Training ......................... ix Page 131 132 135 136 137 142 143 144 149 -.-.- -...——-—-— Page 21. Spearman Correlation-Coefficients Summary Table for the Scores on the 13 Global Issues and the Variables of Highest Degree Earned and University Major ........ 150 22. Rank Order of 13 Global Issues ............... 152 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Global interrelatedness is a reality of today's world. The factors contributing to this complex interrelationship of nations and peoples of the world are many. Modern communications and transporta- tion have revolutionized our lives, making far-away, exotic lands neighbors and troubled nations a worry or a threat. Further, space exploration, food shortages, international terrorism, and the knowl- edge that man possesses the capacity to annihilate man and render the world uninhabitable provide clear, daily evidence of a growing agenda of common problems. Competition for natural resources is keen. A11 realize that they are finite, although many disagree on the extent of certain resources. Regardless, the world could run out of certain minerals by the turn of the century. Much is said about raising the poor out of misery, yet human misery goes on. The world is not feeding its people. Thousands are the children in the world who are not merely undernourished but lit- erally starving to death. Quite apart from the massive human cost involved (a cost almost beyond our ability to comprehend), misery breeds instability, despair breeds violence, and no belief in the decency of democratic institutions can possibly hope to survive against the basic imperative to survive. 1 The litany of global problems is long, and while the problems in many instances are not new, the one outstanding difference is that no nation can any longer so easily dominate others or predetermine the outcomes. One nation's fate is bound up with the fate of others. Like it or not, nations are today quite interconnected and inter- dependent. No longer does one nation's problem exist as the problem of that particular nation. More often than not, it is or soon will evolve into a problem for many. We are all inhabitants of a single planet and share a common fate as members of a single species. Granted, it is fashionable, and has been for a number of years, to suggest that the world is becoming increasingly complicated. But is not this an oversimplified view? The world is, indeed, compli- cated, but have we not cultivated a more complicated view of it? Power is limited and becoming more impractical today as greater par- ticipation in decision making gives more voices the power to be heard. As these voices are heard, many feel old sovereignties or loyalties. They may believe that the inculcation of "global" values, of a world view of things, will somehow weaken the national resolve of one's own nation. Lack of knowledge may on occasion make action or decision making easier, but it may also heighten the probability that that decision is the wrong one and prove self-defeating. The realities of interdependence or interrelatedness are with us all. Interdependence is not an ideal; it is a simple fact. One may fear it, but it must be understood if for no other reason than to set limits to it. At issue is really whether we shall manage inter- dependence effectively. F; The Problem As there are many global problems of increasing complexity, there are many possible solutions and paths to these solutions. Working on such solutions requires skills, sensitivity, innovation and understanding, and a perspective of the world that emphasizes the interconnections among cultures, species, and the planet. Also required is group decision making at various levels: local, national, and above all international. Yet the difficulty in seeking solutions 'together is that the answers that we "know" to be obvious, logical, arid "right" cannot often be implemented because of the history, tradi- titans, and customs of other people. The situation requires that people develop their capacities tc> benefit from diversity, to communicate with others who do not share tile same values, to recognize the need to identify with human beings e\Ierywhere, to manage conflict, and to tolerate ambiguity. Consen- Sle and diversity--these two qualities appear to be the foundation of SOlutions to global issues. Seemingly the two ideas are contradictory, yet upon analysis ‘they are also complimentary. Through consensus common goals are agreed to. Specific areas of concern are decided upon. Through diversity different activities and directions can be developed that bring one closer to the goals. Involved in this entire framework is the formation or educa- tion of persons to possess skills, sensitivity, innovation, and under- standing for global awareness. There is need for global-education curricula. There is need for a school situation that strives for a mature global perspective for its students. The many global issues force us all to confront our common needs and problems. As travelers together on "Spaceship Earth," we must plan for the future of our planet. The need for global education has never been greater. Reischauer (1973) argued: We need a profound reshaping of education if mankind is to sur- vive in the sort of world that is fast evolving. . . . Before long humanity will face grave difficulties that can only be solved on a global scale. Education is not moving rapidly enough to provide the knowledge about the outside world and the attitudes toward other people that may be essential for human survival within a generation or two. (p. 4) U Thant, former UN Secretary General, a teacher, when discussing 'theese global issues and problems always came back to his fundamental [Del ief that education held the keys to the future. Two statements, Orle: from a rare speech he made on his beliefs in Toronto in 1966 and tilee other from his farewell address to the United Nations staff in D€a<2ember 1971, provide educators with the all—encompassing goal of ‘3C1UCation that transcends material and intellectual achievements and 1 T kewise reaches into the moral and spiritual spheres. The law of love and compassion for all living creatures is again a doctrine to which we are all too ready to pay lipservice. However, if it is to become a reality, it requires a process of education, a veritable mental renaissance. Once it has become a reality, national as well as international problems will fall into perspective and become easier to solve. Wars and conflicts, too, will then become a thing of the past, because wars begin in the minds of men, and in those minds love and compassion would have built the defences of peace. I have certain priorities in regard to virtues and human values. An ideal man, or an ideal woman, is one who is endowed with four attributes, four qualities-—physical qualities, intel- lectual qualities, moral qualities, and spiritual qualities. Of course it is very rare to find a human being who is endowed with all these qualities but, as far as priorities are concerned, I would attach greater importance to intellectual qualities over physical qualities. I would attach still greater importance to moral qualities over intellectual. It is far from my intention to denigrate intellectualism, but I would attach greater impor- tance to moral qualities or moral virtues over intellectual qualities or virtues--moral qualities like love, compassion, understanding, tolerance, the philosophy of "live and let live," the ability to understand the other man's point of view, which are the key to all great religions, and above all I would attach the greatest importance to spiritual values, spiritual qualities. I deliberately avoid using the term "religion." I have in mind the spiritual virtues, faith in oneself, the purity of one's inner—self which to me is the greatest virtue of all. With this approach, with this philosophy, with this concept alone, will we be able to fashion the kind of society we want, the kind of society which was envisaged by the founding fathers of the United Nations 26 years ago. Consider, however, to what extent American education has arnposite test scores on the global—knowledge test and also relative 'tx) ‘the test scores on each of the 13 global issues. Hypotheses Relative to the CEDITIFDOSite Test Scores 1. There will be no significant difference between the 91 obal-knowledge composite test scores of teachers teaching different SUbject areas in an American-sponsored overseas school. 2. There will be no significant difference between the 91C>t>ai'l-knowledge composite test scores received by teachers who are “~55-» (or Canadian citizens and by teachers of other citizenship. 3. There will be no significant difference between the 9‘0bal-knowledge composite test scores received by teachers who speak, read, and/or write a foreign language and by those teachers who do not have another language. 4. There will be no significant difference in the global- knowledge composite test scores obtained by teachers having different college undergraduate and graduate majors. 5. There will be no significant difference in the global- knowledge composite test scores of teachers who have graduated and/or hold a teaching certificate from a U.S. university and those who have 13 not graduated and/or do not hold a teaching certificate from a U.S. university. 6. There will be no relationship between the number of c:c>untries traveled or lived in and the teachers' composite scores on the global—understanding test. 7. There will be no relationship between the amount of time teeaa<2hers have spent in foreign countries and the teachers' composite teas; t: scores on the global-understanding test. 8. There will be no relationship between the number of years a teacher has taught and the teacher's composite test score on the 91 obal-knowledge test. 9. There will be no relationship between the number of years a 1:€3£3<:her has taught in international schools and the teacher's composite test score. 10. There will be no relationship between the number of lan- 9\“1S§€ess a teacher speaks, reads, or writes and the teacher's composite test score. 11. There will be no relationship between the ages of teachers a“<1 the composite test scores on the global—knowledge test. 12. There will be no relationship between the highest degree Earned by teachers and the composite scores on the global-knowledge test. 13. There will be no relationship between the teachers' per- ceived degree of educational training for teaching about other nations and cultures and their scores on the global-knowledge test. Hypotheses Relative to the Test Scores on the 13 Global Issues ‘ 1. There will be no significant difference between the scores can the 13 global issues of teachers teaching different subject areas ir1 an American-sponsored overseas school. 2. There will be no significant difference between the scores ()1: teachers who have U.S. or Canadian citizenship and the scores of teachers holding other citizenship. 3. There will be no significant difference in the scores on t:r1vv1edge test. 12. There will be no relationship between the highest degrees eaY‘ned by teachers and their scores relative to the 13 global issues C”‘ the test. 13. There will be no relationship between teachers' perceived (1E39ree of educational training for teaching about nations and cultures ahd teachers' scores on the 13 topics of the global-knowledge test. Delimitations This study must be considered within the limits of the popula- tion and procedures used in the investigation. Population The population from which the data were drawn for the study comprised the teaching staff of the American International School, Vienna, Austria. The total teaching staff numbered 62 faculty 16 members. Of these, 44 were U.S. citizens, l4 host-country nationals, and 4 persons of other nationalities. Definition of Terms International school: Among schools that refer to themselves £15; international, one group numbering 154 receives financial assist— aarice from the United States federal government through its State l)eepartment. This group of schools is referred to as American-sponsored schools. This study was concerned with a school from this group, and 1:?163 terms "international" and "American-sponsored“ schools are used “interchangeably throughout this dissertation. Global knowledge: There are two fundamentally different approaches to structuring global-knowledge aspects of a study. The fri rest approach is based on the traditional curricular approach found i T1 international-relations and area-studies courses. The second is t>Eised on global issues that transcend particular nations or regions. HOwever, one realizes both approaches intersect one another. A khowledge of international relations certainly will consider and 'lnclude knowledge of issues and vice—versa. Issues will include a knowledge of the international setting in which they are to be dealt with. However, the two approaches remain distinct and have different implications for teaching and testing, if only in reference to which are of primary importance. The level of sophistication of the global knowledge to be tested in this study must be understood as one of breadth rather than depth on any issue. The actual number of questions is 65, allowing 17 for coverage on any issue to be very modest. The knowledge test is intended to measure what §h9u1g_be known at a criterion level or to uneasure what needs to be known if global situations and processes are -to be fully understood. Global issues: The questions contained in the survey instru- rneernzclustered around 13 worldwide issues: 1. Energyf-Our industrial society has always been under the i 1 lusion of unlimited power and resources. However, the problem of f"ir1i te resources, including energy, is one of the issues or themes tfiéit: must be included in a global-education program. The world must tailrld's population. However, far from reaching all, medical advances are still not available to vast numbers of the world's population. ‘Yi2t2health, as exemplified by the activities of the World Health C)r~g;anization, has been the area of greatest success in achieving cr~c>ss-cultural consensus on aims and policies. 4. Population--Length of life has increased, reaching more tfiairi 70 years in many of the developed countries. Even in less- a‘F'F'luent societies, such as India, life expectancy has increased from 4C3 ‘to 50 years in two decades. Diseases such as smallpox are either [3‘3'irig eradicated or controlled. People of our planet have increased 1r"<>m 2.5 billion in 1951 to more than 4 billion today. The figure “‘51)! reach 6 billion in the year 2000, and a child being born today is 1 i kely to live in a world of 12 billion at the age of 60. With the D()pulation increases, especially in the poorer countries, and a con— SUmption explosion greatest in developed countries, enormous pres- Sures are being placed on the environment, resources, and energy, with crises in the area of food and urban settings (Mueller, n.d., p. 1). 5. Race and ethnicity--Van Til (1976), in his chapter "The Crucial Issues in Secondary Education Today," pointed to the problem of racism that persists worldwide. Racism reaches the pinnacle of ugliness and human devastation in South Africa, where it takes the 19 official form of apartheid. In the United States, racism, despite civil rights legislation, churches' condemnation of it, and attempts at school integration, takes on subtle and cynical forms. It is much it] evidence in difficult economic times. We cannot be a humane smaciety if we allow injustices to exist based on race and color. It is also important but difficult to recognize the value of c:L11tural diversity and differing personal roots. Historically, the lJ..£S. society is assimilationist and integrationist—-the melting pot ()1: the world. The result has been the emphasis on American ideals ar1<1 values, an Americal cultural homogeneity. Global education PEECJLJires an understanding and fostering of mankind's commonalities but 31: tzhe same time mankind's diversity. Americans will be obliged to dEEEil with other peoples as equals--to learn how to become a partner r‘Ei‘t:her than a dominant power. 6. Arts and culture--New nations today often feel intruded ‘153<)n by the West(andparticularlyAmerican).These nations resent this intrusion on their societies, which have their own values and ways of (1C>ing things. Many in the developing world feel that the flow of (:Onmmnications is all in one direction--from the developed to the developing world. With the West's, especially America's, dominance in communications technology, this is not surprising. Films and tele— vision series earn $200 million in exports annually for the U.S.; four of the five largest record distributors are American. Ways must be found to understand and share nations' arts and culture. Language studies alone would greatly assist in such sharing, but in the U.S. it has fallen to a dismal low. Nor do the statistics show a rise in 20 interest in other apsects of international studies. The negative effects are several: A shortage of skilled experts, a public less conscious of the complexities of the world about them, and a rela- trive lack of attention to the world in the mass media tend to rein- fiprce and compound the problem. Apggf-Anderson (1968) saw another dimension to this issue. hdc3f' human rights” as one of five global problems that need to be acidressed in the global-education curriculum. Many of the national g()vernments today are authoritarian, denying a voice in decision mak- ivig that affects theirlives,and to object to the situation leads to l<)ss of life and property, torture, and death. Not only political Y“ights are trampled on, but for many children the most fundamental r“ights are nonexistent. The aim of any new international economic and Stacial order must be a world in which all children can grow in health arid freedom, with access to adequate nutrition, shelter, clothing, <3ducation, and training for employment. These rights have been recog- nized under the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted Unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959 (Vickers, 1978, p. 7). 10. War and armaments--For every dollar spent today on edu— cation, 60 are spent on armaments. Nuclear confrontation continues, as well as nuclear proliferation. Dozens of local wars are fed by the manufacture and sale of conventional weapons from the so—called developed nations. In 1975, 5.5 percent of the world's gross national product was devoted to military expenditures. While the ratio is 22 dropping slightly in the developed countries, it is rising in the developing countries, which can least afford to do so. War is simply an outmoded instrument to settle disputes among nations, yet no inter- national agreement exists or is being sought. ll. Environment-—The environment, we are coming to realize, 'is a most delicate system. The acid rain that falls on Scandinavia i.s primarily produced in industrial plants of Britain and the Low (EC)untries. In the Baltic Sea, residual discharges by the bordering cc>untries have already come close to destroying the sea's ecology. Ift will take a massive effort to prevent the Mediterranean Sea from (lying. No international agreement has been formulated for nuclear vvaste, yet such multiplies daily. It appears, as Van Til (1976) leenmrked, that the higher the civilization, the more the air is ft)uled, the earth gouged, and the seas poisoned. Deteriorating biological systems around the world pose a SJrave threat to the global economy. A report by the World Watch Institute warned that excessive pressure on the world's support sys- tems, including crop and grazing lands, forests, and fisheries, Combined with rapid population growth, spell inevitable decline in living standards in many nations and regions (Shabecoff, 1982, p. 6). Nations must quickly discover that it is in their own interest as well as others' if mutual instruments, institutions, and agreements are made rather than going one's own way to the eventual risk of con- frontation as in the past. 12. Relations among states—-The United States, like all other nations in various ways, can no longer so easily call the shots or 23 predetermine the outcomes. Our fate is wrapped up with the fate of others. Over the past 30 years, the increase of international contact has resulted in an unprecedented growth in scope and impact of inter- national institutions. Furthermore, the East—West rivalry may be a (:onstant in the world arena of power, but neither grouping of nations iri this struggle is monolithic. A new pluralism, a new polycentrism, is; entering the relations among nations. It is important to under— srtand the peoples involved and their motives. To cultivate in stu- dents an understanding of the motives of other people and of the scncial, psychological, and historical settings that cause them to ‘tfiink and act as they do and to understand our own motivations and ‘ttieir consequences is one of the greatest challenges of education today. 13. Religious issues--Threading its way throughout the tur— rnoil, complexities, and perplexities on the global scene is a concern tliat not only man's material fate is at stake but also his mental arulspiritual welfare. The solution to many problems will tax his- ‘torical and diversified religious beliefs but may also demand and result in the formulation of new codes of behavior and ethics. Global Education will have to transcend material and intellectual achieve- Ments and reach also into the moral and spiritual spheres. Summary and Overview In this chapter the problem, background, rationale, and purpose of the study were presented. Two major groups of hypotheses were constructed, one group relating to the composite scores and the 24 other group relating to the scores on the individual global issues. This list of delimitations included population and terminology. In Chapter II, literature related to the meaning and com- ponent parts of global education, curriculum implications and difficulties, as well as staff—development aspects required for global- education implementation in schools is reviewed. In Chapter III, the ciesign and methodology of the study are discussed. The data are r~eported, analyzed, and discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V contains a presentation of the summary, conclusions, and recommendations for ‘Further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The literature reviewed for this study was selected to answer 'tfie following questions: 1. What is global education, its meaning and distinguishing eflements, and the concepts of a global perspective and of the world as a system? 2. What are the curriculum issues for global education; its gcaals, objectives, organization, materials selection, and obstacles for irnplementation; and the readiness age for the program? 3. For staff development to implement global education in schools, what is involved in the educational change required? The Meaning of Global Education: A Definition and Its Component Parts An immediate issue confronting an educator involved with global-education curriculum is the need to identify a clear and succinct definition of the term. What is so unique and different about global education that it should command our attention? Have not and are not schools already involved in global education or international affairs or area studies? Is not the term "global education" a mere reinvention of the wheel, so to speak? 26 This writer discovered quickly in his efforts of working with staff and board of education that it takes a great deal of doing to explain adequately the meaning of global education and the distinction that exists between it and other curriculum forms closely aligned to it. Statements or attitudes such as "We're already dealing with inter- riational affairs." and "I've teen teaching about the world in my fifth- ggrade current-events class for a number of years now." and "I think Firs. Walker does a terrific job in teaching about cultures of children 'in her class.“ Problems inevitably arise when introducing global education to a group of seasoned veterans in a school setting. This is understand- able, considering that as one reads the literature on the subject it is not always easy to pin down the precise meaning of this new curricular trend. Burrows, Klein, and Clark (1981) reinforced the difficulty in dealing with a clear understanding of the term. When constructing a major survey test of global understanding by a committee of experts to be administered to 3,000 undergraduates in 185 institutions, a precise definition of global education was nonexistent. They stated: The notion of global understanding . . . is a relatively modern one. Moreover it is not well understood; little has been done to define the concept. . . . One of the more difficult tasks the project staff grappled with in designing the survey instruments was to decide on an approach to take in constructing the knowledge test. Without a clear definition of global understanding, how does one decide what specific knowledge it consists of? Does global knowledge mean an understanding of the kind of content taught in traditional college courses in international relations and area studies? Or does it mean a grasp of global issues, such as human rights or world government, that transcends particular nations and regions? (p. 7) 27 The idea of international education, of course, has been around for years. Its goal is to contribute to understanding between peoples and nations as well as to promote peace among nations. Becker (1979) found international/intercultural education falling into three different categories over the past 30 years. There was the period of the 19505-— ‘the era of the Cold War, the Korean War, and McCarthyism-—when the major ennphasis was on military and diplomatic relations. The 19605 experienced 1:he inclusion and emphasis on cultural and geographic-area studies. In ‘the 19705 the educational scene switched to the expansion of the world— centered or global studies. The reasons for America's impetus for international education since 1946 are many. Case (1979) listed four primary reasons. Although ldorld War I brought the United States into military involvement in Europe, the concept of isolation dominated national thought until World War II. It was not until then that the U.S.‘s inward-looking security was shattered. The second World War compelled citizens of many different nations to fight side by side: persons who spoke different languages, were of different races, practiced different customs, but paradoxically were all fighting against persons who had the same cultural mix of language, skin color, and custom. In addition, the battlefield was nearly the entire world. Neutral countries were few. With the war, the invention and use of atomic weapons awakened in nations the realization that self—dstruction was indeed possible at the hands of some. The peril of the atomic age was upon us. It called for mutual understanding and efforts on the part of all to relate to each other. The establishment of the United Nations, along with the 28 sincere desire for peace on the part of many, further compelled educators to initiate programs of international education. This brief summary of the historical rationale for international programs is an oversimplification because, to a degree, these approaches exist in schools today. Nevertheless, the growing realization that we live in a world of growing interdependence forces people of good will to r‘espond in an appropriate curricular fashion. To date, it appears that vve are in a lag situation. Taylor (1967) criticized as too narrow those 'international-education efforts that focus only on bilateral studies or eaxchange studies. Instead, he advocated world education, using the world :35 a unit of analysis and viewing problems as common to all or many social systems. The objective of learning about the world system is to gain insight into the shared heritage of humanity and to find ways to promote peace and cooperation. In a later work, Taylor (1969) criticized today's educational system and believed education must, above all, seek to assist the student to learn to understand the nature and character of contemporary life. He added: In order to be truly educated, each must have a full sense of the nature of modern man and of the world he lives in, and I do not see how that sense can be achieved by the kind of education now being provided by most of the schools, colleges, universi— ties, and educational systems of the world. They have fallen behind the reality of world society and are presenting concep- tions of man and his world comparable to the pre-Copernican sys— tem of ideas in the post-Copernican period. (p. 3) King (1970) was equally strong in pointing out the need to correct the current teaching situation in providing children with the opportunities to develop a global perspective. Although efforts have 29 been made to correct the parochial nature of teaching, they have fallen short. King felt the current-events approach fails because it is in the context of U.S. foreign policy on certain issues of the world as perceived from a nation-—a very large one. And the rationale for area studies seems to be to grant "equal time" to non-western cultures, but usually only serves to reinforce the impression of the world as separate patches of real estate. A major difficulty with both these approaches is that they prevent the student from seeing the world as a system, because he is concentrating only on the individual parts. (p. 9) Efforts to meet these challenges are emerging and are increas- ing. Global education is definitely one curricular approach and trend. l\s one studies the concept of global education, terminology becomes a problem. The literature uses a number of terms, sometimes inter- changeably. Various terms are "international education," "world- Inindedness education," "pluralistic education," "world citizenship education," "global awareness," and "world studies." Collins (1977), in his Report to the Council of Chief State School Officers, cited four terms as generally used when reference is made to formal course- work or structured learning experience: "world,“ "cross-cultural," “international," and "global," with "global citizenship" the most recent term in use. Collins selected two terms for his purposes: (1) "global education” to describe the field in its broadest, most universal sense, and (2) "global studies" to describe those activi- ties and programs normally associated with formal study in the schools (p. ii). The National Endowment for the Humanities defined global education using the broad, universal term "global perspective.“ Case (1979) differentiated between international and global education. He ‘- 30 saw international education as a study of all that global education studies for the purpose of understanding the problems, but global education requires an interdependent perspective to the study and a development of a sense of world community (p. 40). Marker (1977) described global education as a way of think- ing; about the world that is characterized by the notion of ”Spaceship Earcth"—-that we are all in this thing together and that the fate of some of us is quickly becoming the fate of all of us (p. 13). Stzrwasheim (1978) saw global education as an emerging philosophy; tries (definitive rationale will not be written for some time (p. 3). The British use the term "world studies." UNESCO recommends thE? txerm "international education," whereas the Canadians use "develop— mer11: sstudies" to include most of what global-studies advocates in the Uni t:een1 a: common problem: each means virtually whatever one chooses (C01 1 ins, 1977, p. 10). One term that no longer seems appropriate and only serves to CO'IITLJSSe the understanding of the meaning of global education is the te""1 "international education." The term "international," used to deESCZlr"‘ibe activities between nations, is subject to cultural lag, aC(:()Y‘ Inuch that it virtually means nothing at all'I (p. 16). The Michigan Department of Education, in its Guidelines for (Slcataal Education (1978), used the terminology "global education" and de‘Fi ned it as llie lifelong growth in understanding, through study and partici- r>ation, of the world community and the interdependency of its [Deaople and systems—-social, cultural, racial, economic, linguis- t:ic, technological, and ecological. Global education requires £111 understanding of the values and priorities of the many cul— 1:lJres of the world as well as the acquisition of basic concepts Eirnd principles related to the world community. Global education 1 eeads to implementation and application of the global perspective 1 r1 striving for just and peaceful solutions to world problems. - p. 3) Cervantes (1979) remarked that one is struck by this defini- ti()'l ' s; all-encompassing aspects—-study of the interdependence of 5°(:i C><:ultural, ethnolinguistic, economic, political, technological, anti EEcological systems. The definition is formidable and frightening It T1513 a tendency to receive nods of approval, but at a distance of “0'15 rIVOlvement. Cervantes offered an alternative definition: (Slobal education is the multi—disciplinary study of the inter- sophical (Swift, 1980). Global education is an attitude toward da’i 1.3! living, not a new course, a new program, or a new content. lit is a new teacher attitude toward the pertinence of study to 1 ife in the future; it is an emphasis for students and teachers c>n individual and group responsibility, on multi-cultural aware- r1ess inside and outside the continental United States, on the eenormous human movement and commerce to and from the U.S. that i llustrate the notion of global interdependence, on the newly Y‘ealized world culture into which all nations plug; and it is a liiultidisciplinary way of relating knowledge, skills, attitudes, Eind experiences to tomorrow's living in a global community. (Swift, 1980, PP. 46-47) King (1970) defined global education as "the social experi- enCe and the learning process through which individuals acquire and (*‘avige their images of the world perceived as a totality and their 0Y‘lentation toward particular components of the world system" (p. 15). 33 For education, it means that schools must help children and young people to develop "international understanding" but not in the tradi- tional meaning of the word--a sort of strange-lands-and-friendly-people Intead, the implication is that students must be led toward approach. Schools will then be an understanding of the world as a single unit. trnansmitting to the next generation a rich image of the total earth (King, 1970, p. 71). The Minnesota Department of Education's Task Force (1979) (jeeEITing with global education employed the term "contemporary world st:L1c1ies." It was seen as an effort to communicate the awareness that hiJrnainity is interdependent. All people are world citizens, and every sc:r1c>c>l subject and discipline should include a global dimension. SSpecifically, contemporary world studies should include: student niaterials which are sensitive to the worldwide implications of ftumankind's interdependence; learning the concepts, skills, \ralues and attitudes which will enable humankind to cope with, liiodify, and improve a world in the constant process of change; cieveloping a "world view" in lieu of western view; understand- i ng one's own culture in order to appreciate the contributions c>f other cultures and peoples; an awareness that no one nation c:an successfully deal alone with today's world problems--food, eenergy, resources, population, pollution and peace. (p. 4) In 1967, Kentworthy, although not using the term "global," A'ICii <:ated what some educators believe international understanding to be““IDrimarily a point of View rather than a subject. It must begin Wi-t11 young children while they are forming attitudes and points of Vi‘EVV that will have an influence in their adult years (p. 204). Hickman and Price (1980) saw global education as a misnomer a“<1 referred to it as the newest bandwagon. They claimed the pro- PCHlents are merely seeking shortcuts to a new objective, global 34 These authors believed the global problem or global You teach the parts, but it is the indi- They stated, perspective. awareness cannot be taught. vidual who constructs the concept comprising the parts. "We would be foolish to assume we could teach a global problem, or global awareness, or global perspective without reference to at least a representative number of its parts or pieces" (p. 209). There appears to be no single summary of global education that vvi 11 please all because of the intrinsic complexities of the main aiceeas of concern and the relationships between and among them (Leetsma, Different schools of thought make different elements or com- 1978L For the purposes of this bi nations in the central organizing theme. stlecjgr, "global education" is used to describe those activities and p'”<359r*ams normally associated with formal study in classrooms that P'“<>lT1c>te global understanding as defined by the Michigan Department of EleCZEition. 313111 nguishing Elements or Component arts of Global Education Examining global education further, global education, to be S“(:" , Inust comprise a number of component parts intrinsic to it. LEFEEllssnm (1978) identified five component parts in a global—education program 1. Unity and diversity of mankind. Global education is con— cewrled with the commonalities among mankind and the differences with t)“3 ‘family of man. The earth's peoples are a single species endowed a“C1 enriched by diversity. Global education seeks to correct cul— tUY‘al myopia and to reduce ethnocentrism. 35 2. International human rights. A proper concern for human rights at home and abroad needs to become part of the shared commit- ment in the minds of citizens everywhere. The world is seen as a planetary 3. Global interdependence. ecosystem, an interconnected global web of subsystems. thOted the American historian Cyril Black, who saw the present era in Leestma 'tilne as the third great revolutionary transformation in human affairs. Idea live in the third stage of history--the emergence of a world society. Simply stated, each 4. Intergenerational re§ponsibility. person has an obligation for the maintenance of the health of the earth during one's lifetime. 5. International cooperation. Solutions to common problems 0F 1:f1 .05). 4. For the scores of the teachers classified "other" (physical education, building administrators, counselor, and busi- ness) compared to the scores of the other teachers, the F-ratio of .328 (l and 55 df) was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). Means for each group are presented in Table 1. Analysis of variance summary table for the composite test scores is presented in Table 2. Table 1.--Means for each group for global-understanding test composite scores of teachers as per teaching assignment--mathematics/ science, elementary K-5, foreign language, humanities, and other. Subject Area Taught Group Size Mean Math/science 9 47.33 Elementary 14 37.14 Foreign language 13 42.85 Humanities 16 43.81 Other 8 40.63 Entire sample 60 42.15 122 Table 2.--Analysis of variance summary table for the composite test scores on the global—understanding test for teachers according to classroom assignments. Sum of df Mean F Sig. Source Squares Square of F Math/science vs. elementary, foreign language and humani- 266°54 1 ties groups 266.54 4.070 .0485 Elementary vs. foreign language and humanities 367.23 1 367.23 5.607 .0214 groups Foreign language vs. humanities group 6'70 1 6-70 -102 -7503 Other vs. all groups 21.47 1 21.47 .328 .5693 Within cells 3601.72 55 65.49 -- -- Teaching Assigpments and Scores on 13 Issues 1.1. There will be no significant difference between the scores on the 13 global issues of teachers teaching different subject areas in an American-sponsored overseas school. Results 1. For the scores of the mathematics/science teachers on the 13 issues compared to the scores of the elementary K-5, foreign lan- guages, and humanities teachers, the approximate multivariate F-ratio of 1.78 (13 and 43 df) was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). Since the multivariate F 123 was not significant, it is inappropriate to examine univariate F's and correlations with the canonical variables for significance test- ing. However, when looking at the univariate F-tests, the math/science group scored better on questions pertaining to energy, culture, and environmental alterations than teachers assigned to teach elementary, foreign language, and humanities (Table 3). Table 3.--Multivariate test of significance for differences on scores for 13 areas of global knowledge between teachers of math/ science versus teachers of foreign language and teachers of humanities/social sciences. 1. Energy 5.630 .021 .435 2. Food .489 .487 .128 3. Health 3.530 .066 .345 4. Population .897 .351 .173 5. Racial 1.410 .240 .218 6. Culture 5.120 .028 .415 7. Geography .048 .828 .040 8. Trade 3.000 .089 .318 9. Human Rights .040 .843 .037 10. War .456 .507 .123 11. Environment 13.920 .0005 .685 12. Relations .066 .798 .047 13. Religion .020 .900 -.023 Approximate multivariate F = 1.78 (13, 43 df) p = .077 124 The correlations between disciminant functions (i.e., linear combinations that account maximally for most of the variance between the two groups) and each of the subtests were environment (.6849), energy (.4355), culture (.4152), and health (.3447). (See Table 3.) Means for the groups are presented in Table 4. 2. For the scores of the elementary K—5 teachers on the 13 issues compared to the scores of the foreign language teachers and the humanities teachers, the approximate multivariate F—ratio of 3.64 (13 and 43 df) was statistically significant. The data did not sup- port the null hypothesis (p < .05). (See Table 5.) Within the univariate F-tests with l and 55 df, the elemen- tary teachers scored lower than the other two groups on the questions pertaining to the issues of energy, population, culture, and human rights (Table 5). The correlations between discriminant functions (i.e., linear combinations that account maximally for most of the variance between the two groups) and each of the subtests were culture (-.5922), population (-.4806), human rights (-.3219), and energy (-.2998). (See Table 5.) The univariate F's and correlations with the canonical vari- ables for the 13 subtests are presented in Table 5. 125 m¢.F om.m om.m mm.¢ mm.m mp.¢ mm.m mm.¢ mm.m mw.m m¢.N mm.~ or.m om mFQEmm wcwucm mN.P oo.m mm.m mm.¢ mm.N om.m mm.m mm.¢ om.N om.m mw.N mN.N om.m w Lmspo Fm.— Pm.m mn.N ¢¢.¢ Pm.N ©O.¢ ¢¢.m mN.m Fm.m ©m.¢ mN.N mp.m m~.m mp mmwpwcmESI mm.r N®.m wm.N ©¢.¢ ©¢.N MN.¢ wm.m ©¢.m mm.m mm.m mm.m 6m.N wo.m m— mmwsmcmp :mwmsom FN.F FN.N om.N Pm.m FN.F ¢—.¢ ¢~.m mm.m @N.m oo.m PN.N FN.m ©M.N wp xgwucmEmFm v¢.~ mm.m mm.m mm.¢ NN.N oo.m ¢¢.m ©©.m mm.m NN.¢ mm.m NN.m mN.m m mocmwom\cuwz 8 Wu 3 M H ll— 9 3 a d H I3 3 a a u p. n la a n 9 0 a 0 u I. II. A .J m P 0 II. 3 d p. O a L. D» L. 9 p 5 AI? IL. n .1. 0: Id 6 Al... Id u a 1M n m”. .15 Al? 6 m. m. w 8 m w m... u. .A Emacmwmg u w w .m. mw m. z mcwzommh u ”I u 1 MN .Lmspo .mmegwcmszg .mmmsm:m_ :memcow .m-¥ sympcmEmFm .mucmwom\muTumsmgmeIIpcwscmmmmm mcwcommu can we mcmgommp 65p toe mwzmmw Pmaopm m_ Fesz>wu=w 65p :0 mmcoom “mop cw masogm exp Low memm211.¢ «Fame 126 Table 5.--Multivariate test of significance for differences on scores for 13 areas of global knowledge between teachers of elementary grades versus the foreign language teacher group and the humanities group. 1. Energy 5.4500 .023 -.300 2. Food 1.2800 .263 .145 3. Health .1700 .685 -.O52 4. Population 13.9900 .0004 -.481 5. Racial .0007 .979 .003 6. Culture 21.2400 .00002 -.592 7. Geography 1.3300 .2531 -.148 8. Trade .00012 .991 ..001 9. Human rights 6.2800 .015 -.322 10. War 2.5400 .117 -.205 11. Environment .2680 .614 -.O65 12. Relations 2.9300 .092 -.220 13. Religion 1.7300 .194 -.l69 .0007 Approximate multivariate F = 3.64 (13, 43 df) p 3. For the scores of the foreign language teachers on the 13 issues compared to the scores of the humanities group of teachers, the approximate multivariate F-ratio of .633 (13 and 43 df) was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). (See Table 6.) Since the multivariate F-ratio was not significant, it is inappropriate to examine univariate F's and correlations with the canonical variable for significance testing. However, when looking at the univariate F-tests, it is noted that the foreign language 127 teachers scored lower on food, population, and religion than teachers assigned to teach in the humanities areas. The correlations between discriminant functions and each of the subtests were religion (.5362), food (.4954), population (.3671), and environment (.3282). (See Table 6.) Table 6.--Multivariate test of significance for differences on scores for 13 areas of global knowledge between foreign language teachers versus teachers of humanities/social science. 1. Energy .083 .774 .295 2. Food 2.693 .107 .495 3. Health .248 .621 -.190 4. Population 2.670 .108 .367 5. Racial .037 .849 .217 6. Culture .360 .551 -.230 7. Geography .089 .766 -.087 8. Trade .111 .741 -.249 9. Human rights .240 .627 -.427 10. War .002 .964 -.293 11. Environment .364 .549 .328 12. Relations .380 .540 -.481 13. Religion 1.456 .233 .536 Approximate multivariate F = .633 (13, 43 df) p = .813 4. For the scores of the teachers classified "other" (physical education, building administrators, counselor, and busi- ness) compared to the scores of the other teacher groups, the approximate multivariate F-ratio of 3.51 (13 and 43 df) was 128 statistically significant. The data did not support the null hypothe- sis (p < .05). (See Table 4.) Within the univariate F-tests with 1 and 55 df, the issue that the group of teachers classified as "other" scored lower in than the other groups was food (Table 7). The correlation between discriminant flnwflfions and the sub- tests on food was -.277 (Table 7). Although the univariate test 1th: racial issues was not sta- tistically significant, its correlation with the canonical variable was nearly as great as that for food. Table 7.--Mu1tivariate test of significance for differences on scores for 13 areas of global knowledge between teachers classified "other" versus the math/science, humanities, foreign language, and elementary teacher groups. 1. Energy 1.400 .242 .155 2. Food 4.480 .039 -.277 3. Health 3.430 .070 .243 4. Population 1.130 .292 -.139 5. Racial 3.960 .052 -.260 6. Culture 3.230 .078 -.235 7. Geography .00078 .977 —.004 8. Trade 2.350 .131 -.201 9. Human rights 3.470 .068 .244 10. War .039 .845 .026 11. Environment 2.360 .130 .201 12. Relations .210 .646 -.060 13. Religion .410 .525 -.O84 Approximate multivariate F = 3.51 (13, 43 df) p = .00093 129 Citizenship and Composite Score 2. There will be no significant difference between the global-knowledge composite test scores received by teachers who are U.S. or Canadian citizens and by teachers of other citizenship. The F-ratio of 3.00 (l and 57 df) was not statistically sig- nificant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). Means for each group are presented in Table 8. Table 8.--Means in global-understanding composite test scores of teachers with U.S./Canadian citizenship and those of other citizenship. Citizenship Group Size Mean U.S./Canadian citizenship 44 43.23 Other citizenship 15 38.87 Citizenship and Scores on 13 Issues 2.1. There will be no significant difference between the scores of teachers who have U.S. or Canadian citizenship and the scores of teachers holding other citizenship. The F-ratio of 3.060 (13 and 45 df) was statistically sig- nificant. The data did not support the null hypothesis (p < .05). The hypothesis was rejected. Means for the two groups are presented in Table 9. Within the univariate F-tests with 1 and 55 df, the areas teachers with U.S. or Canadian citizenship scored higher in than teachers of other citizenship were food, population, and trade. 130 me. N ON.N om.N NN. e mN.N NN.N NN.N mm. N mN.m NN.N NN.N NN.N oN.N om mNQENm aeNpem No. N NN.N NN.N ow. m oo.N No.m oe.m ow. e oo.N NN.N NN.N NN.N mm.N mN eaacmme .m.:-=oz mm. N NN.N NN.N as. e NN.N em.e NN.N so. m NN.N No.4 NN.N NN.N NN.N me emmcmae .m.= as. N NN. m NN.N NN.N NN.N om.e oe.m NN.N oe.m oo.e oe.N NN.N No.m om 6Na26m choem .N Na. mm. N om.N NN.N NN.N Ne.m NN.N oo.e mm.N NN.N oo. N No.m NN.N NN eoNNaosem .o om. N om. m NN.N oo.m om.N NN.N NN.N om.m om.m NN.N mm. N NN.N NN.N e .memN emNaNoa .m oe.N ON.m ON.N oo.m oe.N ON.N ON.m ow.e oo.m ON.N om. N ow.N oo.m m .usemNNom NaNuom .e NN.N NN.N mm.N NN.N mm.N eN. e NN.N 0N.m NN.N NN.N Ne. N NN.N NN.N mN mucaNum NaNoom .m oo.N oo.m oo.m oo.m oo.m co. m oo.e oc.e oo.e oo.m co. m oo.N oo.o N .usemNNumNepaz .N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N Nm. N oo.m me.m NN.N NN.N NN. N NN.N NN.N N 66:6N66Nepaz .N "mgonmz .vm NN.N ON.N om.N NN.N mN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N mN.m NN.N me.N NN.N oN.N om mNaEam acNoem NN.N No.m NN.N No.6 No.N mN.e NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N om.N NN.N mm.N NN .mcaN aazpo oz ON.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N No.6 NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N Ne amasmcaN canoe ”m:N>m: NN.N NN.N om.N NN.N mN.N NN.N NN.N mm.e NN.N NN.N NN.N om.N oN.m mm mNaEam acNocm ON.N oe.m NN.N NN.N NN.N mm.m NN.N NN.N ON.N NN.N oe.N No.N om.N mN caepo--aN;mewNNNNu Nm.N NN.N NN.N NN.N mN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N No.6 NN.N NN.N NN.N as UNWD--QN;me6NNNNu HO 8 .1... M H 1. DJ 3 ud d H 11. 3 a 3 U D. n J a n D. 0 a O U 1.. I. A J m P 0 .L 3 d P O a L. P L. 9 D. 5 1. l. n L D. J 5 1. J u a J n 9 .L 1. 5 I... L. o D» J IL 0.. U1 K O O u no .0 a 1. z u U w I... U: I... S a 5 NA 0 U U1 U 1. 1. S .No: No wmgmmu .m. 3 .Loncs choNNmosew mmmmzmcmN .aNgmcmNNNNu to; ma mgmzommp mg» NON mmzmmN Nmaon mN NmzuN>NucN mgp :o mwcoom wau :N mmochwNNNu NoN mcmm21u.m mNnmN 131 These results were supported by the correlations between discriminant functions (i.e., linear combinations that account maxi- mally for most of the variance between the two groups) and each of the subtests for food (.601), population (.344), and trade (.300). (See Table 10.) Table lO.--Multivariate test of significance for differences in scores for 13 areas of global knowledge between teachers who have U.S. or Canadian citizenship and those teachers of other citizenship. 1. Energy 1.500 .225 .173 2. Food 18.240 .00007 .602 3. Health .020 .88824 .020 4. Population 4.970 .018 .344 5. Racial 2.930 .092 .241 6. Culture .004 .951 .009 7. Geography .040 .844 .028 8. Trade 4.540 .037 .300 9. Human rights .004 .950 -.009 10. War .297 .589 .077 11. Environment .507 .484 .099 12. Relations .523 .473 -.102 13. Religion 1.303 .260 .160 Approximate multivariate F = 3.06 (13, 45 df) p .00265 132 Languages and Composite Score 3. There will be no significant difference between the global-knowledge composite test scores received by teachers who speak, read, and/or write a foreign language and by those teachers who do not have another language. The F—ratio of .002 (l and 58 df) was not statistically sig- nificant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). Means for each group are presented in Table 11. Table ll.--Means for global-understanding composite test scores of teachers with a foreign language and those without a foreign language. Groups Group Size Mean Foreign language 48 42.13 Without a foreign language 12 42.25 Other Languages and Scores on 13 Issues 3.1. There will be no significant difference in the scores on the 13 topics of the global-knowledge test for teachers who speak, read, and/or write a foreign language and for teachers who do not have another language. The approximate multivariate F-ratio of 1.46 (13 and 46 df) was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). Means for the groups are presented in Table 9. 133 Educational Background and Composite Score 4. There will be no significant difference in the global- knowledge composite test scores obtained by teachers having different college undergraduate and graduate majors. In the research project, teachers were grouped into six groups according to their undergraduate and graduate majors. These groupings were: 1. Teachers with an undergraduate major in mathematics or science and no graduate major or a graduate major in mathematics or science. 2. Teachers with an undergraduate and graduate major combi- nation of mathematics or science and education. 3. Teachers with an undergraduate major in social science and no graduate major or a graduate major in social science. 4. Teachers with an undergraduate and graduate major combi- nation of social science and education. 5. Teachers with an undergraduate major in foreign language and no graduate major or a graduate major in foreign language. 6. Teachers with an undergraduate major in education and no graduate major or a graduate major in education. Five planned comparisons were made between the composite global scores obtained by the six groups of teachers having different undergraduate and graduate majors. These five comparisons were: 1. Teachers with an undergraduate major in education and no graduate major or a graduate major in education compared to the other five groups. 134 2. Teachers with mathematics or science majors and teachers with mathematics or science and education majors compared to social science undergraduate or graduate majors or teachers with an under- graduate and graduate major combination of social science and educa- tion. 3. Foreign language majors compared to the social science majors and teachers with a combination social science major and edu- cation major. 4. Teachers with an undergraduate major in mathematics or science and no graduate major or a graduate major in mathematics or science compared to those with an undergraduate and graduate major combination of mathematics or science and education. 5. Teachers with a social science undergraduate major or graduate major in social sciences compared to those with an under- graduate and graduate major combination of social sciences and education. Results 1. For the scores of the education majors compared to the scores of the other five groups of teachers, the F-ratio of 12.55 (1 and 44 df) was statistically significant. The data did not sup- port the null hypothesis (p < .05). Means for the groups are presented in Table 12. 2. For the scores of the mathematics or science majors and the mathematics or science and education majors compared to the social science, social science and education, and the foreign language 135 majors, the F-ratio of .156 was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). Table 12.--Means for the groups for global-understanding composite test scores of teachers according to undergraduate and graduate majors. Graduate Major Group Size Mean Math/science 7 45.86 Math/science and education 1 50.00 Social science 19 45.53 Social science and education 5 42.60 Foreign language 6 42.83 Education 12 35.58 Entire sample 50 42.66 3. For the scores of the social science majors and the social science and education majors compared to the foreign language majors, the F—ratio of .293 was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). 4. For the scores of the mathematics or science majors com- pared to the mathematics and education combination majors, the F-ratio of 1.03 was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). 5. For the scores of the social science majors compared to the social science and education combination majors, the F-ratio of 2.86 was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). 136 Table 13.--Analysis of variance summary table for the composite test scores on the global-understanding test for teachers according to undergraduate and graduate majors. Sum of Mean Sig. Source Squares df Square F of F Education 655.94 1 655.94 12.5450 .00095 Math or science and math or science/education vs. Social science, social 8.16 l 8.16 .1561 .6947 science education and foreign language Social science and social science/education vs. 15.31 foreign language —J 15.31 .2939 .5917 Math or science only vs. math or science/education 53.93 —-I 53.93 1.0310 .3154 Social science vs. social science/education 149.34 c—J 149.34 2.8560 .0981 Within cells 2300.54 44 52.29 Educational Background and Scores on 13 Issues 4.1. There will be no significant difference in the test scores of teachers with different undergraduate and graduate majors relative to each of the 13 global issues. The planned comparisons were identical to the comparisons made relative to the composite test scores. Results 1. For the scores of the education majors compared to the scores of the other five groups of teachers, the approximate multi- 137 multivariate F-ratio of 2.10 (13 and 32 df) was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). Means for the groups are presented in Table 9. Because the F-ratio was only slightly significant (sig. of F = .0537), the univariate F-tests (l and 44 df) were examined. Areas in which the elementary teachers scored lower than the other groups were energy and culture. Other low-scoring areas were health, racial, human rights, war, and environment (Table 14). Table l4.--Multivariate test of significance for differences on scores for 13 areas of global knowledge between teachers with education majors versus all other majors. 1. Energy 2.81 .0009 .4170 2. Food 1.63 .2085 .4256 3. Health 4.40 .0416 .1489 4. Population 1.56 .2181 .2299 5. Racial 6.59 .0137 .0724 6. Culture 2.91 .0008 .5521 7. Geography 1.19 .2822 .0555 8. Trade 3.71 .0607 .0208 9. Human rights 6.00 .0113 .3461 10. War 8.67 .0052 .2402 11. Environment 5.27 .0265 .5705 12. Relations .71 .4058 .4494 13. Religion 1.94 .1709 .0055 Approximate multivariate F = 2.01 .05365 138 The correlations between discriminant functions (i.e., linear combinations that account maximally for most of the variance between the groups) and each of the subtests were energy (.417), culture (.552), human rights (.346), war (.240), and environment (.571). (See Table 14.) 2. For scores of teachers with a math or science major and teachers with a math or science/education combination compared to the scores of teachers with a social science major, social science/ education major, or a foreign language major, the approximate multi- variate F-ratio of 2.07 was statistically significant. The null hypothesis was rejected (p < .05). (See Table 9.) Examining the univariate F-tests (1 and 44 df), the math or science majors and teachers with a math or science/education com- bination scored higher than the teachers with other majors on two issues: energy (F = 4.64) and environment (F = 6.07). The correla- tion between the dependent and canonical variables for energy was .354, and for environmental issues it was .405. (Table 15). 3. For the scores of the social science and social science/ education majors compared to teachers with a foreign language major, the approximate multivariate F-ratio of .576 (13 and 32 df) was not statistically significant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05). (See Table 9.) Because the F—ratio was not statistically significant, the univariate F-tests and the correlations between the dependent and canonical variables were not examined. 139 Table 15.--Multivariate test of significance for differences on scores for 13 areas of global knowledge between teachers with math or science, math or science/education majors versus social science, social science/education, or foreign language majors. l. Energy 4.636 .037 .354 2. Food .042 .838 .034 3. Health .002 .964 .007 4. Population 1.410 .241 —.l95 5. Racial .128 .722 -.059 6. Culture .310 .580 -.091 7. Geography .214 .646 -.076 8. Trade .070 .793 -.043 9. Human rights .831 .367 -.150 10. War 1.869 .179 -.225 11. Environment 6.071 .017 .405 12. Relations .232 .632 -.079 13. Religion 2.273 .139 -.248 Approximate multivariate F = 2.07 p = .047 4. Due to the small sample size of one for teachers with a math or science/education major combination, the comparison was not examined. 5. For the scores of the social science majors compared to the scores of the social science/education combination majors, the approximate multivariate F-ratio of .932 was not statistically sig- nificant. The data failed to reject the null hypothesis (p > .05) . (See Table 9.) 140 Because the F-ratio was not statistically significant, the univariate F-tests and the correlations between the dependent and canonical variables were not examined. U.S. Degree and/or Teaching Certificate and Composite Score 5. There will be no significant difference in the global- knowledge composite test scores of teachers who have graduated and/or hold a teaching certificate from a U.S. university and those who have not graduated and/or do not hold a teaching certificate from a U.S. university. The F-ratio of 8.99 (1 and 58 df) for scores of teachers with a degree or teaching certificate from a U.S. institution was statis- tically significant. The data did not support the null hypothesis (p < .05). Means for the groups are presented in Table 16. Table l6.--Means for differences in the global-knowledge composite test scores of teachers with a U.S. degree and those without. Group Group Size Mean U.S. degree and/or certificate 45 43.93 Without U.S. degree and/or 15 36.80 certificate l4l U.S. Degree and/or Teaching Certificate and Scores on 13 Issues 5.1. There will be no significant difference in the scores on the 13 topics of the global-knowledge test of teachers who have a degree from a U.S. university or hold a teaching certificate from the U.S. and the scores of those who have not graduated from a U.S. insti- tution. The approximate F-ratio of 2.58 (13 and 46 df) was statis- tically significant. The data did not support the null hypothesis (p < .05). Means for the groups are presented in Table 9. Within the univariate F-tests with l and 58 df, the areas in which teachers with U.S. degree/teaching certificate scored higher than those without a U.S. degree or certificate were energy, food, population, racial, and trade (Table 17). The correlations between the discriminant functions and each of the subtests were energy (.368), food (.425), population (.322), racial issues (.405), and trade (.631). (See Table 17.) Number of Areas and Composite Score 6. There will be no relationship between the number of countries traveled or lived in and the teachers' composite scores on the global-understanding test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicated that a relation- ship apparently existed between the number of areas traveled or lived in and the teacher's composite test scores (r = .2524, n = 60, 142 (p = .026). The null hypothesis was rejected, although it should be noted that this relationship was weak (Table 18). Table l7.--Multivariate test of significance for differences on scores for 13 global issues between teachers with U.S. degrees versus those without. 1. Energy 5.730 .020 .368 2. Food 7.620 .008 .425 3. Health 1.000 .321 .154 4. Population 4.390 .041 .322 5. Racial 6.920 .011 .405 6. Culture 1.750 .191 .204 7. Geography .007 .934 -.013 8. Trade 16.810 .0001 .631 9. Human rights 1.730 .194 .202 10. War 2.430 .124 .240 11. Environment 1.010 .318 .155 12. Relations .051 .822 .035 13. Religion 3.420 .070 .284 Approximate multivariate F = 2.58 (13, 46 df) p = .0091 Number of Areas and Scores on 13 Issues 6.1. There will be no relationship between the number of countries traveled or lived in and the teachers' scores on the 13 global issues of the test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that a slight relationship apparently exists between three of the issues and the 143 Table 18.--Pearson's correlation-coefficients summary table for the composite test scores on the global-understanding test and number of areas, years teaching, years teaching over- seas, number of languages, and age. No. of Time- Years Years No. of A Areas Area Teaching Overseas Languages ge r .2524 .3150 .0049 .0044 .1822 .0605 Global Test n 60 60 60 60 60 60 Score p .026 .007 .485 .487 .082 .323 number of countries traveled or lived in. These issues are population (r = .2402, n = 60, p = .032), human rights (r = .2383, n = 60, p = .033), and relations among nations (r = .2825, n = 60, p = .014). For the remaining ten issues, Pearson's correlation coefficient indi- cates that no correlation has been detected between the number of countries traveled or lived in and the teachers' scores on the ten remaining global issues (Table 19). Amount of Time in Foreign Countries and Composite Score 7. There will be no relationship between the amount of time teachers have spent in foreign countries and the teachers' composite test scores on the global-understanding test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that some rela- tionship apparently exists between the amount of time traveling and/ or living in foreign countries and the teacher's composite test scores on the global-understanding test (r = .3150, n = 60, p = .007). The null hypothesis is rejected (Table 18). 144 Table 19.--Pearson correlation-coefficient summarytablefor the scores on the 13 global issues and the variables. Variable Number Time- Years Years Number of of Areas Area Teaching Overseas Languages Age r .0996 .2499 .0117 -.0063 .2531 .0578 Energy n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .224 .027 .465 .481 .026 .330 r .1033 .0180 -.l493 -.3818 -.0604 -.l637 Food n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .216 .446 .127 .001 .323 .106 r .1575 .2648 .2203 .1660 .1581 .2543 Health n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .115 .020 .045 .103 .114 .025 r .2402 .2181 -.0584 -.0667 .1211 .0241 Population n 60 6O 60 6D 60 60 p .032 .047 .329 .306 .178 .427 r .0855 .1900 -.0877 -.0879 .0404 -.0256 Racial n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .258 .073 .253 .252 .380 .423 r .1756 .3182 .1317 .1418 .2576 .1959 Culture n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .090 .007 .158 .140 .023 .067 r .1629 .1398 -.0992 .1645 .1195 -.0373 Geography n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .107 .143 .225 .105 .182 .389 r .1068 .2916 .0239 -.0285 ,0322 .0606 Trade n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .208 .012 .428 .414 .404 .323 r .2383 .1868 .0956 .1900 .1016 .0548 Human Rights n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .033 .077 .234 .073 .220 .339 r .1326 .2229 -.0240 .0200 .1631 .1400 War n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .156 .043 .428 .440 .107 .143 r .0742 .0333 -.0244 -.0648 -.0232 -.0133 Environment n 60 6O 60 6O 60 60 p .287 .400 .427 .311 .430 .460 r .2825 .4310 .0404 .0742 .1999 -.0184 Relations n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .014 .138 .380 .287 .063 .445 r .1145 .1403 .0141 -.0075 .0297 -.0549 Religion n 60 60 60 60 60 60 p .192 .143 .457 .477 .411 .339 145 Amount of Time and Scores on 13 Issues 7.1. There will be no relationship between the amount of time teachers have spent in foreign countries other than their homeland and teachers' scores on the 13 topics of the test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that a relation- ship apparently exists between six of the issues and the amount of time spent in foreign countries. These issues were energy (r = .2499, n = 60, p = .027), health (r = .2648, n = 60, p = .020), population (r = .2181, n = 60, p = .047), culture (r = .3182, n = 60, p = .007), trade (r = .2916, n = 60, p = .012), and war (r = .2229, n = 60, p = .043). (See Table 19.) For the remaining seven issues, no cor- relation apparently exists. Years Teaching and Composite Score 8. There will be no relationship between the number of years a teacher has taught and the teacher's composite test score on the global-knowledge test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that no rela- tionship apparently exists between the number of years a teacher has taught and the teacher's composite test score (r = .0049, n = 60, p = .485). The null hypothesis is not rejected (Table 18). Years Teaching and Scores on T3 Tssues 8.1. There will be no relationship between the number of years a teacher has taught and the teachers' scores on the 13 topics of the test. 146 Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that a slight relationship apparently exists between one of the issues and the number of years a teacher has taught. This global issue is health (r = .2203, n = 60, p = .045). For the remaining issues the data indicate that a relationship apparently does not exist between 12 global issues and the number of years a teacher has taught. A number of the issues have a negative correlation (Table 19). Years Teaching_0verseas and Composite Score 9. There will be no relationship between the number of years a teacher has taught in international schools and the teacher's composite test score. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that no rela- tionship apparently exists between the number of years a teacher has taught in international schools and the teacher's composite test score (r = .0044, n = 60, p = .487). The null hypothesis is not rejected (Table 18). Years Teaching Overseas and Scores on 13 Issues 9.1. There will be no relationship between the number of years a teacher has taught in American-sponsored overseas schools and the teachers' scores on the 13 topics of the test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that a negative relationship apparently exists between the score on one of the issues and the number of years a teacher has taught overseas. This global issue is food (r = -.3818, n = 60, p = .001). For the remaining 147 issues the data indicate that a relationship apparently does not exist between the remaining 12 issues and the number of years a teacher has taught overseas. A number of issues have a negative correlation (Table 19). Number of Languages and Composite Score 10. There will be no relationship between the number of languages a teacher speaks, reads, or writes and the teacher's composite test score. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that a relation- ship apparently does not exist between the number of languages with which a teacher has facility and the teacher's composite test score on the global-knowledge test (r = .1822, n = 60, p = .082). The null hypothesis is not rejected (Table 18). Number of Languages and Scores on 13 Issues 10.1. There will be no relationship between the number of languages a teacher speaks, reads, and/or writes and the teachers' scores on the 13 issues of the global—knowledge test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that a slight relationship apparently exists between the two issues of energy (r = .2531, n = 60, p = .026) and culture (r = .2576, n = 60, p = .023) and the teachers' scores on these two issues. For the remaining issues the data indicate that no relationship apparently exists (Table 19). 148 Age and Composite Score 11. There will be no relationship between the ages of teachers and the composite test scores on the global-knowledge test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that a relation- ship apparently does not exist between the ages of the teachers and the composite test score (r = .0605, n = 60, p = .323). The null hypothesis is not rejected (Table 18). Age and Scores on 13 Issues 11.1. There will be no relationship between the ages of the teachers and the teachers' scores on the 13 issues of the global- knowledge test. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that a slight relationship apparently exists between the teachers' scores on the health issue and the ages of teachers (r = .2543, n = 60, p = .025). Apparently no relationship exists between the teachers' ages and scores on the remaining 12 issues (Table 19). Highest Degree Earned and Composite Score 12. There will be no relationship between the highest degree earned by teachers and the composite scores on the global-knowledge test. Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient indicates that no relationship apparently exists between the highest degree earned by teachers and their composite score on the global-knowledge test (r = .0043, n = 60, sig. = .488). The null hypothesis is not rejected (Table 20). 149 Table 20.-—Spearman's correlation-coefficients summary table for the composite test scores on the global-understanding test and highest degree earned and the variable of perceived training. Highest Degree Perceived Training r .0043 .0058 Global Test n 60 60 Scores sig. .488 .483 Highest Degree Earned and Scores on 13 Issues 12.1. There will be no relationship between the highest degrees earned by teachers and their scores relative to the 13 global issues on the test. Spearman's correlation coefficient indicates that a slight relationship apparently exists between scores on three of the issues: geography (r = —.2275, n = 60, sig. = .041), war (r = .2583, n = 60, sig. = .024), and environmental issues (r = .2167, n = 60, sig. = .049). With the remaining ten issues the data indicate that no rela- tionship apparently exists (Table 21). Perceived Training to Teach Cultures and Compgsite Score 13. There will be no relationship between the teachers' per- ceived degree of educational training for teaching about other nations and cultures and their scores on the global-knowledge test. Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient indicates that no relationship apparently exists between the teachers' perceived degree of educational training for teaching about other nations and 150 mow. mew. mwo. ape. was. _04. can. oqp. on. mmo. mum. ¢_m. mmv. .a_m m cmcwmcu oo oo co oo oo oo oo co oo oo co co om : ua>wmogma wwop. Ammo. w~w_.u mmmo.u opoo. omFo. mvmo. mmvp. ov¢o. emup.a coop. ono.u mFoo. L epm. m_N. 040. ewe. wmm. mpm. Pee. mow. Nmm. om_. cue. m_N. mmm. .mmm umccmm oo co co oo oo oo ow co om om on oo oo = magaau oemo.- _Nop. ~0_N. mwmw. “ago. 4409.- mNN~.- m_mo.- ekmo.- mapp.- mam_. Fmo_.- mFmo.- a “macaw: “a “G 3 M H 1. 9 3 no :0 H I1. 3 a 8 u P n J a n o. O a 0 u 1. 1. A J m n. 0 I. 3 d D. O a l. D. l. P. D. 6 1. l. n 1. D. J 5 a... J U a J n D. .I. 1.. 6 l. L. 0 P. J IL 0.. U. rA 0 0 W ud W. a 1. u u IL. L. S a 5 [A 0 U U» u 1. 11 S .Lowme xuwmgm>wca cam coccmm wmcmwu ummzmwz yo mmpamPcm> mzu use mmammw anopm mp mg» :0 mucoom as» Low mpnmw xgmsesm mucowommumouucowumpmscoo cwsgmwam--.- wpnmh 151 cultures and their score on the global-knowledge test (r = .0058, n = 60, sig. = .483). The null hypothesis is not rejected (Table 20). Perceived Training to Teach Cultures and Scores on 13 Issues 13.1. There will be no relationship between teachers' per- ceived degree of educational training for teaching about nations and cultures and teachers' scores on the 13 topics of the global- knowledge test. Spearman's correlation coefficient indicates that no rela- tionship apparently exists between the teachers' perceived degree of educational training for teaching about nations and cultures and teachers' scores on the 13 topics of the global-knowledge test (Table 21). Results by Rank Order of Global Issues When rank ordering the 13 issues, it was found that teachers scored well on questions pertaining to the topics of geography, cul— ture, and health. However, with topics of religion, energy, and rela- tions among nations the respondents scored their lowest. Table 22 gives the rank order of all the issues. Summar The major findings reported within the limitations of the study in this chapter were: 1. When the composite scores of teachers assigned to teach mathematics/science were compared to the scores of the following 152 groups of teachers-—elementary K-5, foreign language, and humanities-- there was a significant difference. 0f the four teacher groups variously assigned, the scores of the math/science group were higher than those of the other groups. Table 22.--Rank order of 13 global issues. 012.35.. :19: Geography 4 .846 .500 .482 Culture 6 .822 .113 .738 Health 3 .811 2.246 .139 Human rights 3 .750 .735 .395 War & armaments 6 .714 .189 .665 Trade & monetary 6 .697 2.343 .131 Racial issues 5 .650 .028 .869 Population 6 .644 4.171 .046 Food 5 .583 .010 .922 Environment 5 .580 2.689 .107 Relations among nations 6 .533 .363 .549 Energy 6 .517 .763 .386 Religion 3 .483 -- -- Multivariate F = 21.37 (12, 48 df) sig. of F = .00001 Composite scores of teachers assigned to elementary grades K-5, when compared to scores of teachers assigned to teach foreign language or humanities, indicated a significant difference also. Scores received by the elementary teachers were lower than scores of all other teacher groups. 153 The comparisons made between scores of foreign language teachers to scores received by the humanities teachers indicated no significant difference. The same was true for the group designated other, i.e., physical education teachers, administrators, and counselor, whose scores were compared to all of the above groups--no significant dif- ference was found. 2. Comparison of composite scores on the global-knowledge test between the variables of citizenship; foreign languages teachers speak, read, or write; years teaching; years teaching overseas; number of languages a teacher speaks, reads, or writes; age; highest degree earned; and perceived training to teach cultures indicated no signifi- cant differences. 3. Relative to college or university majors a teacher pos- sessed, it was found that a significant difference existed between the teachers with education majors when compared to the following groups: teachers with mathematics/science majors, mathematics/science and education combination majors, social science only majors, social science and education majors, and foreign language majors. Education majors scored lower than the above-mentioned teachers in the various groups. Comparisons made between teachers with foreign language majors compared to social science majors and social science and education majors combination indicated a significant difference did not exist. It was the same with mathematics/science or mathematics/science and education majors combination compared to social science, social science and education, and foreign language majors. Comparisons made 154 with mathematics/science and mathematics science and education combi- nation majors indicated that a significant difference did not exist. 4. Comparisons made between the scores obtained by teachers with and without a U.S. degree and/or teaching certificate, the number of areas of the world a teacher had visited or lived in, and the amount of time spent in foreign countries indicated that a sig- nificant difference did exist. 5. When comparing scores of teachers given various teaching assignments, the data indicated that no significant difference in scores between mathematics/science teachers and the elementary K-5, foreign language, and humanities teachers was evident; and for scores of foreign language teachers compared to scores of humanities teachers, no significant difference was apparent. However, the data did indi— cate significant differences between the scores on the 13 issues of elementary teachers compared to the scores of foreign language teach- ers and humanities teachers. The elementary teachers scored lower than the other two groups on the energy, population, culture, and human rights issues. For the group classified as "other," i.e., physical education teachers, administrators, and counselor, the data also indicated a significant difference between their scores and the scores of all the other groups. This group scored lower on the issue of food. 6. Relative to citizenship, the data indicated a difference between scores of U.S./Canadian citizens and those of other citizen- ships. 155 7. The data indicated no difference between scores on the 13 global issues of teachers who speak, read, or write another language and those who do not. 8. Relative to teachers' college and university majors, the data indicated differences between scores of education majors whose scores were compared to five other majors. Likewise, a difference existed between scores of teachers with a math/science major or a math/science and education major compared to scores of social science majors, social science/education majors, and foreign language majors. 9. Likewise, scores of teachers with a U.S. degree and/or teaching certificate, when compared to scores on the 13 global issues, indicated a significant difference. . 10. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicated a relation- ship existed between the following variables and certain of the global issues: a. Number of areas and population, human rights, and rela- tions among nations. b. Amount of time Spent in areas of the world and energy, health, population, culture, trade, and war. c. Years teaching and health. d. Years teaching overseas and food. e. Number of languages and energy and culture. f. Agg_and health. 9. Highest degree and geography, war, and environmental issues. h. Perceived training to teach cultures and no issues. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was to obtain, analyze, and compare data about selected characteristics of teachers in an American- sponsored overseas school and to compare these to their knowledge of global issues. Previous chapters described the setting, population, instrument used for data gathering, methodology, and statistical analysis of the hypotheses. This chapter is organized as follows: (1) Major Results, (2) Discussion and Implications of the Findings, and (3) Recommendations for Future Research. Major Results Within the limitations of setting, population, and method- ology, the major results of the study were: 1. Teachers assigned to teach mathematics and science scored higher on the knowledge test of global issues than teachers of either elementary K-5 grades, foreign language, or humanities. While the differences were derived from an overall comparison of 13 global issues, those issues contributing most to the differences between scores of mathematics and science teachers and the other teachers were questions pertaining to energy, culture, and environ- mental alterations. 156 157 2. Teachers assigned to teach elementary grades K—5, when compared to teachers of the humanities and teachers of foreign lan- guage, scored lowest on the global knowledge. The factors that contributed more to the difference in the scores were the issues of energy, population, culture, and human rights. 3. Education majors scored lowest on the global-knowledge test when compared to teachers with majors in mathematics, science, social science, or foreign language. Areas in which education majors scored lower than other majors were energy and culture. Other low- scoring areas were health, racial issues, human rights, war, and environment. 4. Scores on the global-knowledge test of teachers knowing a foreign language and those who do not were not statistically sig- nificant. Also, there was no relationship between scores on the global-knowledge test and the number of languages a teacher knows. 5. Those teachers prepared in the United States, who had received either a degree or teaching certificate from an institution of higher education, scored significantly higher on the global- knowledge test than those not prepared in the United States. The factors that contributed more to the difference in scores between U.S.-prepared teachers and those prepared elsewhere were energy, food, population, racial issues, and trade. 6. There was a significant correlation between both the number of countries a teacher visited or lived in, the length of time spent in such places, and their performance on the test of global knowledge. 158 7. With the variables of age, years teaching, years teach- ing overseas, highest degree earned, and the perceived training to teach about other cultures or countries, there was no statistically significant relationship relative to the scores on the global- knowledge test. 8. When rank ordering the 13 issues, teachers scored well on the topics of geography, culture, and health. With topics of religion, energy, and relations among nations the respondents scored lowest. Discussion and Implications of the Findings 1. One of the significant findings of the study was that mathematics and science teachers scored significantly higher in the global-knowledge test than did humanities teachers, including social science teachers, elementary teachers, and the foreign language teachers. The finding of this study paralleled the finding of the original study among college students. In that survey, mathematics and engineering majors scored higher than other majors with the exception of history majors. Why this finding is surprising rests in the fact that the content of the knowledge test has little to do with the academic program of mathematics majors. While the mathematics and science teachers could be expected to score high on questions pertaining to the energy issue and the environment, which they did, their perform- ance on the test in comparison to other majors is surprising since the content of the knowledge has little to do with their academic 159 programs. It would appear that a factor contributing to their high achievement might be the test's emphasis on intellectual ability. This intelligence factor ought to be verified in future studies per- taining to global education. One of the major curriculum issues in global education is the framework for curriculum develOpment a school district takes to reach the goal of global perspective within the learner. Reference here is made to consideration of whether an interdisciplinary approach is used, whether global education becomes the exclusive prerogative of the social studies department, or finally, whether the program is an add-on course of any particular department. At times a choice may not exist, but it would seem that the optimum program should be inter- disciplinary. The U.S. Commissioner of Education Task Force (1979, p. 4) concluded that developing global perspectives requires intel- lectual contributions from many sources. Global perspective must be grounded broadly in the various disciplines. Not only for this reason but also for reason of the perform- ance level of the mathematics and science teachers on the global- knowledge test it seems imperative that science and mathematics teachers be involved in curriculum development for global perspective. These teachers appear to be most knowledgeable about global complexi— ties. Why such is the case may yet remain to be discovered, but given the nature of the content global education deals with, science and mathematics people must be involved. The end result, for example, of the realization that resources that seemed inexhaustible are now perceived as having finite limits, 160 that science and technology do not and cannot solve all problems, even when given direction and financing, and that no people is self- sufficient as a nation ought to be that science and mathematics edu- cators recognize and focus more on the interaction of all levels of education. If they worked with other departments, especially the social sciences, all would benefit from the broader dimension of an issue. Students, moreover, would be assisted in seeing science and math not as isolated subjects but as two that are carried on in a social milieu by persons who care about the rest of society. Furthermore, the mathematics and science departments should be involved in global education in an interdisciplinary manner because their programs represent a unique potential for examplifying the global view. On so many ideas such as democracy there is little worldwide agreement or consensus. However, the ideas of mathematics, and particular science, tend to be universal. Such ideas as inter— dependence, continuity, conservation, and community are notions already in the science curriculum and are fundamental, in turn, to the development of global perspective. Several general steps need to taken by mathematics and science education programs at all levels if the long-term goal of global education is to be achieved. First, as with all subject areas, greater efforts must be made to "decompartmentalize" the program. This requires both that the science programs be seen by students as interrelated themselves, and then of seeing science in a broader per— spective. It might be necessary to stress general science as a 161 curriculum entity and to prepare teachers specifically to teach science from a global perspective. Further, science generally draws on mathematics as its pri- mary supporting discipline. But it would appear that science instruc- tion should be interacting with the social studies if a realistic picture is to be achieved of how things are in the world today. For example, an area in which a curriculum bridge might be constructed would be between general science and the social studies. Also, preparation of teachers to co-teach certain interdisciplinary courses would seem appropriate. Many global issues generally draw on a knowl- edge of science and technology to provide a basis for decision making, but, in addition, they require some knowledge of political science, economics, sociology, and history for decision-making mechanisms and parameters of operation. 2. A major assumption has been that foreign language has a positive effect in developing knowledge of and sensitivity toward other peoples and cultures. This study did not research the affect relative to global issues to determine how foreign language teachers feel toward world problems. This study dealt with the cognitive area of global understanding,zuuithe data of the study indicated foreign languages do not contribute significantly to global knowledge. The performance of the foreign language teachers on the test of global issues was poor. Only education majors scored lower. No relation- ship existed between the performance of those teachers who spoke another foreign language and those who did not. And the number of 162 foreign languages a teacher spoke resulted in no significant rela- tionship in test performance. The original study with college students concluded also that there is no significant correlation between students' proficiency in foreign language and their performance on the test of global under- standing. Moreover, the college study concluded that there seemed to be little interest in or enthusiasm for foreign languages. Except for history, foreign language attracted the lowest percentage of fresh- men as a possible major course of study. Most students felt that sociology, history, and economics had contributed more to their awareness of world problems than had foreign language study. Although the original survey results showed clearly that students who are proficient in foreign languages are not necessarily informed about world affairs, there is a hint that those having a facility for learning foreign languages have a greater interest in learning about international problems than those who do not. It may be the interest is there but the opportunity is not. It is this interest that might provide the key to effective foreign language instruction and global education. Overall, it would appear that'foreign language programs and proficiency in languages do not necessarily offer effective experi- ence with other cultures as has been widely assumed. For this reason there is need to examine the role of foreign language in the curricu- lum and the training of foreign language teachers. At first glance, the role of foreign languages for global perspective seems clear and powerful. A knowledge of foreign 163 languages is felt to assist the learner in knowing about world affairs; foreign language is felt to have a positive effect in developing knowledge about other countries. Interrelationships among peoples obviously depend on communication in a shared language. Although it is generally agreed as to need of foreign language instruction and some of its expected outcome, when one stops to analyze the role of languages in the curriculum, the training and inservicing of foreign language teachers toward global education presents certain complica- tions at this point. Consider the number of languages on earth. Which are to be taught, especially at the K-12 level? Are our teaching methods developing second-language competence? Can our content and methods result in the global perspectives we need? Foreign language educators might research students' feelings of irrelevancy of foreign language study, respect for the value of its study, as well as teaching methods. The fact that college entrance and graduation requirements in foreign language have been abolished by most institutions does not strengthen the position of such study in the curriculum. In light of the nation's needs and attitudes, however, new perspectives on the teaching of foreign lan- guages appear imperative. Considerations that must be made relative to foreign language instruction are that, first, the "old fashionable" languages will not meet current necessities. We must evaluate the inclusion of such languages as Russian, Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, and African. One can readily recognize the problems with these languages in a school 164 curriculum. The question of what languages, at what grade level, and at what level of competence are all necessary to be answered before one can even speak of the global perspective and interdisciplinary dimen- sions of this area of an educational program. Further, it becomes apparent that if foreign language teach- ing should be interdisciplinary,'ttmust add anthropology, religion, economics, sociology, and specific issues such as food, population, and energy to its basic emphasis on linguistic competence, augmented by literature and what is loosely referred to as culture. Expertise in all areas cannot be expected, but a sufficient acquaintance can be so that new insights in regular teaching become present. This requires inservice education and cooperation with other disciplines. Development of public awareness is also essential in this entire process of establishing foreign languages' role for global perspective. Course content, dealing specifically with less- traditional foreign languages, and centers established as we do for vocational education for maximum outreach along with interdisciplinary approach, review of methods and instruction, analysis of materials, teaching methodology, and improvement in teacher competence are all going to have to be part of the foreign langauge renewal if it is to be involved in global education effectively. 3. In this study, as in the original study with college students, education majors scored lowest compared to mathematics, science, social science, and foreign language majors. Education majors are generally elementary-school teachers. These teachers tend to pursue academic programs that are less subject—matter or content-area 165 oriented and more child oriented. The possibility also exists, however, that elementary education is attracting lesss academically capable people. If so, selection of candidates becomes a major concern. The implications for elementary teachers' training and inser- vicing seem to point to a need for extensive preparation in all aspects of global education, especially how it related to the various developmental stages of a child. Research has found that young chil- dren are much more aware of global problems than we have previously thought. Kenworthy (1967) pointed out that since experiences of today's children have been so much enhanced through the mass media and travel (and certainly with the international child found in American overseas schools), as well as enlarged, so also the dimen- sions of the curriculum need to have a broader scope. Other studies listed by Morris (Becker, 1979, p. 117) have supported the readiness of children in early grades to have a more global curriculum rather than a redundant and heavily provincial program of learning. Teachers' training for elementary-level instruction must draw heavily on a curriculum of affect as well as a curriculum of cognition. Efforts to divorce either would seem to be an error. Teachers must be knowledgeable about children's attitudes toward the world, their awareness of global problems, what experiences to provide elementary children, and a sensitivity to types of materials that will support rather than subvert development of global per- spectives. 166 4. In developing curriculum for global education, the social studies programs would appear to be the most likely starting point. Although there was no statistical significance between scores of social science majors and foreign language majors when compared to mathematics and science majors and again when social science majors were compared to foreign language majors, social science majors scored very well on the test. History majors had the highest per- centage (74.6 percent) correct of all majors. No comparisons were made with history majors because of the small sample number. Although history majors were the highest scorers on the test, it is not surprising since many of the questions required some knowl- edge of history. History majors were the highest scorers also among the college students in the original study. These findings suggest the continued need for a strong history program in the curriculum. It must be a program that would be organized to give students a greater awareness, knowledge, and understanding of global issues. Supporting a strong history program would be programs of other social sciences such as economics and sociology. College students felt that these programs had contributed more to their awareness of world problems than had foreign language study. Unfortunately, many times, as the original study revealed, history is the least-popular major course of study (Burrows, 1981, p. 39). 5. Findings of the study concerning travel, living and working overseas would seem to lend support to the importance of pro- viding teachers such opportunities to increase their global under- standing. The assumption that travel, study, or working abroad 167 assists in developing a global perspective in an individual appears accurate. A correlation did exist, although it was slight, between teachers' scores on the global knowledge test and both the numbers of countries and the amount of time spent in countries overseas. To the open-ended question about what factor in their own lives con- tributed to the development of global understanding in themselves, travel and living in another country and experiencing another culture were listed most frequently (51 percent). Some teachers indirectly reinforced the effect of travel mentioned by others as the single most important factor influencing their global perspective when they mentioned the teaching of children and working with parents from different countries as other factors. Two teachers listed having friends from other countries as contributing factors in their lives for the development of global understanding. Programs, therefore, that encourage study abroad as well as leaves of absence assuring job security upon return for the person, and sabbaticals should be devised to assist in developing global perspective. The research did not indicate any specific length of time, number of countries, or circumstances involved in the achievement of greater global knowledge. Also, nothing was included in the study relating to affect, defined in the college study as being largely attitudinal measures that are predominantly, but not exclusively, political in nature (Burrows et al., 1981, p. 11). Perhaps much more important than providing opportunities for travel, the nature of the overseas experience relative to global education must be thought through. The areas of the world to be 168 experienced should be more than Europe or Mexico. Few opportunities exist or are taken in such areas as Africa, the Middle East, and South America. The structure and the quality of any program involv- ing travel or living abroad must be considered at length, for too often experiences overseas result in superficial conclusions about peoples and their cultures. A teacher going abroad seeking experi- ences with other peoples might benefit more from such experiences if orientation programs, language provisions, and a structure for study and reflection were an integral part of the stay. Perhaps too much is left to happenstance and is lost or misconstrued in the oppor- tunity. 6. When examining the rank order of global issues, it was surprising to find the issues of food, environmental alteration, energy, and religion scored lowest on. With the exception of religion, food supplies and starvation the world over, energy demands, and the environment have been issues widely reported on in the media and studied at various levels. Attention must be given to such global issues in any training programs for teachers. The one issue, religion, needs special comment. Not only did the teachers score poorly on this issue, but college students did likewise in the original study. Further study is required to determine the reasons for this lack of performance of respondents on this issue. Conjecture might tell us that the interpretation of the United States Constitution tenet of separation of church and state is being somewhat misconstrued when consideration is given to it and its curricular dimensions in our schools. The study of religion and 169 philosophy must become a more important segment of both training for and instruction by teachers. Religion and philosophy exemplify the ideals, goals, and sometimes the parameters of a cultural group. The intention is not to delve into complex theology, but to bring about an awareness of the basic aspirations and traditions of the culture of a people. It certainly remains doubtful, therefore, if one can have a global perspective without having a knowledge of religions as they relate to global issues. The lack of understanding on the part of some people of the Middle East conflict, the Irish rebellion, and the South African problem may be related to limited knowledge of the role of religion within cultures. Recommendations for Future Study Little research has been conducted about global understanding and global-education programs, although more is being planned. Some recommendations for future research are: l. A study, replicating the original survey conducted among college students, should be conducted using a larger population of teachers in American-sponsored overseas schools and other types of international schools to determine what significant factors con- tribute to global knowledge among these teachers. Not only should English-speaking international schools be the target of such studies, but the overseas schools of the French, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs. The study should include the portions of the original study dealing with the affect and language background of teachers. A determination of teacher attitudes and sensitivities about global 170 issues should prove beneficial for preservice and inservice programs of teachers as well as an asset to program development in the United States. 2. This study should be replicated with entire faculties of schools, such as was done in this study. Various types of settings and geographical locations in the United States would also seem appropriate. If this is not feasible, an appropriate sample from the various disciplines such as mathematics, history, art, music, and so forth, should be surveyed. 3. Developmental studies need to be conducted to determine the changes in global understanding, both cognitive and affective, of teachers over a period of time and after various types of treatments or programs are used in preservice and inservice programs. 4. An approach that uses personal interviews in conjunction with the regular survey instrument should be used in future studies to obtain additional insights and hypotheses for testing. The approach should include the creation of other criteria for analyzing and categorizing global understanding. 5. Research needs to be conducted with different curriculum programs to determine the optimum school experiences for children at various developmental stages for achieving global understanding. 6. Studies need to be conducted relative to the curriculum and methodology of foreign languages for not only developing basic linguistic and reasoning skills but also in developing effective global understanding. 171 7. Further research should be conducted to determine the factors why mathematics and science teachers scored highest on the global-knowledge test despite the fact that the content of the knowledge test has little to do with their academic program. 8. Little research has been done on young children's inter- national understanding and their readiness for global-education concepts at their level and the success such a program might have. Research to date suggests that young children appear to be more aware of global problems than we may have thought. However, conclusions about children's international learning have been drawn from current research in this area that has concentrated on children's learning about domestic politics for the most part. Many of the current domes- tic studies could well be replicated in overseas schools that have student bodies of 15 to 20 nationalities and that are in multiple foreign-language situations as well as in rich, cultural settings. 9. Research leading to the development of measures for a classroom teacher to determine the existing attitudes of children toward global-education issues and research to determine the factors important to maintain, modify, or change their attitudes should be conducted. The assumptions that children make about their world are not always known or understood by adults. Since attitude plays such an important role in global understanding, more research is required to assist the classroom teacher to direct, verify, and modify atti- tudes. 10. There is need to trace the historical development of international education over the past decades. Global education 172 would appear to represent a logical or evolutionary step in the development of international education. A clear understanding of the various stages and component parts of international education should assist in comprehending to a greater degree global-education curriculum needs. 11. Research should be included for the determination of effective ways in which travel, working overseas, and study abroad can be used for staff development and for use of such persons in curriculum-development programs. Summary Viewing the earth as a single unit or this planet as a global society is, of course, not a new or unique idea. It has been around for awhile. But the widespread acceptance of the need for a ”new" approach to education based on such a notion is a recent phenomenon. The recognition of the growing interrelatedness and interdependence of all on this planet demands a more sophisticated world citizenry, more knowledgeable of international, political, economic, and cul- tural phenomena. Schools may well provide the single most important opportunity for acquiring basic knowledge and attitudes about inter- national events and processes. If so, then schools and their staffs have an exciting challenge ahead. Although the findings of this study are limited to its popu— lation and methodology, they appear to parallel closely the original study done with college students. It appears that teachers do not have a grasp of world issues and are not prepared to teach about them 173 for a global perspective. Misconceptions about population, energy, religion, and nutrition are common among teachers. It appears that students taught in our schools are not being provided the knowledge needed for not only today's world but tomorrow's living as well. Teachers teach what they know, but their knowledge and methods for teaching global issues for global perspective remain in doubt. Teacher preparation, curriculum development, and inservice training of teachers for global education and perspective is in much need of change. Most of what we have been doing must be examined. The role of foreign language requires change; preparation of elemen- tary staff and curricula for young children needs examination; and interdisciplinary teaching appears necessary with all the changes it requires. The key issue is the need for teachers to change their role and to consider varied aspects of global studies as well as interaction with colleagues from different disciplines. To achieve the goal of global perspective, much change in the entire system is required. However, as Hutchins (n.d.) said, "The doctrine of every man for himself or every nation for itself loses its charm in an interdependent world. This doctrine has to give way before the idea of a world community. We have to understand and rely on our common humanity if we are to survive in any condition worthy to be called human." If we can prepare students of today to achieve stewardship for planetary resources, wise decisions and judgments can be made to assure humankind a future in time and place. Human kind will realize that as a species they can be masters of their 174 destiny and that they must work together in formulating and shaping that destiny. The challenge is before educators, and the time to proceed on a global course is now. APPENDICES 175 APPENDIX A STATISTICS CONCERNING AMERICAN-SPONSORED OVERSEAS SCHOOLS, 1980-1981 176 177 pow.mw umo.mm omm.~m unm.m umo.op omo.n em mgow zgucaou xgucaoo . . m oo o m oo o Pouch ugmzh umo: .m.: a .mam .m.: wwwuwcmmu wmg< psych vgwgh umo: m 2 pcmuxm F mu m pcmsppoccm acouaum m a z wwmum —mcowmmmwoga Fpsu Lunsaz .Pmo~-owm_ .wpoogum mmwmcm>o cacomconm-=mo_cwe< acmccwucou muwum_umum--.~< mpno» APPENDIX B FACT SHEET: AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, VIENNA, AUSTRIA, 1980-81 178 179 OVERSEAS SCHOOLS ADVISORY COUNCIL FACT SHEET AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL Salmannsdorferstrasse 47 1190 Vienna, Austria Tel. 44-27-63 1980-81 The American International School, Vienna, is an independent co- educational day school which offers an educational program from kin- dergarten through grade 12 for students of all nationalities. The School was founded in 1959. The school year comprises two semesters extending from August 28 through January 16 and from January 17 through June 12. Organization: The School is governed by an ll-member Executive Board, elected annually by the Parents' Association which sponsors the School. Membership in the Association is automatically conferred on the parents or guardians of children enrolled in the School. The School is incor- porated under Austrian law and has been designated as tax-exempt under Section 501 (c) (3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Curriculum: The curriculum is that of U.S. general academic, college- preparatory public schools. The International Baccalaureate Diploma is also offered in a demanding two-year study plan. Advanced Place- ment is also offered. The School's testing program includes College Entrance Examination Board tests and standardized achievement tests. Instruction is in English. German is required, and French and Latin are taught as foreign languages. The School is accredited by the Middle States Association and the Austrian Ministry of Education. Faculty: There were 56 full-time and 6 part-time faculty members in the 1980-81 school year, including 45 U.S. citizens, l4 host-country nationals, and 3 persons of other nationalities. Enrollment: Enrollment at the opening of the 1980-81 school year was 681, including 311 U.S. citizens, 109 host-country nationals, and 261 of other nationalities. Of the U.S. enrollment, 102 were dependents of U.S. Government direct-hire or contract employees, 49 of U.S. business of foundation employees, and 160 of other private U.S. citizens. Facilities: A single building houses the three school divisions and has 40 classrooms, 2 libraries, 3 laboratories, a gymnasium, a cafe- teria, and a theater. The total campus has 15 acres. A soccer field, an elementary playground, and a small track are among the outdoor facilities. 180 Finances: In the 1980-81 school year, about 95 percent of the School's income was derived from regular day school tuition and fees. Annual tuition rates were as follows: all-day Kdg.: $2,400; Primary (1-5): $3,840 and Secondary (6-12): $4,272. These fees are payable in Austrian Schillings (AS 13 = U.S. $1). There is an application fee of $230 payable on first enrollment in the School. (All above fees are quoted in U.S. dollars.) This Fact Sheet is intended to provide general information. Prospec- tive users of the school may wish to contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the—minute information regarding curriculum, special programs, and the like. Statistics as of September 1980 APPENDIX B FACT SHEET: "AMERICAN-SPONSORED" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS OVERSEAS: 1980-81 181 182 OVERSEAS SCHOOLS ADVISORY COUNCIL FACT SHEET: "AMERICAN-SPONSORED" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS OVERSEAS: 1980-81 The Worldwide Context: The school—age children among overseas Americans--estimated to number nearly a quarter million--attend a wide variety of schools. Most of the children of military personnel attend schools established and operated by the various branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, and a number of government, and private-sector civilian children also attend these schools on a space-available, tuition- paying basis. However, most of the civilian children abroad attend non-Government, coeducational, private schools of various kinds. These schools include those founded by U.S. companies, church organizations, and individual proprietors, although the largest number of private schools are non-profit, non-denominational, independent schools estab- lished on a cooperative basis by American citizens residing in a for- eign community. Most of the schools in this last group have received assistance and support from the U.S. Government under a program admin- istered by the Office of Overseas Schools of the U.S. Department of State. The schools which have received such assistance constitute the "American-sponsored" schools described in this fact sheet. Statistics on the "American-Sponsored" Schools assisted by the Depart- ment of State at a Glance: During the school year 1980-1981, the Office of Overseas Schools is assisting 154 schools in 94 countries. The purposes of the assistance program are to help the schools provide adequate education for U.S. Government dependents and to demonstrate to foreign nationals the philosophy and method of American education. The schools are open to nationals of all countries, and their teaching staffs are nulti-national. Enrollment in the schools at the beginning of the 1980—81 school year totalled 83,861 of whom 26,084 were U.S. citizens, and 57,777 were children from the host country and from some 90 other countries. Of the U.S. enrollment, 7,020 were dependents of employees carrying out U.S. Government programs, 10,687 were depend- ents of employees of U.S. business firms and foundations, and 8,377 were dependents of other private citizens. Of the total of 7,282 teachers and administrators employed in the schools, 3,861 were U.S. citizens and 3,421 were foreign nationls from some 70 countries. A table is attached which summarizes the salient statistics of the American-Sponsored Overseas Schools. Basic Characteristics: No statement about the American-sponsored over- seas schools would apply without exception or qualification to each school. Variety is one of their basic characteristics. They range from tiny schools such as that in Leningrad, U.S.S.R. with 3 students, to the American School of Quito, Ecuedor, with 2,821 students. Very vew schools have boarding facilities. 183 Although emphasis varies, all the schools share the purpose of provid- ing educational opportunities for American and other children which are generally comparable to educational programs in the U.S. and of demonstrating American educational philosophy and practice abroad to help further international understanding. The schools are not operated or controlled by the U.S. Government. Ownership andpolicy control are typically in the hands of associations of parents of the children enrolled who elect a school board to super- vise the superintendent or headmaster whom the board chooses to admin- ister the school. In some schools the organization is highly formal- ized, comprising corporate status in the U.S. or in the host country, while other schools are loosely defined cooperative entities. Depend- ing upon the predominant character of the American community, some schools are closely associated with the U.S. Embassy and AID Missions; in others the local or international communities share direct concern for the school with the American community. All schools are subject in varying degrees and with varying effects to host-country laws and regulations pertaining to educational practices, importation of educa- tional materials, personnel practices and the like. Combined annual operating budgets of the 154 schools total approximately $181,000,000. Tuition payments are the principal source of financing for the schools. Tuition charges are generally lower than for compar- able schools in the U.S., and in virtually all the schools tuition income is insufficient to provide for programs comparable to good U.S. schools. Many schools derive additional support from gifts and con- tributions from U.S. and local business firms, foundations, missions groups, individuals and local government, and all have received some grants from the limited funds available under the program of the Office of Overseas Schools (a total of approximately $5,000,000 annually). The instructionalgprograms all provide a core curriculum which will pre- pare students to enter schools, colleges and universities in the U.S. The langauge of instruction is English, supplemented in certain schools with the local language. The content of the programs may be more or less typically "American," depending upon the proportion of U.S. stu- dents, and the quality, of course, varies with each school. Certain schools, especially in Latin America, must also fulfill host-country curriculum requirements. The curricula tend to be largely academic, with relatively little attention given to vocational or commercial education, largely because of the high costs involved in the latter programs. An outstanding characteristic of most American-sponsored schools is the use they have made of their location abroad to provide quality programs of foreign language instruction, study of local cul- ture, and social studies. The quality and range of instructional mate- rials is good in the larger schools and improving in others. In terms of faculties, the administrators and most teachers are Americans or American-trained, with a large proportion of American staff hired locally from among dependent wives. Most staff members 184 are college graduates, and the majority hold teaching certificates. Lack of funds and, in many instances, difficult living conditions and isolation from the U.S. professional community make recruitment and retention of qualified personnel from the U.S. difficult. The local and third-country teachers are usually well qualified, although they frequently lack training and experience in U.S. educational methods. Hiring of staff is the responsibility of the individual schools. Plant and equipment facilities vary widely in adequacy; because of the difficulty in securing long-term financing, many schools are housed in inadequate buildings. Fur further information: Dr. Paul T. Luebke Office of Overseas Schools Room 234, SA-6 Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 APPENDIX D CRITERIA GOVERNING ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOLS 185 186 CRITERIA GOVERNING ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOLS The criteria established for assistance to American-sponsored overseas schools are listed in Section 600 of the Foreign Affairs Manual, Volume II (2 FAM 600). Those established under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, are as follows: 1. The school must meet a demonstrated need for American- type educational facilities in the community or region, and, in the case of primary and seconcary schools, shall be open to the enroll- ment of qualified American students. 2. The school must have been founded by or must be operated or sponsored by citizens or non-profit institutions of the United States, with or without the participation of nationals of other countries. 3. The school must operate without objection from the national government of the host country and must be nonpolitical in character. 4. Authority over policy, finances and administration must be vested in a competent board of responsible persons, usually including representation of the appropriate U.S. Embassy or Consultate, but at a minimum to include representation by U.S. citizens. This will vary from school to school depending on local circumstances and on U.S. policy. 5. The director or principal of the school, wherever prac- ticable, should be a U.S. citizen. 6. There should be a sufficient number of teachers from the United States or teachers trained in American educational methods to assure adequate contact for the students with these methods and the corresponding ideals. 7. The curriculum and instruction of the school should be of good quality and reflect accepted U.S. theory and practice in educa- tion to the greatest extent practicable. 8. Primary and secondary curricula should provide instruc- tion in the language, literature, geography, and history of the United States, and, where practicable, of the country where the school is located. Wherever the needs of American students require it, English shall be used as a language of instruction. 9. The operation of the school should contribute to mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the peoples of the host country or other countries through such means as enrollment 187 of foreign nationals, the provision of binational extracurricular, and community programs, and English-language classes for special students. 10. The financial plan of the school should provide for con— tinuing recourse to all feasible means of achieving and maintaining its financial independence through an adequate fee structure, endow- ment, and other forms of private support. 11. Financial aid will not be given to church-connected schools. Nor will it be given to government, company, or private profit-earning schools unless provisions of such assistance would assure educational facilities for American dependents which would not otherwise be available in the area. Even though the basic purposes underlying assistance to American-sponsored overseas schools under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act have to do with the demonstration of American educational philosophy and practice and therefore do not relate directly to the education of dependent children of American personnel, it is self-evident that American children should constitute a size- able portion of a school's enrollment if it is indeed to be an "Ameri- can" school demonstrating American educational ideas and ideals. The final criterion above makes incidental reference to the need for educational facilities overseas for dependents of Americans stationed abroad, but it is the funds provided under the Foreign Ser- vice Act and the Foreign Assistance Act which have been authorized and appropriated for the specific purpose of providing educational oppor- tunities for dependents of government personnel. To be eligible for assistance under the provisions of these legislative authorities under criteria established both by AID and the Department of State (and also listed in "2 FAM 600"), a school must meet the following conditions. 1. There are sufficient numbers of dependent children at post to represent an established need for dependent education. 2. There is evidence of local support on the part of the United States, local, and other foreign communities at post. 3. There is evidence that there are available sufficient numbers of qualified and interested persons, including American citi- zens, to provide proper policy, financial, and administrative guidance to the schools. 4. English is the primary language of instruction. 5. To the extent practical under existing local conditions, the school follows a fundamentally American curriculum and American teaching methods and uses American textbooks and reference materials. 188 6. Academic standards, including teacher qualifications, are comparable to those in American schools. 7. There is a policy of admitting all dependents of U.S. government employees who otherwise meet the school's admission standards. 8. There is evidence that the school will ultimately be able to cover ordinary recurring operating expenses from tuition or other school income other than U.S. Government grants. 9. There is evidence that there is no other feasible means currently available to the school for adequately financing expendi- tures necessary to provide for the education of government dependents. Eligibility of an overseas school for assistance under either or both sets of criteria is determined in the first instance by the local American Embassy or Consultate, which thereupon passes on to the Department of State its recommendation that the school be included in the overseas schools assistance program. If the Depart- ment of State concurs, the school's requests for assistance in carry- ing out specific goal—oriented activities are then considered for funding, subject to the justification of requests in the light of assistance policies and to the availability of funds. Source: Luebke, 1976. PP. 40-41. BIBLIOGRAPHY 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alger, Chadwick F. "Some Problems in Improving International Educa- tion." Social Education 32 (November 1968): 660. A World of Cities: Or Good Foreigp Policies Begin at Home. Columbus: Transnational Intellectual Cooperation Program, Mershan Center, Ohio State University, 1976. American Association of School Administrators. Developipg School-to- School Projects. Washington: The Association, 1970. The Mission Called A/OS: A Firsthand Look at American- Sponsored Schools in Other Lands. Washington, D.C.: The Asso- ciation, 1966. Anderson, Lee F. "Education and Social Science in the Context of an Emerging Global Society." In International Dimensions in the Social Studies. Edited by James M. Becker and Howard D. Mehlinger. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1968. Schooling and Citizenship in a Global Age: An Exploration of the Meaning_and Significance of Global Education. Bloomington, Ind.: Mid-American Program for Global Perspectives in Education, 1979. . "An Examination of the Structure and Objectives of Inter- national Education." Social Education 33 (November 1968): 639-47. . "Exploring the Emergent Meaning of Global Education." First draft of a paper in preparation for Mid-American Program in Global Perspectives in Education, Indiana University, n.d. (Mimeographed.) , and Rivlin, G. "Citizenship Education in a Global Age." Educational Leadership (October 1980): 64-65. Arends, R.; Hersh, R.; and Turner, Jack. "Inservice Education and the Six O'Clock News." Theory Into Practice 27 (1978): 196-205. Becker, James. An Examination of Objectives, Needs and Priorities in International Education in U.S. Secondary_and Elementary Schools. A report to the United States Office of Education on Project 6-2908. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 031 612, 1969. 190 191 "Global/International Education Today: An Overview." Paper delivered at the Michigan Department of Education's Institute for Staff Development, July-October 1979. "Rationale for Global Education." In Education for Global Consciousness: Social Studies for Responsible Citizenship, Edited by Grace Katchaturoff and Guy Blackburn. Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1978. , ed. Schooling for a Global Age. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. . "Teaching International Relations." Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 066 364, 1972. Unpublished transcript of address to the Texas Education Agency, August 1969. . "World Affairs Education: A New Role." Educational Leadership 25 (March 1968): 503. , and Mehlihger, Howard 0. "Conceptual Lag and the Study of International Affairs." International Dimensions in the Social Studies. Washington, D.C.: National Education Asso- ciation, 1968. - Berman, Paul, and McLaughlin, M. W. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change. Vol. IV: The Findings in Review. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1975. Betz, Loren: Jensen, 0.; and Zigarmi, P. "If You Are Listening to Teachers, Here Is How You Will Organize Inservice." NASSP Bulletin 63 (April 1978): 9-14. Boulding, Kenneth E. et al. The Social System of the Planet Earth. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980. Brickell, Henry. "State Organization for Educational Change: A Case Study and a Proposal.” In Innovation in Education. Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Burch, B., and Danby, E. ”Self-Perception: An Essential in Staff Development." NASSP Bulletin 63 (April 1978): 14-19. Burrows, Thomas et a1. College Students' Knowledge and Beliefs: A Survey of Global Understanding. Final Report of the Global Understanding Project. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Change Magazine Press, 1981. 192 Burrows, T.; Klein, 8.; and Clark, J. What College Students Know and Believe About Their World. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Change Magazine Press, 1981. Case, Jeffrey J. "A Construction of Illustrative Performance Based Objectives in Global Education, K-12." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Cervantes, R. A. "Issues and Relationship of Bilingual Education to Global, Foreign Language, and Multicultural Education." Paper delivered at the Michigan Department of Education's Institute for Staff Development, July-October 1979. Cleveland, Harlan. The Third Try at World Order. New York: The Aspen Institute for Humanities Studies, 1976. Collins, T. H. "Global Education and the States: Some Observations, Some Programs, and Some Suggestions." Report to the Council of Chief State School Officers. New York: AFS International Scholarships, 1977. Cook, Ann, and Mack, Herb. The World and the Thing: Ways of Seeing the Teacher. Grand Forks: University of North Dakota Press, 1975. Cruichshank, D.: Lorish, C.; and Thompson, Linda. "What We Think We Know About Inservice Education." Journal of Teacher Education 30 (January-February 1979): 27-31. Czajkowski, T. J., and Patterson, J. L. "To Foster Kinship Among Curriculum Workers." Educational Leadership 34 (1977): 536-39. Dalin, P. Limits to Educational Change. New York: St. Martins Press, 1978. Elhird, 0. "Child Development in Educational Settings." Educational Psychologist 12 (1976): 49-58. Ellis, Bernard J. "A Study of In-Service Education Programs in the New Hampshire Public Schools." Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1975. Engelman, Finis E., and Rushton, Edward W. American-Sponsored Overseas Schools: A Second Look. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Scshool Administrators, n.d. Feinberg, Marvin W. "An Analysis of Guidelines for Inservice Teacher Education Practices in Selected Schools--Grades 5-9." Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1974. 193 Flavell, John. The Development Psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van Nostrand, 1963. ; Botkin, Patricia; and Fry, C. L. The Development of Role Taking and Communication Skills in Children. New York: Wiley, 1968. Fullan, Michael, and Pomfret, Alan. "Research on Curriculum and Instruction Implementation." Review of Educational Research (Winter 1977): 335-97. Gallegos, A. "The Critical Issues for Inservice Education." Journal of Teacher Education 33 (January-February 1979): 23. Godda, R.; Crosby, J.; and Mossey, S. "Inservice: The Professional Development of Educators." Journal of Teacher Education 28 (March-April 1977): 24-30. Goodlad, John. "School Can Make a Difference." Educational Leadership 33 (November 1975): 110-11. , and Klein, M. F. Behind the Classroom Door. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1970. Goodman, Mary Ellen. Race Awareness in Young Children. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1952. Gross, Neil; Geacquinta, J.; and Berstein, M. Implementing Organiza- tional Innovations: A Sociological Analysis of Planned Educa- tional Change. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Hansen, L. "Staff Development for Educational Change in Local School Districts: Implications for Global, Multi-cultural, Bilingual and Foreign Language Education." Paper presented at the Institute for Staff Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, April 1980. Hanvey, R. G. An Attainable Global Perspective. New York: Center for Global Perspectives, 1979. Harmer, Earl W. "Veteran Teachers and Curriculum Development." Phi Delta Kappan (June 1977): 751-52. Harper, Robert A. "A Basic Framework for Social Science: Two Funda- mental Human-Earth Equations and Their Juxtaposition." Social Education 32 (November 1968): 655-57. Hersh, R. H., and Yarger, S. J. "Prerequisites for Change." Journal of Teacher Education 23 (1972): 141-44. 194 Hess, Robert D., and Torney, Judith. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967. Hickman, W., and Price, R. "Global Awareness and Major Concepts." The Social Studies (September/October 1980): 208-11. Houts, Paul. "The Changing Role of the Elementary School Principal: Report of a Conference." The National Elementary Principal (November/December 1975): 64-68. Hunt, David. "Inservice Training as Persons-in-Relation." Theory Into Practice 27 (1978): 239-44. Joyce, Bruce R. New Strategies for Social Education. Chicago: SRA, 1972. , and Nicholson, Alexander. "Imperatives for Global Educa- tion." In Schooling for a Global Age, Edited by James Becker. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. Katz, L. G. "Developmental Stages of Pre-school Teachers." Elemen- tary School Journal (October 1972): 50-54. Keliher, Evan C. "A Survey of Inservice Education Practices in Southeastern Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1972. Keller, Edward, and Rock, Ronald. "Foreign Languages and Culture in the Media: Report to the Task Force on Public Awareness." In Langyage Study for the 1980's: Repprt of the MLA-ACLS Language Task Forces. Edited by Michael I. Brod. New York: Modern Language Association, 1980. Kelley, Earl C. "The Fully Functioning Self." Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1962. Kenworthy, Leonard. The International Dimension of Education. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1970. . "The International Dimension of Elementary Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 49 (December 1967): 204-205. . Introducing Children to the World. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956. King, David. International Education for Spaceship Earth. Foundation Policy Association, New Dimensions No. 4. New York: Thomas Crowell, 1970. 195 Kinghorn, Jon Rye, et a1. School Imprpyement Through Global Education: A Guide to the Four Essential Themes. A Project of the Com- mission on Schools, North Central Association and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 1978. Klein, Frances M., and Tye, Kenneth A. "Curriculum Planning for World- Centered Schools." In Schooling for a Global Age. Edited by James Becker. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. Knowles, Malcolm S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy vs. Pedagogy. New York: New York Association Press, 1970. Lambert, Wallace, and Kleinberg. Children's Views of Foreign People. New York: Appleton-Century, Crofts, 1967. Lawrence, Gordon. Patterns of Effective Inservice Education. Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Education, 1974. , and Branch, Jon. ”Peer Support System as the Heart of Inservice Education." Theory Into Practice 27 (1978): 245-47. Lawrence, G., et a1. Patterns of Effective Inservice Education. Florida Department of Education, 1974. Available from PAEC, P.O. Drawer 190, Chipley Fla. 32428. Leach, Robert J. International Schools and Their Role in the Field of International Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1969. Leetsma, R. "Global Education." American Education (June 1978): 6-13. Long, Harold M., and Kind, Robert. Improving.the Teachin of World Affairs: The Glen Falls Story, Bulletin Number 3 . Washing- ton, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1964. Luebke, Paul. American Elementary and Secondary Community_Schools Abroad. Arlington, Va.: American Association OfFSEhool Administrators, 1976. Mann, Dale. "The Politics of Inservice." Theory Into Practice 27 (1978): 212-16. Marker, G. ”Global Education: An Urgent Claim on the Social Studies Curriculum." Social Education 41 (January 1977): 12-19. McLaughlin, Melbrey, and Berman, Paul. "Retooling Staff Development in a Period of Retrenchment." Educational Leadership (December 1977): 191-94. l. 196 McLuhan, and Fiore, Quentin. The Medium Is the Message. New York: Bantam Books, 1967. Metcalf, Lawrence E. "Developing and Applying Humane Values." In Issues in Secondary Education. Edited by William Van Til. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1976. Michigan State Department of Education. Gujgelines for Global Education. Lansing: Department of Education, 1978. Miller, W. "What's Wrong With In-service Education? It's Topless!" Educational Leadership 35 (1977): 31-34. Minnesota State Department of Education. "Progress Report, Task Force on Contemporary World Studies." St. Paul: Department of Education, 1979. Morris, Donald. "Elementary School Programs." In Schooling for a Global Age. Edited by James Becker. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1979. , and King, Edith W. "Bringing Spaceship Earth Into Elemen- tary School Classrooms." Social Education 32 (November 1968): 676-79. Moyer, Joan E. Bases for World Understandingyand Cooperations, Suggestions for Teaching the Young Child. Background Paper III. ASCD World Conference on Education. Asilomar, Calif.: ASCD,. NEA, 1970. Muller, Robert. The Need for Global Education. Philadelphia, Pa.: Global Interdependence Center, 1976. National Association of Independent Schools. "The Report of the Com- mittee for International and World Education." Boston, Mass.: National Association of Independent Schools, n.d. Olson, Wayne. "The Development of Global Education in Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981. Orr, P.; Anderson, Carrel, Jr.; and Forehand, L. A Study of Binational Bi-Lingual and U.S.-Type Education in San Jose, Costa Rica Area. University, Alabama: The University of Alabama, 1971. Pellkowski, Anne. "Internationalism in Children's Literature." In Children and Books. 4th ed. Edited by Mary Hill Arbuthnot and Zena Sutherland. Glenview, 111.: Scott Foresman, 1972. 197 Perrone, Vito. "Supporting Teacher Growth." Childhood Education (April/May 1978): 298-302. Phillips, Jane K. "Introduction: Language Is the Link." In The. Langupge Connection: From the Classroom to the World." Edited by June Phillips. The ACTFL Foreign Language Educa- tion Series, Vol. 9. Skokie, Ill.: The National Textbook Co., 1977. Pike, Lewis: Burrows, 1.; Mahoney, Margaret; and Jungeblut, Ann. Other Nations--0ther Pepples: A Survey of Student Interests, Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions. HEW Publication No. 0E 78-19004. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979. . Pincus, John, And Williams, Richard. "Planned Change in Urban School Districts." Phi Delta Kappan 60 (June 1979): 729-31. President's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies. Strength Through Wisdom: A Critique of U.S. Cepability. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979. Preston, Ralph, ed. Teaching World Understanding. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955. Redfield, Robert. "The Study of Culture in General Education." Social Education 11 (October 1947): 262. Reischauer, Edwin. Toward the let Century: Education for a Changing World. New York: Vantage Books, 1974. Remy, Richard 0.; Nathan, James A.; Becker, James M.; and Torney, Judith V. International Learningpand International Education in a Global Age. Bulletin 47. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1975. Sarason, S. The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Shabercoff, Philip. "Environmental Decline Threatening Global Economy, Study Warns.“ International Herald Tribune, March 30, 1982, p. 6. Shaver, James; Davis, 0. L.; and Helburn, Suzanne. "An Interpretive Report on the Status of Precollege Social Studies Education Based on Three NSF-Funded Studies." Social Education 43 (February 1979): 150-53. 198 Smart, Reginald. "The Goals and Definitions of International Education: Agenda for Discussion." International Studies Quarterly 15 (December 1971): 442-64. Strasheim, Lorraine. ”Froeign Language Education: A Position Paper." Flint (Michigan) ESEA, Title IV-C Multicultural/Global Edu— cation Project. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1979. . "The Role of Foreign Languages in Global Education." Unpublished paper, Indiana University, 1978. Swift, Jonathan. "Global Education: What's in It for You.” English Journal (December 1980): 46-50. Task Force on Global Education of the U.S. Commissioner of Education. "Report With Recommendations." Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, October 1979. Taylor, Harold. "The International Principles." In Conference on World Education. Edited by Harold Taylor. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1967. The World as Teacher. New York: Doubleday and Co., 969. ”World Education for Teachers." Phi Delta Kappan 49 178. Thompson, Dorothy. ”What Is a World Citizen?" Ladies Home Journal, June 1951. Timms, Albert F. "An Analysis of Classroom Teachers' Translations of the Ideas Gained From In-Service Experiences Into Classroom Procedures." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1975. Tonkin, Humphrey, and Edwards, Jane. "A World of Interconnections." Phi Delta Kappan 62 (June 1981): 695-98. Torney, Judith. "Middle Childhood and International Education." Intercom. No. 71. New York: Center for War/Peace Studies, n.d. "Psychological and Institutional Obstacles to the Global Perspective in Education." In Schooling for a Global Age. Edited by James Becker. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1979. , and Morris, Donald. Global Dimensions in U.S. Education: The Elementary School. New York: Center for War/Peace Studies (now Center for Global Perspectives), 1972. 199 Trager, Helen, and Yarrow, Marion. They Learn What They Live. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952 Urich, R. "The Dynamics of Schools, Staff Development and Educational Change." Paper presented at the Institute for Staff Develop- ment, Michigan State University, East Lansing, September 1979. U Thant. Speech on Religious Beliefs, Toronto, 1966. Farewell Address to the United Nations Staff, December 1971, quoted by Robert Mueller. The Need for Global Education. Phila- delphia, Pa.: Global Interdependence Center, 1976. Van Til, William. "The Crucial Issues in Secondary Education Today." In Issues in Secondary Education. Edited by William Van Til. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1976. Vaugh, Ann L. "Utilizing Instructional Staff Preferences of Selected In-Service Processes as a Source of Directives for Inservice Education Programs." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1975. Vickers, Jeanne. Learningyto Live in a Global Society, New York: UNICEF, 1978. Ward, Barbara, and Dubos, Rene. Only One Earth: The Care and Main- tenance of a Small Planet. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1972. "We Are a Single Human Community." Working Paper for Project Survival. Glenn Falls, N.Y.: Glenn Falls City Schools, September 1970. Wilen, William, and Kindsvatter, Richard. "Implications of Research for Effective In-Service Education." The Clearing House 51 (1978): 392-96. Wilson, Howard E. "Education, Foreign Policy, and International Relations." Cultural Affairs and Foreign Relations. Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Witherell, Carol, and Erickson, V. Lois. "Teacher Education as Adult Development." Theory Into Practice 17 (1978): 229—37. Zenke, L. "Staff Development in Florida." Educational Leadership 34 (December 1977): 178-81. ”‘illllllgllllllllllllllllll“