Chapter 1 Introduction

Globalization is an axiomatic and hot topic in political, social, economic, and educational fields. The global education movement started in the 1960s and reached its golden age in the 1980s and 1990s (Gaudelli, 2003; Tye, 2009). In recent years, many researchers and practitioners have returned to global education in response to the test oriented No Child Left Behind Act, which emphasized subjects such as arts, mathematics, and science (Tye, 2009). Global education is an umbrella term that embodies global education initiatives, globalizing curricula, international activities, and global learning outcomes. Teachers develop their global-mindedness and intercultural competence in professional training and development programs and transmit their values to their students.

Global education is a social movement and, as such, calls for consciously infusing global perspectives into all curriculum areas (Tye, 1991). Raby (1999) depicted global education as “education that emphasizes similarities among world cultures and underscores the universality of experience derived from the emergence of new systems, structures, and modalities that combine economic, political, and cultural characteristics”(p. 4). Whereas global education is superior and general, international education is secondary and concrete. Raby and Valeau (2007) suggested that internationalization responds to global education. International education focuses on the comparative study between nations, but multicultural education emphasizes the issues of diversity within a country. However, global education strives to integrate the nations as one large family without borders. Kirkwood (2001) noted that global education “brings the world into the classroom, where teachers teach from a world-centric rather than an ethno-specific or nation-state perspective” (p. 11). Global education focuses on intercultural communication, cooperation, and interconnectedness of the world. Influential events, such as the fall of Berlin Wall and the September 11 attacks, make people aware of the values of cooperation. Revolutionary inventions, such as communication tools and communication media, make people aware of the ideals of interconnectedness. Stakeholders, like government and non-government agencies, universities and colleges, teacher educators and practitioners, advocate the development of global education. The National Governors’ Association (1989) stated that every student must have access to international education in school, and college and university graduates must become acquainted with non-native languages or cultures and be ready to participate in global dialogues and global markets. Merryfield (1994) pointed out that “global and international education should be a high priority of higher education and teacher education” (p. 7), and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) is committed to assuring that “a global perspective is brought to policy and programs associated with the preparation of education professionals” (Merryfield, 1994, p. 8). Through the efforts of global-minded teachers, the values of globalization are passed on to students.

Freeman (1989) described teaching as “a decision-making process based on four constituents: knowledge, skills, attitude, and awareness” (p.31). Knowledge includes mastery of the subject matter and understanding of the students’ personal characteristics related to the social, political, and economic levels within the teaching context. Skills address the presentation styles, assessment methods, and the adoption of collaborative activities. Knowledge and skills are in the traditional teacher-training fields, attitude and awareness belong to the development scopes. Attitude is an important component in a teacher’s decision-making process. According to Freeman (1989), attitude encompasses both external and internal variables that affect teachers:

Attitude is here defined as the stance one adopts toward oneself, the activity of teaching, and the learners one engages in the teaching/learning process. Attitude is interplay of externally oriented behavior, actions, and levels, on the one hand, and internal intrapersonal dynamics, feelings, and reactions, on the other hand. It becomes a sort of bridge that influences the effective functioning of an individual teacher in particular circumstances. As such, it can begin to account for the differential successes, strengths, and weakness of individual teachers. (p. 32)

A positive attitude poised toward global-mindedness is an anticipated outcome of the AACTE’s commitment to global perspective. It was developed by Hett’s (1993) attitude survey in which she defined it as global-mindedness. There are five dimensions in Hett’s Global-Mindedness Scale (GMS): (a) responsibility, which is a care for others all over the world and an obligation to take action to assist those in need; (b) cultural pluralism, which is a comprehension of different cultures and a willingness to appreciate the difference between cultures; (c) efficacy, which is a commitment to participate in global activities and a conviction that an individual’s effort can make the world better; (d) globalcentrism, which is a tradition of thinking and behaving globally rather than locally and a sense of full global consideration when making decisions; and (e) interconnectedness, which is an acceptance of globalization and an enthusiasm to participate in the global activities to bring the whole world together.

Although the term cross-cultural is often used synonymously with intercultural, Gudykunst and Kim (2007) clarified that the term cross-cultural “implies a comparison of some phenomena across cultures” (p. 18). In contrast, when discussing communication and interaction among different cultures, people often use the term intercultural. Hett’s (1993) definition of cultural pluralism is focused on cross-cultural understanding of the diverse cultural frameworks. Marginson and Sawir (2011) proposed that intercultural relations that involve the potential for mutual transformation are within the broad category of cross-cultural relations. According to Marginson and Sawir, “the elements of openness and reciprocity are key, distinguishing intercultural relations from all other cross-cultural relations” (p. 17). There is not an agreed upon terminology about intercultural competence. Different disciplines and approaches adopt different terms to describe this concept (Deardorff, 2011). Sercu (2005) identified intercultural competencies and characteristics as the following:

The willingness to engage with foreign culture, self-awareness and the ability to look upon oneself from the outside, the ability to see the world through one’s eyes, the ability to cope with uncertainty, the ability to act as a cultural mediator, the ability to evaluate others’ points of view, the ability to consciously use culture learning skills and to read the cultural context, and the understanding that individuals cannot be reduced to their collective identities. (p. 2)

Intercultural competence includes one’s knowledge, skills, attitudes, and awareness when interacting with people from diverse cultures. Intercultural communicative competence is the actual use of competence in the authentic context to communicate successfully across different cultures.

Fantini (2009) argued that a review of the assessment tools of intercultural competence reveals the dilemma. Some instruments address lingual aspects, but some address cultural aspects. Other instruments focus on international rather than intercultural and therefore exclude diversity within a nation. However, others are simply unclear and their intent is uncertain. One construct, cultural intelligence (CQ), appears to address intercultural competence directly. CQ refers to “a person’s capability for successful adaptation to new cultural settings, that is, for unfamiliar settings attributable to cultural context” (Earley & Ang, 2003, p. 9). CQ is defined in accordance with general intelligence, and it addresses a specific form of intelligence in authentic intercultural settings (Ang et al., 2007). Ang et al. (2007) depicted that CQ is“a multidimensional construct targeted at situations involving cross-cultural interactions arising from differences in race, ethnicity and nationality” (p. 336). The Cultural Intelligence Center (2005) introduced the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) as an instrument to measure one’s intercultural competence. Ang and Van Dyne (2008) compared the other 11 intercultural competency scales with the CQS and concluded that the CQS is a valid instrument that evaluates multiple aspects of intercultural competence. Van Dyne, Ang, and Koh (2008) suggested four dimensions of CQS: (a) metacognitive CQ, which is a person’s foreknowledge, onsite adjustment, and post-evaluation of an interaction with people from different cultures; (b) cognitive CQ, which is a person’s comprehension of different languages, values, and customs; (c) motivational CQ, which is a person’s inner drive to direct his or her appropriate behavior in a new cultural scenario; and (d) behavioral CQ, which is a person’s ability to communicate appropriately with people of diverse backgrounds.

Using the GMS and the CQS as survey instruments, this research assessed the levels of global-mindedness and intercultural competence of pre-service teachers, at the age of 18 years or older, having declared an education major or minor at a Midwest state university.