Home

Pam Bromley, Princeton University
Gloria Walker, University of California, Davis 

A Multi-Level Approach  
The participants in Internationalizing the Curriculum I took a multi-level approach to considering the challenges of incorporating global issues into higher education. Our discussion—facilitated by track moderator Pamela Zeiser (University of North Florida)—focused primarily on the challenges of internationalizing the curriculum on four levels: the student, the course, the program, and the institution. Within this general framework the group addressed many related pedagogical issues, such as active learning, the role of technology, the effective use of distance learning, and how each complements or challenges the learning environment and the goal of internationalizing the curriculum. 

At the student level the focus was on the study abroad experience and how it provides a deep and often intense way for students to engage with global issues while challenging their sense of self as well as their preconceptions and biases relating to other cultures. Hollis France and Kaylee Rogers (College of Charleston) examined the impact that an 11-week study abroad program in Cuba had on students and found that the study abroad experience forced them to consider, critique, and renegotiate their American identity. Elizabeth Sheppard (Sciences Po Paris) likewise found that students studying abroad in France reconsidered their assumptions and stereotypes about cultural and academic norms as well as alternative political systems. Study abroad exposes students to prolonged, active, experiential learning that encourages them to engage more deeply with international issues than they would at home. 

At the course level discussion focused on the use of experiential and active learning techniques to help students engage with and improve their understanding and appreciation of international issues and crises. Niall Michelsen’s (West Carolina University) approach to the introductory international politics course is to force students to move beyond passive learning by requiring them to participate in a group project in which they choose one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and then implement a plan to contribute to the achievement of the goal. Pam Bromley (Princeton University) incorporated a variety of active learning techniques into a required writing course focused on globalization, and demonstrated how the use of these techniques helped the course to appeal to students with different learning styles and levels of interest in international issues. David McNabb (Pacific Lutheran University) recounted how, while teaching Russian politics at the Stockholm School for Economics in Latvia, he was able to use the Internet to bring up-to-the-minute information into his courses, thus creating an interactive, collaborative, and learner-centered environment.   

Track participants also approached internationalizing the curriculum from the programmatic and institution-wide levels. Sharon Gramby-Sobukwe (Eastern University) explained how at the program level—in this case in a group of masters programs geared toward adult learners—schools can combine the use of distance learning technologies and short-term residential and study abroad experiences to maximize the international awareness and engagement of their students. Michele Zebich-Knos (Kennesaw State University) described how her institution was working to achieve the internationalization of the curriculum at the institution-wide level. The goal of this mission is to increase the international awareness of the entire university community, regardless of position, major, background, or ability to study abroad. This approach involves integrating international content into core requirements and general education classes, as Bromley did through using globalization as the topic of a required writing class. 

Regardless of the level at which internationalization of the curriculum occurs, it is a growing challenge to expand global learning beyond study abroad and the traditional global disciplines. However even the quintessential international experience of study abroad faces challenges. Students who participate in these programs presumably want to engage in global learning, but they often want to do so on their own terms while maintaining their own preconceptions and understandings. This behavior runs counter both to the goals of study abroad and the push to internationalize the curriculum more generally. One potential solution discussed by track participants was to require students to participate in a class that prepares them for their study abroad experience. Another concern was that once students return, many continue to process their study abroad experience, only to find that the friends and family who remained at home are not interested in hearing about it. Re-entry programs for these students would help them make the transition home and also support their (perhaps) new-found global engagement.  

At the course level track participants identified other concerns. A common issue that we, as instructors, must be aware of is that ethnocentric or paternalistic language and attitudes can creep into course content. We also need to consider the underlying assumptions in the way we approach international issues; we, as teachers, may be pushing (perhaps unconsciously) an agenda and not giving opposing or alternate views fair treatment. Also at the course level instructors often face pressure both from administrators and students to use new technologies in effective ways. Technology enables online delivery of courses to nontraditional students as well as those living abroad, thereby maintaining a sense of classroom community. It also enables instructors to offer up-to-the-minute information to their students about course topics, which can be invaluable in helping them to make connections between the real world and course content. However, technology is also costly—in terms of time, effort, and resources—and the benefits are not necessarily certain.

Another problem we encounter, especially at the programmatic and institution-wide levels, is bureaucratic rigidity, or the tendency of entrenched bureaucracies and administrations to avoid risk, whether due to institutionalized policies, assessment procedures, or accreditation requirements. Such rigidity often serves as a deterrent to faculty or department attempts to experiment with innovative techniques. At all levels internationalizing the curriculum prompts reflection about societal attitudes. It is often hard for students to reconcile what it means to be a global citizen and also an American citizen. There is often a real tension between becoming a global advocate and still feeling like a good American. 

As a result faculty and administrators face many difficulties, controversies, and challenges when seeking to bring international issues into the curriculum. This track provided many good strategies for accomplishing this at the university and program level, as well as through study abroad and individual courses. Although it raised as many questions as it answered, the goal is a worthy one: to help create more globally engaged and informed students, programs, and institutions.