Educating World Citizens:

The Effect of the BRIDGE Program on Students Global Perspectives

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for

Honors in
Sociology
Carolyn J. Smith

Advisor, Jack Harris

April 10, 2006

Table of Contents
Preface
1. Students Live in a Global World

2. The Potential of Education

13

3. Elementary- Level Global Education

26

4. One Example of a Global Education Initiative: The BRIDGE Project

32

5. Four Components of a Global Perspective

39

6. Research Process, Methodology and Findings

51

7. The Rhetoric Versus the Reality of Global Education

76

8. The Asia Education Foundation: A Model for Global Education at the

National Level

89

9. Concluding Remarks

101

Preface
1

Every day, the people, corporations, governments and societies of the world are
becoming increasingly interdependent. The increased internet, digital and satellite
technology in recent years has resulted in a world system of globalization that has
produced highly integrated economies and much more interconnected social and political
domains. In light of this rapid increase of globalization, it is necessary to educate students
not only as citizens of their local and national communities, but also as citizens of a
global community.
Global education is necessary to produce competitive players in the global
economy, to prepare a global citizenry, and to serve as a means of uniting people in what
could be the basis of a progressive social movement. Global education is beneficial even
at the elementary level, where it can provide a foundational framework for future
learning, it can capitalize on young childrens curiosity, and it can introduce children to
diverse cultures at a developmentally appropriate age.
One curricular model that has been developed to meet this need is the Bringing
Relevant Internet Dialogue to Global Education program. BRIDGE is a grant-funded
program that was developed by professors at Hobart and William Smith Colleges (HWS)
in Geneva, NY five years ago. The mission of the BRIDGE program is to use web-based
technologies and traditional educational resources to engage elementary students in
sustained inquiry about other cultures and regions of the world (Brophy 2004a).
BRIDGE pairs HWS college study-abroad students (student fellows) with
elementary school classrooms in Geneva and the nearby town of Waterloo. Through
pictures, movies, online mystery lessons, compare and contrast activities, online travel
journals, and internet dialogue with the elementary school students, the HWS student

fellows serve as the eyes and ears of a foreign country for the Geneva-area classrooms.
The elementary school students engage in inquiry-based lessons to explore the country of
study. Throughout the first part of the year, the elementary students are presented with
background information about the country. They are exposed to artifacts from the
country, presented with lessons developed by HWS student fellows and school teachers,
and engaged in dialogue with the student fellows via the internet to ask questions and
further their understandings.
The second phase of the program involves student research on a particular aspect
of the country or culture. Research topics for a country like Vietnam would include things
like Vietnamese music, Vietnamese markets, climate and geography of Vietnam, Tet (the
Vietnamese New Year), and many others. These projects are developed through the
childs use of technology and are presented through applications like Microsoft Publisher
brochures, Power Point presentations, posters with graphic organizers, and student
storybooks.
Ideally, this research is supplemented by visits and conversations with the HWS
fellows who have returned from abroad, expert college professors, and natives of the
country of study. The program concludes with a multimedia presentation at the college,
which is attended by the elementary students, parents and teachers, college students and
professors, and the wider local and college communities.
My study of BRIDGE represents a multi-method approach to understanding
BRIDGE as a global education initiative. My analysis involves an overlay of approaches
that resulted from the various obstacles and opportunities that were encountered
throughout my research process.

First, I conduct a background study of the need for and purpose of global
education. This includes a discussion of the world system of globalization, a
consideration of the role that education has to play in that system, and a rationale of the
appropriateness of global education at the elementary school level. On the base of this
background study, I put forth the BRIDGE program as one example of an elementary
level global education initiative.
I then attempt to deconstruct global education both theoretically and
operationally. I conceptualize my construct as a global perspective. Drawing upon the
global education literature, I theoretically construct four components that encompass my
fundamental understanding of what a global perspective entails. These self-defined
components are:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Cognitive Orientation
Knowledge
Affective Orientation
Skills

These four components are also intended to inform my assessment research

approach. In operationalizing a global perspective in terms of these four components, I
make possible my original research intention; to assess the effectiveness of the BRIDGE
program by interviewing, observing, and surveying BRIDGE students, and comparing the
results to those of equivalent non-BRIDGE students.
In the end, this comparative assessment was included in my study, but only in an
abbreviated form. As I moved from the literature to the reality of the BRIDGE
elementary school classrooms, I encountered a number of obstacles that prevented a full
implementation of my assessment research design. Some of these obstacles were

circumstantial, while others revealed deep structural, institutional, and philosophical

flaws of the BRIDGE program.
As I encountered these limitations upon my assessment research, I began looking
for alternative means of analyzing and contextualizing BRIDGE. This analytic
methodology, in addition to referencing BRIDGE to the global perspective components
informed by the literature, involved analyzing BRIDGE on a trajectory of layers. First, I
utilize my anecdotal experiences to consider particular problems of the BRIDGE program
and explore how these flaws highlight challenges for small-scale global education
programs. I then consider global education at the district level, looking at districts that
have recognized the need for institutionalization and are making an effort to integrate this
into the curriculum.
Third, I contextualize BRIDGE by comparing it to a mature, institutionalized,
well-supported national global education initiative: Australias Asia Education
Foundation (AEF). In studying the structure, process and vision of the AEF, I develop a
framework of the key elements that are necessary to develop sustainable, widespread
global education in a society.

Chapter One

Students Live in a Global World

Harry Potter Lives in Vietnam
A journey of 8800 airborne miles, two hours in an overflowing bus, and three
hours on a rickety motorbike brought me far away from the people, places, and society
that I had always known. It brought me from upstate New York to the city of Hanoi,
Vietnam; from a system of participatory democracy to a country governed by
communism; from a society of burgeoning capitalism with a per capita income of
$37,870 to one in which the per capita is merely $480 (Worldbank), and from a land of
highways and SUVs to one dominated by bicycles and dirt paths.
It brought me to the home of my Vietnamese friend Hien, at a deteriorating
military base in a remote area North of Hanoi. The opportunity to study abroad in
Vietnam during the fall of 2004 provided me with many unique experiences, the most
memorable of which was this friendship with Hien. At her home, dinner was a meal of
freshly killed chicken (skin, bones and all) eaten on the familys mattress-less bed.
Computer service required travel to access, and Vietnamese was the only language
spoken by everyone (except Hien). School was held in a single yellow building, under the
guidance of a teacher who made the equivalent of $30 USD a month. The rice paddies
surrounding the homes were the source of the villagers sustenance and livelihood.
Imagine my amazement when, upon entering this sparsely furnished shack, I saw
a Harry Potter poster hanging boldly on the wall, right beside the traditional Vietnamese
altar. Harry, America and Englands most popular storybook protagonist of the past
decade, had traveled from Hogwarts Castle in England, across continents and oceans,
through Vietnams communist government, along the lines of limited industry and

technology of a third-world nation, and onto the walls of a North Vietnamese army
bunker. I had traveled to the other end of the earth and found a representation of the same
popular youth culture that I have encountered in my little brothers bedroom.
The image of the Harry Potter poster next to Hiens ancestor altar is symbolic of
an international system that characterizes our world today: globalization. Globalization
has been shaped by the systems of political, economic, and cultural interdependence that
have emerged since the end of the Cold War. Globalization is not a theory, a passing
economic trend, or simply an idea; it is the defining international system of todays
world. Thomas L. Friedman, Pulitzer-prize winning world affairs columnist for The New
York Times, provides an analysis of globalization in his books The Lexus and the Olive
Tree (2000) and The World is Flat (2005). Since the end of the Cold War, notes Friedman,
the world has been shaped by: forces of integration and increasing connections (webs)
between all people; free-market capitalism; a dominant homogenizing culture (primarily
American and Western); defining technologies of computers, digitization, satellite
communications and the internet; ever-increasing speed, which fosters innovation but
impedes upon security; demographic patterns of urbanization; and complex structures of
power. The globalization system is built upon the following three balances of power:
between nation-states, between nation-states and global markets, and between individuals
and nation-states. Friedman notes that, in this new system, super-markets and superempowered individuals will be just as important as nation superpowers (2000: 8-13).
Friedman explains globalization in terms of increasing connectedness:
I define globalization in this way: it is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and
technologies to a degree never witnessed before- in a way that is enabling individuals,
corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper
than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach into individuals,
corporations and nation-states father, faster, cheaper and deeper than ever before. (2000, P. 9)

Immigration, international trade, and cross-cultural sharing are not new processes. They
have occurred all throughout history; most notably, during the period of growth from
1850 to World War I that was fueled by advances in transportation technology and
dominated by British power. In todays context, however, these processes differ both in
degree, and also in their kinds of technology and political systems, thereby creating a
fundamentally distinct system of globalization. The numerous nations involved, and the
gargantuan number of people in those nations, creates a turbocharged globalized world
(2000: xiii). The political structure is dominated by Americas power, culture, dollar and
navy, and the technologies involved are information technologies that are empowering
both corporations and individuals (2000). Globalization has changed the nature of the
worlds relationships, making possible the increased communication and interconnectedness of all the nations of the world.
This changing of the worlds relationships has both positive and negative
consequences and possibilities. As John D. Metzler of the International Center at
Michigan State University articulates,
This process of globalization presents on the one hand tremendous opportunities for
economic growth, increased political freedom, and social development; however, on the other
hand, globalization also presents the possibility of dangerously increasing economic disparity,
political destabilization and social disintegration. (1998: 119)

Harry Potters presence in Vietnam could represent possibilities for friendships and
greater understanding between children throughout the world, growth in the Vietnamese
economy, and the progression towards and more free and open social arena. As he
encroaches upon the ancestor altar, however, Harry could also represent the subjection of
Vietnam to the hungry markets of powerful corporations, and the loss of unique
Vietnamese culture and traditions. Globalization could mean that individuals, as citizens
8

of the world, have more opportunity to make connections and create far-reaching change
than ever before. But it could also mean that worldwide forces dominate individuals and
weaker individual nations, disrupting their previous ways of life and rendering them
powerless. The future of globalization depends, in part, upon the way citizens of the
world understand this system, use it, and prepare their children for it.
America in a Globalized World
America, kids. Thats what its all about. So concluded a presentation to the
students of Wayne Central High School. Five hundred students filled the auditorium to
listen to an American soldier who had just returned from the war in Iraq. Spending part of
my college break substitute teaching at my former school district, I had the interesting
experience of attending what I facetiously termed a Rah, rah, America assembly.
Observing the assembly with the skeptical eyes of a liberal arts college student, I listened
as they played the song that echoed my own school assembly days: And Im proud to be
an American, where at least I know Im free God Bless the USA! The soldier ran his
Power Point presentation, explaining the importance of the war in saving the Iraqis from
themselves with our American systems of belief and government. The district
administrators extolled this mans efforts to protect and serve the greatest country in the
world. Eventually the bell rang, dismissing the students to their daily routine of classes.
Americans have long operated with the mentality that America is, indeed, what it
is all about. Our nation is notorious for its narrow-minded global orientation. As Eve W.
Stoddard, director of international and intercultural education at St. Lawrence University,
comments in Globalizing Knowledge: Connecting International and Intercultural
Studies:

While isolationism per se no longer dominates the nations orientation toward

international affairs, it has been replaced by an almost uncontested global power
which allows US citizens to conduct their lives relatively unchallenged by the
realities of alternative perspectives. (1999: 1)
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, consideration of alternative
perspectives and education about different worldviews is often considered to be
unnecessary, and even undesirable.
Although historically exceptional in its ideology, America has never been
isolated. In a country of immigrants, the American education system has historically been
a one-way street, responsible for indoctrinating in foreigners the ideals of the American
character; of assimilating them into a culture of Protestant values and the English
language (Gutek 1993). Education systems were used to mold them into us, not to teach
us about the world.
There is a historical basis for this narrow-minded view of the world. Gerald
Gutek, former dean of education at Loyola University in Chicago, discusses the power of
the dominant historical rhetoric of American exceptionalism. This exceptionalist ideology
is based on the idea that our nation was uniquely formed through the conquering of new
frontiers, thereby infusing the American character with a formidable sense of superiority.
With their emphasis on the uniqueness and special quality of the American character, the
American peoples attitudes and their leaders policies developed a sense of meaning and
destiny that had little to do with people in other places of the world. (1993: 40)

This ideology has been fostered through the United States education systems. Governed
by the interests and policies of local school districts, American schools have generally
acted in cultural isolation, with no consideration of their commonalities with other
educators and school systems around the world. Countless generations of students have
been educated in the spirit of nationalist exceptionalism (Gutek 1993: 40). According to a

10

study by the Asia Society in 2001, twenty-five percent of college-bound high school
students did not know the name of the ocean that separates the United States from Asia.
Eighty percent did not know that India was the worlds largest democracy (Asia in the
Schools 2001). In 2002, a National Geographic survey of young adults in nine countries
found that U.S. students have less knowledge of geography and current affairs than do
their peers in other countries. Most American students (eighty-three percent) could not
find Afghanistan or Israel on a world map (National Geographic-Roper 2002 Global
Geographic Literacy Survey, 2002).
It seems safe to assume that most Americans probably have no idea that Harry
Potter lives in Vietnam. In fact, most American students probably do not even know what
or where Vietnam is. They probably have no conception of the ways in which America
and Vietnam are historically, politically, and economically joined; or the incredible
economic disparity between the two nations. Americas students also do not realize that
almost every Vietnamese (and Chinese, and Indian, and Laotian, and) student is
learning English, studying diligently to further his or her education, and preparing with a
frenzy to enter the global marketplace.
No, America is not what it is all about. This will become painfully obvious as
American students enter a global marketplace that they are not equipped to navigate. Our
countrys ethnocentric and isolationist mindset also risks preventing the development of
invaluable cross-cultural connections and positive social improvements. The United
States is currently the powerhouse behind globalization, and is certainly in a unique
position to foster positive developments in this international system. But if this country is
not prepared to meet the challenges of the coming era, it will not only fail to realize this

11

opportunity for positive development; it will be out-competed and marginalized, crippled

by the forces of globalization.

Chapter Two

12

The Potential of Education

Globalization
Negative

Mediator
Education

Positive Promise
Threat
Breakdown of barriers between
people and nations
Prosperity pie can grow, increasing
the standards of living for all
More communication between and
understanding of diverse cultures
Potential for people to unite and create
more far-reaching social change than ever
before

Environmental devastation
Decreased control of the nationstate; increased control of
unaccountable corporations
Outsourcing of jobs,
degradation of all wages and
labor conditions in internationally
competitive marketplace

Education maximizes the positive potential of globalization

while minimizing the negative threats.
Today, an education based on national pride and American exceptionalism is
simply inadequate. The United States, while it stubbornly persists in educating its
students primarily as citizens of the nation-state, is not impervious to the forces of
globalization that encircle the world. In this new international system, it is necessary for
educational institutions to equip their students with a global perspective: a broad scope of
worldview, substantive knowledge of other cultures, affect for diverse people, and the
skills to participate in a global world. For both practical and value-based reasons, it is
imperative that American educational institutions equip students with the global
perspectives that they will needed to thrive in the world.
Global education involves instilling in students a sense of multiple perspectives
and systems connectedness. Merry Merryfield (1998), Professor in Social Studies and

13

Global Education at Ohio State University, builds upon decades of literature to provide
the most comprehensive definition of global education. In her analysis,
conceptualizations of global education include the following elements:
Understanding of humans and the world/planet as a dynamic, organic and interdependent
system
Understanding of diverse cultures and multiple perspectives
Understanding of, skills in and responsibility for making choices and decisions and taking
action locally and globally
Interconnectedness of humans through time
Cross-cultural understanding, interactions and communication
Perceptual growth for prejudice reduction and moral education within critical contexts (370)

Americans are an integral part of a system of which they know nearly nothing
about. As is stated on the Asia Societys website,
Today's students will be the citizens and leaders of the 21st Century, heirs to a world that
grows smaller and more interconnected everyday. For the United States to continue to
prosper, all students must have the opportunities to learn about other world regions and
languages. The world will demand it of them- we need to demand it of our education system
(Asia in the Schools 2001).

It is essential that these students have an awareness of their membership in a global

system, and that their education provides them with the knowledge, motivation and skills
that will enable them to succeed in and improve that system.
Acknowledging that globalization holds both positive promises and negative
threats, many people theorize that the positive promise of globalization will be best
realized through education. It is education that will prepare citizens for a global
workforce, introduce people to relationships of global humanity, be an impetus for social
change, and empower individuals with knowledge; it is education that will enable people
to realize globalizations promise and withstand its forces of potential devastation.

Producing Competitive Players in the Global Economy

14

When I was growing up, my parents used to say to me, Tom, finish your dinner- people in
China and India are starving. My advice to (my children) is: Girls, finish your homeworkpeople in China and India are starving for your jobs. (Friedman 2005: 238)

From a practical base, global education must be instituted if America is to produce

competitive players in the global economy. Globalization has opened many doors that
threaten the economic stability of previous generations. Rapidly changing technology
requires continuous education, and quickly renders many occupations obsolete. The
production of goods, and the functions of the service sector, can easily be outsourced to
factories and call centers in foreign countries. The marketplace includes huge populations
about which most Americans are quite ignorant. The doors of education and economic
opportunity have been swung open to large, motivated populations from other countries.
Joel Spring (1998), Professor of Education at New University, notes how
developing countries are very invested in preparing for the global economy; mandating
English language classes, adopting Western technologies and promoting Americas
capitalist free trade philosophies. The National Science Board states that universities in
Asian countries produce eight times as many engineering bachelor degrees as the United
States. That represents 1.2 million engineering competitors that the American citizens
were always unknowingly privileged above before, but who now have the education, the
drive, and the opportunity, to take a piece of the privileged pie (Friedman 2005?: 257).
Allan Luke, dean of Singapores National Institute of Education, reports that fast-food
restaurants in Singapore have had to post No Studying signs to stop students from
loitering on their premises to do homework (The National Education Agenda 2005: 30).
For many countries, global education is their ticket to admission into the free trade
economy.

15

But it is becoming increasingly apparent that Americans must work for their
global market admission tickets as well. The Asia Society study states that one in six U.S.
jobs is tied to international trade, and twenty-five percent of U.S. economic growth over
the past decade was due to exports. The U.S. trades more with Asia than it does with
Europe, and yet there are only 40,000 American students studying Chinese (while a
million students are studying French) (2001). In 1989, the National Governors
Association cited inadequate teacher preparation in global education as a major obstacle
preventing U.S. schools from meeting the economic, social and political challenges of the
time (Merryfield 1995: 1). The coming years have produced many more global
challenges, and not nearly enough teachers sufficiently trained with the abilities to meet
them.
The American Council on Education has emphasized the need to educate for
global competence, producing citizens who can navigate different cultures, appreciate
global issues and operate in an international context. Their report outlines responsibilities
of federal, state and local governments, corporations and, most importantly, higher
education, to produce citizens with expert knowledge about international challenges, in
all disciplines.
Our higher education institutions are charged with developing a citizenry with the global
competence, talent, and skill to create not simply a better and more prosperous America, but a
better, safer, and more livable world (American Council on Higher Education in OMeara,
Mehlinger, and Newman: 348).

Free trade competition need not be devastating, Friedman notes. In fact,

globalization and the development of an ideas-based economy may simply result in a
different kind of prosperity pie, one that increases as more people bite into it and demand
more complex and varied ingredients. The pie keeps growing because things that look

16

like wants today are needs tomorrow, says Marc Andreessen, the cofounder of Netscape
(Friedman 2005: 231). The new pie may be able to feed many more people. There may
be a limit to the number of good factory jobs in the world, but there is no limit to the
number of idea-generated jobs in the world, Friedman says (2005: 230).
The pie will only grow, however, for those who are prepared for the mix of
personalities competing for it, and who are equipped with the skills to develop their own
specialty ingredients. Friedman (2005) warns that we as Americans are entering a Quiet
Crisis. While there does not seem to be a problem now, failure to look ahead and prepare
children for the amorphous free-trade economy will erupt in a crisis twenty years down
the road. If children are only taught how to make Americas traditional apple pie, they
will not have the knowledge or skills to compete in a worldwide market of different
cultures and interests.
It is the realization that American students are ill-equipped, (as evidenced by
geographic illiteracy, limited proficiency in foreign language, or inability to navigate
cultural differences), that may most effectively drive the global education agenda forward
(Gutek 1993: 247). Education is, on many levels, an institutionalized system that
produces the future workforce. Joel Spring articulates this argument as human capital
theory; the idea that the purpose of global education is to prepare human resources to
contribute to future economic growth. Spring (1998) says that education and the global
economy are interdependent: Competition in the global economy is dependent on the
quality of education, whereas the goals of education are dependent on the economy (6).
Therefore, the question is asked; What type of educational system will meet the needs of
the present and future global economy (8)?

17

Given Friedmans argument of Americas quiet crisis, it appears that the current
educational curriculum is not the one that will meet the needs of the present and future
global economy. We are doing an injustice to our children if we do not prepare them to
partake in the complex, idea-based, multicultural, technology-driven international pie of
todays marketplace.
Preparing the Global Citizenry
Educational systems, however, do more than just produce tomorrows employees.
They produce tomorrows citizens: the people who will run the governments, practice the
religions, and shape the social movements of the future. Fundamentally, education for
global citizenship hopes to help children understand the global humanity of which they
are a part.
Schools currently make a conscious effort to instill classroom and national
citizenship in their students. As children learn, play, and interact within the walls of their
classroom, their membership of the classroom community becomes a very real and
concrete social experience. The authoritative power of the teacher is forcefully felt;
negotiations between friends and enemies are ever-present; goods and services of the
elementary-school black market economy are exchanged; and ideas, feelings and
opinions continuously circulate throughout the classroom. The students membership in
their classrooms, just as in the social groups of their families and local communities, is a
real and important part of their lives.
Likewise, most public schools strive to make national citizenship a concrete
reality for their students. American flags adorn every classroom, U.S. maps hang on the
walls, and the pledge is recited every morning. Social studies textbooks are filled with

18

facts and faces of American history and culture, and national holidays provide
opportunities for assemblies and activities to represent important national traditions and
events. The highest honors in these schools often take the form of Good Citizen or
Citizen of the Year awards.
Instilling citizenship and identity in local and national communities is certainly
valuable. But these students lives are not influenced only by those communities in which
they participate directly. Powerful political, geographic, and economic forces will have a
less visible, but equally important, impact on their lives. As they grow, they will become
increasingly influenced by the larger systems of which their lives are a part. In a system
of globalization, it necessary to educate students not only as citizens of their local and
national communities, but also as citizens of a global community.
Our global system requires world citizens. As Gutek says, Certainly, then, to
be educated means to know more than our immediate locality; we must know our
relationships to a global reality and to an international society (19). Gutek and others
realize that todays students have dual-citizenship in both their local and global worlds,
and there is a great need for moral obligation that accompanies this binary status. The
future electorate and citizens must be informed and prepared to act responsibly towards
global matters (Collins, Czarra and Smith 1998: 2).
For many authors, the preparation of the global citizenry takes the form of a
spaceship earth or global village philosophy; the idea that all of humanity is invested
in and bound to one another for our collective well-being (OMeara et. al 2001: 215).
One article outlines the following responsibilities of global citizens:
To help to solve the problems of the world; to understand and care for others; to protect and
use wisely our natural resources; and to promote an attitude of peaceful cooperation in the
resolution of global issues. (Gibbons and Neuman 1985-1986: 72)

19

Cornwell and Stoddard (1999) also emphasize the potential of global education to create
students who can navigate different cultures with ease, who can refrain from pre-judging
people, and who have learned to seek out the common humanity of others (35).
In a world of globalization, people must know how to deal with diversity both
within and beyond Americas borders. Although it is evidently easier said than done, one
hopes that the development of global perspectives coincides with an ability to appreciate
more diverse perspectives in the local community. When it comes to addressing diversity
in the classroom, there is often debate between proponents of global education and the
proponents of multiculturalism. Why learn about people in Vietnam, one might wonder,
when students do not appreciate the various races and ethnicities that are directly present
in the classroom? In reality, global appreciation is paralleled by multiculturalism. Donna
Cole (1984), assistant professor of education at Wittenberg University, notes that
multicultural education and global education are not separate concerns, but are both about
interdependence, cross-cultural understandings, and promoting harmony within
diversity (151). She argues for a multiculturalized global education, saying
Each (of the two movements) has an aim to strengthen human and intergroup relationshipsthere is a shared desire to aid students in understanding human diversity while exploring
commonalities. Moreover, both movements strive to solidify cross-cultural communication,
and both attempt to reduce stereotypical thinking. Therefore, the two movements propose to
educate for the future in an effort to have a more aware world populace moving closer to the
attainment of an interdependent life and its management for the betterment of humankind.
(154)

The increased mobility of people across international boundaries is changing the

ethnic makeup of Americas local classrooms and communities. Immigration is not a
phenomenon only of the past; currently, one out of every eleven Americans has
immigrated here from another country (Hood and Morris 1998: 1). One-third of

20

Americas yearly population growth is the result of immigration (Enger and Smith 2006:
155). These figures highlight the necessity of global and multicultural education to foster
positive relationships within Americas classrooms, workplaces and communities.
Not only is immigration increasing, it is also growing in different ways among
different groups than before; something that is not reflected by our education system. As
stated by the Asia Society;
America's education system does not account for the reality of the nation's changing
demographic make-up. The latest U.S. Census Bureau statistics and projections show
dramatic shifts in the composition of the country's population. Between 1960 and 2000 the
percentage of foreign-born residents rose from 9.7 to 28.4 percent. Within that population
group, the countries of origin have shifted from predominantly European to Latin American
and Asian countries. An education system largely rooted in American and Eurocentric
curricula simply does not reflect the growing diversity of the United States (Asia in the
Schools).

Not only are people flowing into America, but a great number of people will also
be flowing out of America, in pursuit of the jobs, relationships, and experiences that
globalization has dispersed throughout all corners of the world. Exponential population
growth in many areas of the world will create greater numbers of people competing for
the diminishing space and resources on Planet Earth. The current world population of
nearly 6.5 billion people is expected to double within the next fifty years, straining the
earths capacity to unprecedented levels (Enger and Smith 2006: 453).
In such an overpopulated world, international integration will become
increasingly common, and cross-cultural understanding and cooperation will become
increasingly necessary. Martha Nussbaum, Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor
of Law and Ethics at The University of Chicago and the author of Cultivating Humanity
(1997), offers perhaps the most comprehensive discussion of what exactly it means to
instill in global citizens an awareness of these connections and responsibilities. She feels
that education should encourage us to recognize the worth of human life wherever it
21

occurs and see ourselves as bound by common human abilities and problems to people
who lie at a great distance form us (9).
The cultivation of humanity, according to Nussbaum, is essentially a form of
education, and can be developed by programs that encourage understanding and
acceptance of difference.
It is therefore very urgent right now to support curricular efforts aimed at producing citizens
who can take charge of their own reasoning, who can see the different and foreign not as a
threat to be resisted, but as an invitation to explore and understand, expanding their own
minds and their capacity for leadership. (301)

It is noteworthy that Nussbuam highlights the scope and breadth of global education. This
is not a phenomenon that occurs only in classrooms, books and schools. Rather, it is
possible and necessary to educate people at all ages to become sensitive and empathetic
interpreters; good world citizens (63). In knowing these relationships, one can see not
only the potential for harm, but also the great possibility for good that this new globalized
world holds.
The concept of a world citizen does not negate the need for local and national
citizens. Even in a world system of globalization, ones local community and country will
certainly continue to be essential to identity self-constructs. The world will continue to be
characterized by heterogeneity and difference, more than homogeneity and sameness.
World citizens, therefore, will not be uniform beings, floating around the globe without
any national identity or local attachment. Rather, world citizens will be a diverse body of
beings who know how to navigate their differences for the benefit of all.
Knowledge
One of the most fundamental functions of education is that of creating and sharing
knowledge. Scholars of the global world see knowledge as a powerful force in the

22

globalization game. For example, Metzler (1998) sees the role of internationalist scholars
as generating and disseminating knowledge which is essential to realizing the potential
of globalization while concurrently minimizing its risks (119). Education imparts
knowledge, and that knowledge can lead to social justice, political power, and economic
prosperity. Metzler feels that it is the role of institutions to impart this knowledge in
hopes of providing others with the competency to realize a safe and prosperous
international world (136).
Clark Kerr, chairman of Global Perspectives in Education, Inc., echoes Metzlers
sentiments on the role of knowledge in this global world. Kerr (1979) sees the
longstanding tradition of international intellectual cultures as the greatest hope for the
development of global perspectives. He says:
Education and knowledge have never been confined by national boundaries, no
matter how much they have been used for national purposes. It is the inherent
nature of knowledge to spread, to form a base on which other interactions can
rest, that provides hope for education for cooperation. (116)
In a country that has traditionally used education to foster nationalism at the
expense of international and cross-cultural ideologies, it would be heartening to see the
spread of knowledge facilitating education for cooperation.
The Basis of a Social Movement
As knowledge circulates the globe through various forms of education, it begins
to take the form of a social movement. Herein lies the final reason that education has the
potential to seize the promising possibilities of globalization: institutions of education
unite people and facilitate their ability to make change in the social world. The circulation
of knowledge through the medium of education requires an intense mixing of social
relationships and a dynamic integration of social forces. Whether it be Kerrs

23

international intellectual cultures, Metzlers outreach programming from

internationally-minded academic institutions, or the collaboration necessary between
teachers and cultures to make global education happen, global education necessitates the
creation of social bonds that themselves form the basis for a progressive social
movement.
In the book Global Education: School-Based Strategies, Kenneth A. Tye (1990)
compiles case studies of various initiatives to bring global perspectives into the
curriculum of a school. After analyzing these initiatives, Tye comes to see global
education as a promising social movement because it allows likeminded people to form
alliances and network. The lessons learned in global education, and the collaborative
efforts that bring those lessons about, are an ideal vehicle for teaching people to behave
differently toward one another and work together for change. Tye says, The ultimate
goal of global education is to cause people to transcend more limited levels of interest
and to take personal and collective action on behalf of all humankind (6). In the context
of education, people become united in powerful social networks of change that have great
potential to benefit humanity.
A societys education system is responsible for preparing its members for success
in the economic system of which it is a part. The education curriculum determines the
subjects and systems about which its students will be knowledgeable of, and able to
responsibly act towards. The education culture facilitates the spread of knowledge in
ways that cross all national boundaries. A societys educational institutions provide the
structure for the formation of social movements. For all of these reasons, education will
have a powerful role to play in the worlds globalization system.

24

Chapter Three
Elementary-Level Global Education
In todays culturally diverse and interconnected world, elementary teachers have a primary
responsibility for opening students eyes to the world and its people.
(Merryfield 2004: 270)

They pick their noses in public. They bicker about the budgers in line, and they
wave their hands wildly to be chosen as the next leader. Their teachers work daily to help
them read for comprehension, write in complete sentences, memorize their multiplication

25

tables, and discover science. They are the 3rd-5th graders who fill the intermediate
elementary schools of America.
It is evident that we live in a global system, and that education is integral to
realizing the positive potential of this world. However, one may question if it is possible
to make global citizens out of children who cannot even keep track of a math worksheet
from one day to the next. Are children of this age developmentally ready to understand
cultures and systems that are not immediately visible in their surrounding world? Can one
legitimize the allotment of time and resources to global education at the elementary
school level?
I argue that elementary-level global education is indeed worthwhile; in fact, I feel
that it is necessary. First of all, global education at the elementary level can provide an
invaluable foundational framework for subsequent global understandings. Additionally, if
presented in a developmentally-appropriate way, elementary-level global education can
capitalize on the curiosity of children of this age, and allow them to make connections
based upon their own inquiry about the world. Finally, global education at the elementary
level is extremely important because it introduces children to diverse cultures at a
developmental stage in which fundamental identity constructs are made.
Foundational Framework
Just as addition is taught with the expectation that students will someday utilize
mathematics to become engineers, accountants or pilots, so can the building blocks of a
global perspective be laid as a foundation upon which to build more complex layers of
cultural understanding throughout the students lifetimes. We feel that inquiry into
global issues in the elementary grades, when students are most curious about the world

26

around them, lays the foundation for more sophisticated analyses of the issues as students
mature (Angell and Avery 1992: 113). Angell and Avery discuss how children actually
can learn a great deal about social and political issues when these issues are presented in
an appropriate context. Betty Bullard (1980), director of the Education Department at the
Asia Society, suggests, each grade level should be permeated by opportunities, both
formal and informal, to expand the students views of the world (92).
Robert Hanvey (1982) is the scholar credited with the original conceptual paper
defining education for global perspectives. He sees the global perspective as a
development that progresses through levels. If students were educated about important
issues from a very young age, they would learn how to receive, process, and respond to
that data and it would not be so overwhelming.
If from the earliest grades on students examined and puzzled over cases where seemingly
innocent behaviors- the diet rich in animal protein, the lavish use of fertilizer on the suburban
lawn and golf course- were shown to have effects that were both unintended and global in
scope, then there could be a receptivity for that kind of technical information necessary to
understand many global issues. Situations such as the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere
from aerosol sprays would not seem forbidding; it would be another instance of a model
already documented. Students would have a framework with which to handle it. (164)

If global education begins early, students may enter the workforce and institutions
of higher education with their cross-cultural sensitivities and global competencies already
developed.
Inquiry-Based Global Learning
One must critically consider what types of opportunities; what kind of contexts;
would be appropriate for the cognitive developmental levels of elementary-school
students. According to Jean Piagets stages of cognitive structure development, children
ages eight to eleven best understand things that they can see in the concrete world around
them, and generally have difficulty dealing with remote or hypothetical matters

27

(VanderZanden 2003: 306). Their worldviews are directly based on their personal
experiences which, as 3rd-5th graders, have mostly been quite local in nature. In an effort
to make global education meaningful, particularly for students in the concrete-operational
stage, many educators recommend inquiry-based learning.
Inquiry-based learning is an educational strategy that allows students to construct
their own knowledge; to form their own understandings of a topic. It is characterized as
student- centered rather than teacher-centered learning. Students are invited to
actively engage and explain material rather than passively receive information
(Duckworth 1996: 150). This approach to learning is essential for effective global
education. If students can engage with pictures, artifacts, and diverse human beings in
ways that allow them to form their own understandings in terms of the structures that
they already understand, it can become real and meaningful to them. A students
understanding of the global world is based upon an understanding of his or her local and
personal worlds; not simply upon what he or she hears or reads. As Eleanor Duckworth
(1996), an education researcher of cognitive processes, asserts, Meaning is not given to
us in our encounters, but it is given by us, each in our own way, according to how our
understanding is currently organized (112).
Students at the elementary school level are generally very curious about the world
around them, and are quite excited about inquiring and learning. As they engage in global
education, they will begin to develop a different structure into which they can incorporate
their thoughts about the world. Structures provide the means by which people
cognitively relate things to one another; they are coordinated systems that enable people
to give meaning to phenomena or experiences (Duckworth 104). Therefore, students

28

cant be told things to develop their global understandings; they must learn to ask things
that will build on the systems they already have of understanding the world. Inquirybased learning can help students to engage with, and become cognitively part of, the
world.
Developmentally Appropriate
Some studies suggest that it is actually critically important to begin global
education at the elementary level. The elementary years are a time in a childs
development where fundamental identity constructs are made. Some argue that, if a
global perspective is not part of the childs identity construct at that time, it may never be
fully developed. To illustrate this, Charles Evans, now the dean of Education and
Behavioral Sciences at Western Kentucky University, cites many studies in The
Elementary School Journal (1987). In one study, children were interviewed at ages ten
and fourteen about their attitudes toward people from other cultures. Children aged ten
and younger were receptive to learning about people of other cultures, while at age
fourteen, these same children were less receptive and their perceptions of other countries
were somewhat negative.
According to James VanderZandens Human Development textbook, the middle
childhood (ages seven to twelve) are a time of rapid growth in childrens understanding
of the world and their perceptions of others. It is at this point that children learn to
employ stereotypes as they organize and characterize people in their social worlds.
VanderZanden discusses one study done by W.J. Livesley and D.B. Bromley (1973) that
researched the developmental trends in childrens perceptions of people. They found that
childrens ability to distinguish peoples characteristics increases the most between ages

29

seven and eight. As the children grow up and progress into adolescence, this cognitive
growth slows a great deal. Livesley and Bromleys conclude that the eighth year is a
critical period in the developmental psychology of person perception (147). This
information legitimates the need to educate for global perspectives in elementary school,
pivotally influencing childrens perceptions of foreign people during this developmental
period (VanderZanden: 310-311).
Nussbaum asserts that it is never too early to begin cultivating humanity in world
citizens. As soon as children engage in storytelling, they can tell stories about other
lands and other peoples (Nussbaum 1997: 69). This is no trivial matter, as the character
and content of these stories will someday inform the rhetoric of society: discussions of us
and them, conceptions of mine and ours, and negotiations of war and peace.
Elementary Global Education is Necessary in the 21st Century
Elementary global education is necessary in the 21st century. Global education is
necessary because todays students are an integral part of an international economic,
political, environmental and social network. Global education is necessary because it is
education that will prepare our children for a global workforce, introduce people to the
relationships of global humanity, empower individuals with knowledge, and be the
impetus for social change. Elementary global education is necessary because it lays the
foundational frameworks for childrens global understandings and perceptions of others.
There will come a day when those vivacious, forgetful, nose-picking elementary school
students are negotiating more than just the order of the lunch line. Someday, they will be
the workforce, the electorate, the policy-makers, and the citizens of the world.

30

Chapter Four
One Example of a Global Education Initiative: The BRIDGE Project
Global Windows
Right now, at this very moment, a boy in Vietnam is climbing a mountainside
with a water buffalo to work the terraced rice paddies. Mothers in Panama are slapping
their clothes on rocks in the river to wash their familys laundry. A grandfather in Ecuador

31

is tending a wood fire behind his bamboo house, processing sugar cane in an old oil
drum.
The majority of people spend the majority of their time oblivious to the things that
are occurring in the lives of others around the globe. A window into these other places
often comes only with travel, diverse personal relationships, the media, or an educational
experience. For the Nickelodeon-watching, McDonalds-eating, standardized-test-taking
American elementary student, such windows are often few and far between. But for the
students participating in the B.R.I.D.G.E. program at elementary schools in Waterloo and
Geneva, NY, global windows are an important part of their educational experience.
The Bringing Relevant Internet Dialogue to Global Education (BRIDGE)
Program is one of the many programs that have been developed to provide global
education for the worlds young citizens. For the past five years, this program has been at
work in a tiny corner of the United States; the Geneva area of Upstate New York. It is
based upon the use of internet dialogue as a means to further inquiry-based learning.
BRIDGE is directed by professors at Hobart and William Smith Colleges (HWS), and
works to use technology to connect Geneva-area elementary school classrooms with
Hobart and William Smith College students studying abroad.
The program has been funded through grants from various foundations. For the
first two years, the BRIDGE program was funded by this Independent College Fund of
New York and John Ben Snow Foundation Public-Private Collaboration, which provided
approximately $10,000 a year for costs of equipment, telecommunications, classroom
materials, travel, and personnel expenses in establishing the Senegal, Japan and Vietnam
projects. Following those first two successful years, the project secured a four-year grant

32

from the Freeman Foundation. This grant has provided $282,000 for BRIDGE over four
years. BRIDGE is in its final year of its four-year Freeman grant, and its current director,
Professor Scott Brophy, does not plan to reapply for funding after this year (Brophy
2005).
One Hobart and William Smith report cites that Bridge has transformed the ways
in which three elementary schools (North Street and West Street Elementary Schools in
Geneva, and Lafayette Intermediate School in Waterloo), teach and learn about other
cultures. There are currently seven teachers doing the Bridge project in their classrooms
at these three schools (Brophy, Sherman and Makinster 2004b). BRIDGE has been the
most successful when the school principal and librarian (the two people most involved
with curriculum development) are involved, and when there is more than one teacher
involved at each school, as people usually work better in teams (Brophy 2005). Bridge
teachers are paid a small stipend for the extra time commitment and curriculum
development that this project requires. Involvement is completely voluntary; teachers
must apply and undergo a selection process. Teachers are selected based upon their ability
to employ inquiry-based learning in the classroom; Professor Scott Brophy, the program
director, feels that while teachers can learn the technology skills and content as they
engage in the program, a natural feel for inquiry-based learning is an essential
prerequisite.
Tye (1990) notes that global education programs like BRIDGE can provide
exciting new learning possibilities not only for students, but for the teachers as well. It
gives them new opportunities and new purpose (10). As Bridge teacher Kathy Khuney

33

notes, (BRIDGE) has been a wonderful hands-on learning opportunity for not only the
students but for myself as well (Young Taylor and Khuney surveys 2005).
At the third-grade level, BRIDGE fits nicely into the New York States curriculum
of world cultures and world geography. In the fourth- and fifth- grade classrooms it does
not align so neatly with the curriculum standards, and takes on a more interdisciplinary
nature. In fourth grade BRIDGE is incorporated into English/Language Arts, and in fifth
grade it is integrated completely across the curriculum. The program is based upon the
communication between these elementary-school classrooms and HWS college students
studying abroad in Senegal, Vietnam or Japan. (Each class studies and communicates
with students in only one country.) Each class is linked to about three college students
who are to provide them with pictures, stories, insights, lessons and information about the
foreign country of study. With the guidance of the classroom teacher and curriculum
developed with the help of HWS professors, elementary-school students engage in
lessons that explore this material, and they pose questions via the internet to the college
students studying abroad to learn more. Students eventually complete research projects
about a topic pertaining to the country, and present these projects at a multimedia display
at Hobart William Smith College (Brophy 2005).
BRIDGE began with the following general goals:
1) Making Genevas elementary school students more sophisticated users of technology in order
to improve their critical thinking skills, enhance their awareness of another culture,
investigate their own community, and integrate their use of computers with books, maps, and
other instructional material.
2) Stimulating Genevas elementary school teachers and district administrators to think about
integrating technology in creative ways to achieve their curricular and instructional
objectives, particularly at a time when the district is reviewing ways to realign the curriculum
with state learning standards in social studies, geography, language arts, art, and technology.
3) Providing a means for parents and community members to become actively involved in a
school-based project driven by elementary school students.

34

4) Stimulating HWS professors to explore new ways to mentor future teachers by considering
innovative ways of using technology to link their own research and teaching to undergraduate
experiences abroad and in the teacher education program here in Geneva.
5) Helping Hobart and William Smith Colleges students focus their overseas and local
community service initiatives by strengthening connections among their terms abroad, their
courses of study, and their work as student-teachers and mentors back in Geneva. (Brophy et
al. 2004a:1)

The realization of these goals has involved the enthusiasm and commitment of
many different parties. The professors at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, the student
ambassadors studying abroad, the administrators and students in the Geneva-area public
schools, and, most importantly, the teachers who make the BRIDGE vision a reality in
their classrooms, all must work together to make the program successful. The BRIDGE
project is reliant upon collaboration. As one Bridge report states,
The success of the BRIDGE project has been dependant upon the nature of the collaborations:
overlapping learning communities among school teachers, college faculty, younger and older
students, and by bringing already existing initiatives and institutions with common goals into
mutually beneficial partnerships. (Brophy et al. 2004a:3).

BRIDGE is just as much about making local connections as it is about making

global ones. It provides an energizing link between a private liberal arts college and the
public school system, between the young classmates who work together as they engage in
inquiry-based learning, and between the teachers who must work together to make a large
project such as this feasible. As one BRIDGE teacher responded in a survey, The
BRIDGE project gives us the resources to connect to countries that our students may
never visit or hear of. It also allows us to connect school to community, and access guest
speakers, materials, and information through HWS (Young et al. 2005).
This collaboration phenomenon is not unique to BRIDGE; in fact, most successful
global education projects seem to rely on collaboration among various institutions. As
Robert Freeman (1993), the President of Global Education in Berkeley California, says,
Without collaboration, the world is too complex and resources too limited for teacher
35

educators to be able to access all the expert knowledge, political support, and funding
needing to implement global education (36). Teachers do not always have the time and
resources to travel abroad or study global cultures, but there are many others who do have
the resources, and are studying abroad, (such as college students!), and are often quite
eager to share their experiences.
Tye (1990) argues that teachers, while recognizing the need for global education,
rarely develop global education curriculum themselves. They are limited by forces of
teacher isolation, competing time demands, and prevailing norms and teaching traditions.
In my own experience as a student teacher, I have personally seen the rigorous demands
placed on teachers, and the limited time and resources they often have to meet those
demands. It seems that there is always a new mandate dictating what education should be
and what the teachers must do. The combination of the competing interests of many
different parties, the stress of performing well on state and national assessments, and the
need to meet the individual learning needs of many different students, leaves the solitary
teacher with little time or energy to develop a global education curriculum. The focus and
resources of an outside agency are needed to develop global curriculum.
Woyach and Remy (1982), directors of the Global Perspectives program at The
Ohio State University, note that this outside agency can also provide valuable linkages
between the local community and the ambiguous global world. The linkages between
local individuals, groups and organizations, and their counterparts outside the U.S. can be
used as the basis for learning about, teaching about, and participating in world affairs
(177). The faces of the HWS students that BRIDGE pairs with the elementary school

36

classroom brings the global experience to life for the children in a much more real and
personal way.
The BRIDGE project itself, with its collaboration between professors, college
students, classroom teachers, elementary students and administrators, should actually
exemplify what one wants to teach about globalism; interdependence, cooperation
between different institutions, and the mixing of different perspectives and experiences.
Besides collaboration being an essential component of educational reform and a
powerful tool for mobilizing resources, it also embodies many of the concepts, skills, and
attitudes inherent in the framework of global education (Freeman 1993: 34). It also,
however, exemplifies the conflicts that arise when there are miscommunications and
differing objectives among the involved parties. As will be discussed later in the analysis
of the program, it appears that this collaboration has not always proved to be successful
and mutually beneficial.
Developmentally-appropriate inquiry-based learning; efficient and beneficial
collaboration among all the groups involved; and skilled, globally-minded classroom
teachers are all necessary to the development of global perspectives among Bridge
participants. The BRIDGE program has involved many different people in the work of
opening global windows to the students of these public school classrooms. It has helped
students to use technology and their own inquiring minds to form understandings of the
world, acquire knowledge about other countries, and connect with people of other
cultures. One would hope that this global education initiative has helped, in some way, to
develop the students global perspectives.

37

Chapter Five
Four Components of a Global Perspective
COGNITIVE
ORIENTATION

SKILL

4 COMPONENTS
OF A
GLOBAL
PERSPECTIVE

38

AFFECTIVE
ORIENTATION

KNOWLEDGE

As we have thus justified the need for global education and explained the
BRIDGE program initiative, it is now necessary to identify what exactly global education
should entail. A review of the literature reveals many theoretical approaches to
understanding the topic of global education. While these range from a geoethics of
citizenship, to necessary skills for global competency, to goals for global education,
the current dominant approach to global studies in K-12 schools is that of global
perspectives (OMeara et al. 2001: 215).
In response to the need to develop standards for global education, the American
Forum for Global Education, a non-profit organization that provides leadership and
assistance to school systems, state departments of education, and colleges and
universities, created a Global Education Checklist. Produced under the direction of Fred
Czarra (2002-2003), this checklist is designed to be used as a self-assessment tool that
provides guidelines to direct state standards and local curriculum decisions to ensure that
the global dimension of education is receiving adequate attention. It divides global
education into three main themes:
1. Global issues
2. Global culture
3. Global connections

The checklist then assesses these three themes in terms of students

1. Knowledge
2. Skills
3. Participation (1)

39

This checklist, in addition to the influence of many other leaders in the field of
global education, has helped me to appreciate how a global perspective is multidimensional and includes various components. For my research purpose and interests, I
have operationally defined education for a global perspective as having four
components: the cognitive orientation component (awareness of diversity, scope of
worldview); the knowledge component (substantive understanding of other cultures); the
affective orientation component (emotions, acceptance of other diverse cultures); and the
skills component (the ability to participate in this global world).
Cognitive orientation involves the students awareness that the rest of the world
exists. The development of this cognitive framework will be aided by the student learning
specifically about other cultures and having knowledge of other places and people. Once
this knowledge has been acquired, the student must come to care and feel about the
subjects of this knowledge; this is the affective orientation component. This affect should
be accompanied by a behavioral component, a physical means of acting on those feelings
and understandings: the skills to participate in the global world that the student now has
knowledge of and feelings toward. This process results in a global perspective.

COGNITIVE ORIENTATION
Awareness of diverse cultures
Scope of worldview
Local-Cosmopolitan Orientation

Sir, who would you consider to be a Yankee?

40

Anybody North of Baton Rouge (Louisiana), maam.

-Rudy, resident of New Orleans, LA

For Rudy, a lifelong resident of the Southern tip of Louisiana whom I had the
privilege of meeting while assisting with the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, his world
extended only to the 31st parallel. While I was tempted to laugh at this definition of a
Yankee, I soon realized that Rudy was lighthearted but actually quite sincere. I am sure
he knows that the rest of the world is out there, but it is just that; out there. It is not
something he is very knowledgeable about, or something that he mentally associates
himself as being a part of. Ones cognitive framework shapes how one perceives of the
world. It dictates where we ends and they begins. The cognitive component an essential
part of the global perspective, as it dictates the world that one perceives to exist.
The cognitive component of the global perspective involves, at the most basic
level, an awareness that the world exists. It involves ones consciousness of diversity,
and the scope of his or her worldview. This cognitive framework is perhaps best
illustrated by Robert K. Mertons (1968) juxtaposition of local and cosmopolitan
influentials. Merton, when studying those with interpersonal influence in the small town
of Rovere in the 1943, found that there were two significantly different types of people
who exercised influence: the locals and the cosmopolitans. The local influentials saw
the town of Rovere as their entire world, and their status was based upon their sphere of
personal influence. The locals recognized global events only in the impact of these events
upon themselves, the residents of Rovere. The cosmopolitans, on the other hand, were a
more mobile group whose interpersonal influence rested upon the prestige, skills, and
worldly knowledge they brought to Rovere from the outside world. The cosmopolitans

41

social orientation was to the outside world, and he saw himself as an integral part of a
larger society (441-469).
While the social structures of an elementary-school classroom may contain both
local and cosmopolitan influentials (for example, Buddy who has attended the school
since kindergarten and knows everyone in the grade, versus Susie who has just
transferred in and carries the allure of the exciting newcomer), Mertons ideas are
valuable not so much for his theory of influence as for the dichotomies he presents in
scope of worldview. How do children growing up in the globalized society of the twentyfirst century conceive of their world? Where do they lie on the scale of local to
cosmopolitan orientation? What do they know about the existence of other diverse
cultures?
The cosmopolitan versus local distinction refers to the scale of social
environment. While this distinction presents noteworthy cognitive differences, it is
important to note that there is not a strict dichotomy between local and global
(cosmopolitan) perspectives. One need not worry about local or global differentiation
because a students perspective exists on a continuum and will always, in fact, encircle
both the local and global worlds. Local and global perspectives are not at odds with each
other, but are actually quite intricately related.
Many authors argue that one should be locally rooted with a cosmopolitan
outlook. Nussbaum (1997) urges us to not give up local connections, as ones local
community and relationships are a source of great richness in life. Instead of moving
away from these local communities as one approaches a wider cosmopolitan perspective,

42

Nussbaum says, one should bring the larger world in to his or her local center of concern,
cognitively transforming strangers into ones fellow human beings (60).
Likewise, Cornwell and Stoddard (2003) explain that a cosmopolitan perspective
must be rooted in ones personal life; ones socio-political and geographical location. The
move from this locally rooted perspective to a global perspective involves an ethical
component that will inspire an interest in all of humanity. This rooted ethicality approach
to global education is described as a geoethics of citizenship. According to this model,
the goal of global education is to enable students to take in as many different perspectives
as possible to inform their cognitive framework. This is symbolized by the GPS
technology that navigates according to the input from many different satellites. They say,
By a geoethics of citizenship we are suggesting a project of seeking understanding quite
literally through the triangulation of different points of view (6). The multiple
perspectives necessary to produce a geoethics of citizenship are representative of the
cognitive component of the global perspective.
Stoddard Walsh and Cornwell (2003) say,
A cosmopolitan, or citizen of the world, is sufficiently experienced in the ways of
diverse cultures that she can bracket her own frames of identity and belief long
enough to be comfortable with multiple perspectives, to suspend disbelief in the
presence of new culture and new ways of seeing. (32)
Hanvey (1982) echoes the idea of a geoethics of citizenship with his concept of
perspective consciousness. To take on the perspectives of others, one must first have an
awareness that one does indeed have a perspective of ones own. This cognitive process
involves the realization that ones views are not universally shared, and there are other
people out there who have different ideas (163).

43

As ones scope of worldview expands and one becomes aware of diverse cultural
perspectives, one can start to comprehend the complexity of world dynamics. Hanveys
(1967) fourth dimension of a global perspective is knowledge of global dynamics. This
knowledge involves some modest comprehension of key traits and mechanisms of the
world system, with emphasis on theories and concepts that may increase intelligent
consciousness of global change (167). Many authors feel that global education should
address the world as one of interrelated systems, placing nations and people in
interdependent relationships. This system theory is seen as fluid and dynamic, and
certainly capable of creating change. Hanvey feels that global education should address
the basic principles of change in social systems, and of growth as a form of change, both
good and bad.
The American Forum for Global Educations Global Education Checklist (20022003) suggests that students should be cognitively aware that their world is not the world,
but only one part of a complex, fluid, interrelated system. This does not mean that
students must become experts about all aspects of this complex global system. It
recommends that students should study at least one global issue in-depth over time.
Through this, students will learn enough about one global issue to know how to analyze
others. While students cannot possibly learn all there is to know about cultures and
systems of the world, it is important that they at least learn enough to become aware that
there is much that they dont understand; there is much out there to learn about (3).
Each of the global perspective components derived from the literature was also
considered in terms of its relation to the BRIDGE program. To understand all that was
involved with the BRIDGE program, I had to look beyond the goals stated in the grant

44

proposal. Each individual teacher, in each individual classroom, has certain goals and
objectives that they want their students to get out of the program. To assess these, I
surveyed three BRIDGE teachers who are considered leaders of the program in their
respective schools: Kathy Khuney, a third-grade teacher at Lafayette Intermediate School
in Waterloo; Christine Taylor, a fourth-grade teacher at North St. School in Geneva; and
Marlene Young, a fifth-grade teacher at West St. School in Geneva. These surveys, in
addition to informal interviews with the teachers, observation of their classrooms, and
analysis of the BRIDGE materials, help to provide a deeper insight into the actual
operating goals of the program. These supplemental sources indicate that all four
components are indeed addressed by BRIDGE.
Surveys indicate that the teachers feel it is essential that Students will develop a
global perspective; they will become aware that there are many different societies in the
world. In indicating their four most important goals for their students to get out of the
BRIDGE program, the teachers list many things that address the cognitive component of
the global perspective; for example, An awareness of other cultures, To become more
globally aware of other people, places, and A broad view of global geography. One
teacher says, The BRIDGE project gives us the resources to connect to countries that
our students may never visit or hear of (Young et al. 2005).
A student with a global perspective would cognitively be part of a local world that
extends to encompass the global world at large. She would be aware of the diversity of
people and ideas, and able to see his viewpoint as just one of many. She would have an
understanding of the complexity of world dynamics, and know that her world is part of a
large, interrelated system.

45

KNOWLEDGE COMPONENT
Substantive information about facts, events, cultures and geography

I know that, in Japan, they drink green tea, yeah, and they wear kimonos, and they dont go into the
house with their shoes on, they dont go into school with their shoes on, they take them off and put
slippers on. Even I remember what number 3 looks like. Can I show you?
(paste the letter Kodi drew)
Theres number three.
-Interview with Kodi,4th-grade Lafayette BRIDGE student

Kodis excited and voluntary response to the question Can you tell me anything
you learned about Japan or Japanese people? reveals a great deal of knowledge for a
fourth-grader. A students cognitive worldview will expand as he or she can put faces and
facts to other cultures in the global world. This brings us to the second component of a
global perspective: the knowledge component. The knowledge component involves what
Ronald Case (1993), professor of curriculum and social studies at Simon Fraser
University and co-founder of the Critical Thinking Consortium, would call substantive
information. This includes knowledge of facts, events, cultures, and geography (319).
As Collins, Czarra and Smith (1998) suggest in their guidelines for their global
and international studies education, students should know and understand at least one
other culture in addition to their own. Students should study at least one culture in-depth
and from many different points of view (5). Through this study, students should acquire
the following skills: analyze and evaluate major events and trends in a culture, see the
interconnections with their life in the US, develop respect for others, and examine the

46

common and diverse traits of other cultures (5). These skills will enable them to interact
with diverse people, learn about other ways of life, and learn from people of other
cultures. This knowledge will expand their cognitive framework to an awareness that is
more global in scope.
Unfortunately, this deep cultural understanding is often neglected in education. As
Collins, Czarra and Smith state,
Most students knowledge of other cultures is superficial or limited to exotic
coverage or monolithic examinations. Yet cross-cultural learning is essential for
understanding both our own culture and that of others. By studying other cultures,
we learn what it is to be human. (Collins et al. 5)
The awareness of differences and similarities that comes with knowledge of another
culture implies not only understanding of diversity, but also the recognition of our
human universals; the realization that were all united as humans (Collins et al. 6).
Hanveys approach to the global perspective involves four levels of cross-cultural
awareness, the first two of which involve aspects of the knowledge component. At the
first level, the student is aware of superficial or visible cultural traits. These may result in
broad typifications, or stereotypes. The student then becomes aware of significant and
subtle cultural traits that contrast markedly with their own. This increased awareness
causes frustration and confusion.
Progressing to the third level, Hanvey moves from surface cultural knowledge to
a deeper understanding. This is the progression from simply knowing about another
culture, to feeling about another culture; accepting their humanness. At Hanveys third
level of cross-cultural awareness, the student begins to ask questions and understand the
differences that he or she is noticing. Finally, at the forth level, the student arrives at an

47

understanding of how another culture feels from the standpoint of the insider. Hanvey
(1982) considers this to be cultural immersion (165).
The knowledge component is addressed by the survey responses of the BRIDGE
teachers. Both Young and Taylor rate it as essential that Students will learn substantive
information about another culture (facts, events, geography, etc.). While Kathy Khuney
considers substantive cultural knowledge to be of the least importance to her third-grade
students, she still articulates one of her goals as Students will learn about cultures of
another country (Young et al. 2005).
A student with a global perspective would be educated about the substantive facts
of another culture. He would be knowledgeable of its geography, history, economy,
government, and social life. He would have facts and faces to make the world real and
expand her cognitive worldview. This knowledge is necessary for the student to develop
an accurate and educated perspective of the world.

AFFECTIVE ORIENTATION
Thoughts, feelings and emotions about the world
Open-mindedness, resistance to stereotyping, empathy and non-ethnocentrism

It would be very easy to become friends with someone from a different country because I only say do
you want to be friends.
-Antonio, North St. BRIDGE 4th-grader
I would not want to live in another country because I would have to make new friends, go to a new
school, and get used to another lifestyle. I like it in Geneva more than any other country.
-Carrie, North St. BRIDGE 4th-grader
I would very much like to live in a different country because Id be as far away from my brother Mike
as possible. Like Indonesia.
-Jack, North St. BRIDGE 4th-grader

48

More than just being cognitively aware that a global world exists, beyond just
having knowledge of other cultures, most authors feel that education for global
perspectives must include a dimension that involves emotions about these issues; feelings
about these other cultures. As the preceding survey responses from Carrie and Antonio
demonstrate, students differ in the things they think and the feelings they have about the
world; their affective orientation.
Case (1993) provides the most articulate distinction between the knowledge and
affective orientation components. If substantive knowledge is what students know about a
culture, than the perceptual component is how they know it, how they feel about it, and
what it means to them. Perceptual elements include open-mindedness, resistance to
stereotyping, empathy and non-ethnocentrism. Case acknowledges that both substantive
and perceptual elements are necessary in global education, but he argues that its
particularly important to nurture the perceptual aspects. More substantive information
doesnt necessarily lead to an increased understanding. Students will forget facts, but if
their ways of feeling and thinking are affected, global education will have a much more
permeating and permanent effect (319).
Nussbaum (1997) also effectively argues for the need for this affective component
in the global perspective. She sees the primary function of education as that of
cultivating humanity in world citizens. Students should learn to recognize the worth
of human life wherever it occurs and see ourselves as bound by common human abilities
and problems to people who lie at a great distance form us. This cultivation of empathy,
this cross-cultural connection at the most basic level, serves an essentially humanistic
purpose (9). Indeed, at the heart of the global education movement is the hope that

49

increased education and understanding can lead to peace among nations and the enhanced
well-being of all.
As Hanvey (1982) laments, this effort does not come about naturally. Human
groups commonly have difficulty in accepting the humanness of other human groups
(166). There are great differences between the people of the world, both around the globe
and in individual local communities. As one cultivates the empathy to learn about these
people as humans, it does not necessarily mean that one views all humans in
unconditional esteem. Nussbaum (1997) explains that it acceptable, and even necessary,
to criticize aspects of other cultures. But this criticism can occur only after they are first
understood; when they cease to be perceived as alien. The world citizen refuses to
criticize until he respects and understands (65).
The affective component appears to be of personal importance to the teachers who
participate in BRIDGE. Their goals include hopes that their students will: (Develop) a
relationship/connection to students and families in other countries, and Compare and
contrast their own lives with the lives of children in other countries. They all rate it as
essential that Students will become more open-minded and empathetic towards people
of other cultures, and Students will be better equipped to resist stereotyping and form
non-ethnocentric views of the world (Young et al. 2005).
A student with a global perspective will care about the world of which she is now
aware and knowledgeable of. She will have thoughts and feelings about others that
display open-mindedness, resistance to stereotyping, empathy and non-ethnocentrism.
SKILLS COMPONENT
Ability to participate in this global world.

50

If global education makes students aware of, knowledgeable about, and concerned
with issues of the global world, but fails to equip students with the skills they need to
participate in this world, it is a fairly futile endeavor. From both the economic standpoint,
and the world peace and cross-cultural communication perspectives, it is necessary for
global education to help students develop the skills that will enable them to become
active players in the global world.
There is much discussion in the higher education literature that purports the
development of global or transnational competencies. These include sophisticated
abilities like fluency in foreign languages, and the specific professional competencies and
cross-cultural mobilities that will be necessary to compete in a global economy. Global
competencies also involve the ability to learn about, interact with, and communicate with
others in the global social sphere (Cornwell, and Stoddard 1999). Additionally, global
participation will also require ethical and logical reasoning abilities to make educated
choices in a shrinking moral sphere (Senders 2004). In describing global education,
Merryfield (1991) sees global education as a society movement that recognizes the need
for education that prepares young people for the challenges of an ever-changing,
interdependent world (288).
But not all American students will go on to higher education. Elementary and
secondary education, therefore, are highly responsible for the development of global

51

perspectives in Americas future citizens. As is stated in the Guidelines for Global and
International Studies Education (1998),
If the U.S. electorate is to be equipped with the necessary knowledge, skills and,
most important, willingness, to better understand international matters, K-12
schools carry the major responsibility for assuring that all of our citizens are
sufficiently informed to act responsibly when these matters are discussed and
voted upon. (312)
The development of global competencies can, and should, begin in the elementary
school classroom, but in a developmentally-appropriate way.
The Global Education Checklist outlines the following skills objectives for
students as a result of global education: to learn techniques of studying about global
issues, effectively process data, and develop the ability to accept new data or opinions
(Collins et al. 1998: 315). Additionally, Cornwell and Stoddard????? note the need to
create students who can move easily among cultures, who do not pre-judge, and who seek
out common humanity. These students will be critical consumers of commodities, media
reports and economic policies (35).
Global education projects should teach children how to communicate across
cultures (both socially and literally through technology), conduct research about topics
with which they are unfamiliar, to organize new knowledge, and to effectively share this
information with others. These skills will someday be essential to these students as they
seek employment, consume products and services, develop relationships, and address
societal issues in their global world.
This skill component is quite important to the BRIDGE program. There are some
skill areas, such as foreign language instruction, that BRIDGE does not address, but there
are other skill objectives upon which it focuses intensely. One of the programs primary

52

goals is to make students more sophisticated users of technology in order to more fully
participate in the global, technology-driven world. Technology is used to increase crosscultural communication, help students research and learn about the world, and help
students to organize and articulate facts about the global world in ways that can be
presented and shared with others. In addition to technology use, BRIDGEs focus on
inquiry-based learning helps students to develop skills that will enable them to learn
about many different global issues and different people throughout their lives (Brophy et.
al which one? 4). The BRIDGE teachers emphasized the skill objectives of research,
inquiry-based learning, and technology use.
A student with a global perspective will have the skills to utilize technology to
learn about their world, communicate with others in this world, and compete in the world
economy. He or she will have the communication skills and cross-cultural competencies
to negotiate a diverse and dynamic global system.
Global forces will affect peoples lives whether they realize it or not. Armed with
a global perspective, students will be able to understand and act upon the forces that
impact their lives. While the uneducated may be rendered helpless and vulnerable to the
forces of globalization, the educated global citizen will have the means to make
connections and positive change in an increasingly fragmented world. With the
appropriate cognitive frameworks, knowledge, compassion, and global skills, tomorrows
citizens may indeed have the ability to change the world.
BRIDGE Global Perspective Benchmarks
Cognitive Orientation
Student displays awareness of diversity in the world
Student has a worldview that is greater in scope than the immediate locality
Knowledge

53

Student is knowledgeable of substantive information about facts, events, cultures

and geography
Student can locate a country on a map and name two facts about the country or
culture
Affective Orientation
Student displays thoughts, feelings, and emotions about the world
Student displays open-mindedness, resistance to stereotyping, empathy and nonethnocentrism
Skills
Student is developing ability to participate in the global world
Student can use technology to research different cultures and different global
issues

Chapter Six
Research Process, Methodology and Findings
Ideal Research Design and Pilot Study

54

I began my research with the following hypothesis. If students participate in the

BRIDGE program, they will have higher levels of:
1. Cognitive understanding of the world
2. Knowledge regarding a culture other than their own
3. Affective acceptance of diverse cultures, and
4. Skills to participate in the global world.

To assess this, I planned to develop instruments that measure the nature and scope
of students global perspectives, and then characterize the degree to which their
perspective had been shaped by participation in the BRIDGE program. To determine this,
I envisioned the following research design:

Time 1
(Pre-Bridge)

Time 2
(PostBridge)

BRIDGE Classroom

Non-BRIDGE Classroom

Students Global
Perspectives

Students Global
Perspectives

Students Global
Perspectives

Students Global
Perspectives

I planned to use a multi-method approach involving surveys, knowledge tests,

observation and interviews. Surveys and knowledge tests were to be administered to both
classes both before and after they participated in BRIDGE, observational protocol and
seating charts were developed to assess student behavior and the degree of inquiry-based
learning, and interviews were to be conducted after the completion of the program. The
intended research population was the Marlene Youngs 5th-grade class at West St. School,
a classroom in which I would be student teaching from January to May of 2006, as well
as the neighboring non-BRIDGE classroom.

55

As I began the research process, however, I encountered many obstacles. First of

all, Marlene Young, the teacher of the intended research population, had a three-month
health-related absence from school, and her class had minimal participation in BRIDGE
this year. Additionally, as I tried to explore other classes to study, I found that Marlenes
absence had also affected those who typically depend on her leadership in the program;
the other teachers at West St. School were also not very involved this year.
I then moved to North St. School, the other elementary school in Geneva, where I
was able to observe and assess the students of Christine Taylors 4th-grade inclusive
blended special-ed classroom. I found Christine to do a wonderful job with the inquirybased mystery lessons when the class actually had time do them, and I developed some
interesting insights from my interviews and surveys with her students.
Unfortunately, this population, while interesting in and of itself, could not readily
be compared with another non-BRIDGE classroom, as the students in Christines class
were of unique and varied abilities unlike any other 4th-grade classroom. Furthermore, as
I observed and test-drove my instruments on Christines class, it became clear that a
study of this class under any circumstances would have been fruitless. While the class did
learn a little information about Vietnam and produce some type of research project, my
weekly observation visits revealed the BRIDGE program to be nearly nonexistent. An
analysis of the factors contributing to this finding will be presented at the end of this
paper.
Study at Lafayette Intermediate School
At this point, I retreated into a literature and experiential based study. I decided to
pursue my field research at Lafayette Intermediate School in Waterloo, NY. I had heard

56

positive things about the teachers and principal in the Lafayette BRIDGE program, but
had never had the opportunity to establish a relationship with them.
Lafayette Intermediate School services 350 students in grades 3-5. Lafayette
Intermediate School is located about ten miles from Genevas elementary schools. While
the Geneva schools study Vietnam in 4th in 5th grade classes, BRIDGE at Lafayette occurs
in 3rd grade and focuses on Japan. Like all New York State public schools, Lafayettes
core curriculum is largely determined by the New York State learning standards.
Systemically, global education at Lafayette Intermediate School is much more
institutionalized and advanced than at other schools Ive observed. This is largely due to
the efforts of the schools principal, Sally Covert. As the principal, Covert is the
instructional leader of the school. As an enthusiastic traveler who recently visited Japan
with the BRIDGE program, Covert is a dynamic force behind a global education
movement. As an enthusiastic traveler and a principal, Covert is leading a dynamic global
education initiative.
Other elementary school administrators, while supportive, have not embraced
global education with the same enthusiasm as Covert. Her administrative office is
completely decorated with Japanese artifacts and memorabilia. While some of these are
from Japan, others have been given to her as gifts from the many students who are aware
of her love of Japanese culture. While only two classrooms in the school participate in the
HWS BRIDGE program, the entire student body is exposed to Japanese culture at schoolwide assemblies presented by Covert, as well as through her lessons with individual
classrooms. Covert feels it is very important to educate her students about diversity
because, in a small town like Waterloo, they just are not exposed to a diverse population

57

and the vast variety of cultures that live in the world. She continuously researches Japan
to learn more to share with the students and to satisfy her own curiosity. Recently, the
school has also become involved with some global education initiatives regarding China.
While these initiatives are all powered by Covert now, she says that her passion would
not have been sparked without the catalyst of the BRIDGE grant that enabled her to
travel and study in Japan (Covert 2006).
While the limited timeframe at this point of my research prohibited me from fully
employing my original research design, I was able to assess a limited cross-sectional
sample of fourth-grade students. I maintained my original research hypothesis, but altered
the research design. Through surveys and in-depth interviews, I explored the global
perspectives of six students who had participated in the BRIDGE program in their thirdgrade classrooms the year before, and compared these with the perspectives of six
students who did not participate in BRIDGE.

Time 1
(One year post-BRIDGE)

Sample of students who had

been in a 3rd grade BRIDGE
classroom

Sample of students who had

NOT been in a 3rd grade
BRIDGE classroom

Students Global
Perspectives

Students Global
Perspectives

These students came from two neighboring fourth-grade classrooms. The sample
populations were essentially random; the BRIDGE students chosen were those who
happened to be in one of these two cooperating classrooms and had returned their
parental consent form. To select a comparable non-BRIDGE sample, the classroom
teachers recommended students whom they felt were of similar backgrounds, intellectual
abilities, and gender, as the students in the BRIDGE sample. In the end, there were two

58

boys and four girls in each sampling group. They students in both research populations,
and all of their classmates, were Caucasian.
The surveys were administered as a preliminary, quantitative assessment. Their
utility is limited, however, by the rudimentary writing abilities of fourth-grade students.
Most students at this level do not effectively convey their ideas through writing.
Interviews were used, therefore, to supplement these written responses through
interpersonal communication, and also to explore other, more complex issues. These indepth case analyses were the primary focus of my study at Lafayette.
The objectives of the surveys and interviews were two-fold. Primarily, I hoped to
explore the students global perspectives as related to each of the four components:
cognitive orientation, knowledge, affective orientation, and skills. Additionally, I hoped
to understand the students past experiences, parental influences, and other educational
influences that may have impacted these components of their global perspectives. In
understanding these, I could thereby consider alternative causal variables besides the
BRIDGE program.
The interviews were conducted throughout one school day and lasted about as
long as the ten-year-old attention span would allow; ten to fifteen minutes. I began each
of the interviews by explaining what the interviews would entail and my purpose for
conducting them, and chatting and joking with the students to set them at ease.
Throughout the interviews, I utilized visual and interactive tools to engage the students
interest and attention.
In response to the questions Would you ever want to live in another country? or
Would you ever be friends with someone from a different country, I noticed some

59

dissonance between my results with this research sample and my results from the other
three classes I had surveyed. Not one of the twelve interviewees had outright negative
responses, while all of the other classes had some students who provided answers like, I
dont like other countries because there might be a war going on, and No. I dont like
people from other countries (Khuney class surveys 2005). These students were excited
to help, and most answered the questions openly and easily once they became
comfortable with me. In reflecting upon the interview process and results, however, I feel
that there was some bias among the students to answer in socially appropriate ways for
the situation. I was presented to the students as a college student hoping to understand
their ideas about the world, and there seemed to be an inclination to answer in ways of
which they felt such a researcher would approve. While these positive responses may
indeed be a testament to the climate of acceptance and cross-cultural education that is
promoted at Lafayette, they may also exemplify the Hawthorne Effect (students are
producing better results simply because they are given extra attention and they perform
better when they are being studied).
Although my ideal sample size and longitudinal study were compromised under
the circumstances, I found these Lafayette interviews to be very enlightening and
revealing. Some of my findings seem to reveal BRIDGEs ineffectiveness, while others
highlight BRIDGEs powerful impact.
Cognitive
Cognitive orientation is the most ambiguous of the global perspective
components, and I found it to be the most difficult to measure. Two methods were used to

60

assess students cognitive orientations. First, students were asked If you could go
anywhere in the world, where would you most like to take a vacation?

BRIDGE students do display a larger scale of orientation, with only one student
naming a common U.S. vacation destination, two choosing a less-common U.S. state, one
choosing Japan, and three choosing another foreign country. The cognitive orientation of
the non-BRIDGE students gravitated towards the more local end of the spectrum, with
the majority of the students citing a common U.S. vacation destination, and one student
falling into each of the remaining categories.
The second cognitive orientation assessment involved a series of five pictures
featuring street scenes with people from different countries: America (New York City),
England, China, Iraq and Africa.

61

It was interesting to see that not a single student chose the picture of China or
Iraq, and only one chose Africa. When prompted to explain why, students commented
that China looked too crowded, the people in the Africa picture looked poor, and the
people in the Iraq picture did not look happy.
I found this comment about the Iraqis unhappiness to be a little stereotypical, as
none of the other pictures showed people smiling, doing fun things, or displaying
happiness in any way. Some of the other negative comments and connotations, however,
may be more an aesthetic response to the composition of the picture than an ethnocentric
or racist response. Although I tried to pick similar pictures from each region, a
retrospective analysis reveals that the China picture does show congested traffic, and the
children in the Africa picture do indeed look sad and malnourished.
Nevertheless, this exercise did yield some interesting results. All except for one of
the non-BRIDGE students chose New York City as the picture theyd most like to visit.
Some of them recognized the scene as New York City, and seemed relieved to have found
a familiar option. Only one BRIDGE student chose New York City, however; the rest of

62

them chose the London street scene (except for Kodi, who chose Africa because he
wanted to go there and help the people). This difference is notable because it is nearly
unanimous. While the London and New York City street scenes both looked somewhat
familiar and appealing, the non-BRIDGE students clearly gravitated towards the more
familiar option, while the BRIDGE students employed a slightly more cosmopolitan
orientation in their preference for Europe.
Knowledge

Of all four global perspective components, BRIDGEs impact upon the

knowledge component is the most dramatic. The knowledge component was assessed by
first asking the student to identify Japan (the country of study with BRIDGE) on a map
and to name two facts about Japan, Japanese people or Japanese culture. The student was
then asked to repeat this for another country other than Japan.
As this chart shows, there is a pronounced difference between the BRIDGE and
the non-BRIDGE students in the knowledge area. Of the six students in each sample, five

63

of the BRIDGE students could find Japan on a map, while only one non-BRIDGE student
could do so. All six of the BRIDGE students could name two facts about Japan or
Japanese culture, as compared to the same single non-BRIDGE student. Even when asked
about a different country that they hadnt focused upon with BRIDGE, nearly double the
number of BRIDGE students demonstrated geographic and cultural knowledge.
I was particularly impressed by how that every single BRIDGE student told me
something new that the others had not. I believe that this specialized diversity of
knowledge is a result of BRIDGEs inquiry-based learning approach. As each student
researched and displayed his or her own topic, he or she took ownership of the
knowledge. Rather than passive receiving information, students become invested in their
own inquiry, using their questions and understandings to create their own knowledge.
This resonates with the students, and a year later they still recall their topics with the
sentiment that this was my project; here is what I know about Japan. This inquirybased, project-based approach seems very effective in creating lasting knowledge.
Affective
The survey and interview questions: Would you ever want to a live in a different
country? Why or why not? and Do you think that someone from a different country
want to live in America? Why or why not? were designed to both assess students
interest in other cultures, and to test for ethnocentrism. In previous test-drive samples,
there were a number of students who would not at all like to live in a different country,
but thought that someone else would very much like to live in America, revealing some

64

ethnocentric thought processes.

65

Obvious ethnocentrism was not the norm for either of the Lafayette samples, as
most of the students responded positively to both of the questions. If anything, however,
the survey responses reveal more ethnocentrism on the part of the BRIDGE students than
on the control group. Only half of the BRIDGE students would like to live in a foreign
country, but nearly all think that a foreigner would want to come live here. One of the
former BRIDGE students, Sadie, demonstrated a clearly ethnocentric perspective, saying
that she would definitely not want to go to another country (her reasoning displayed
negative connotations of bad weather in all foreign lands), but felt that a foreigner would
very much want to come here to America. Sadie also displays a lack of empathy when
she rejects the Africa picture saying Those people look poor and it doesnt look like
fun. Another one of the BRIDGE students, Taylor, expresses stereotypical views of
foreigners, repeatedly expressing that she felt that a theoretical new foreign classmate
would be violent.
Although such responses from former BRIDGE students may be taken to reveal
the programs negative effect on students affective orientations, such responses cannot
really be seen as a result of BRIDGE. Rather, they may be the views that children are
exposed to in all other areas of their lives. Indeed, some non-BRIDGE students also
displayed negative affective sentiments. There were also non-BRIDGE students who
displayed open-mindedness, like Krystal who would want to be friends with someone
from a different country because maybe theyd be friendly and fun once you got to know
them. Even if someone looks different, you dont know what theyre like on the inside.
Moreover, many student interviews left me in an internal debate over what
meaning to attribute to their responses. For example, many students felt that foreigners

66

would want to come live in America because we are a free country. Indeed, citizens of
the United States do enjoy rights that many in the world do not. But one must also keep
in mind that these children are growing up in the time of the Bush administration and the
war in Iraq, where the rhetoric of freedom permeates the media and is used to validate the
war. It is difficult to evaluate whether such freedom responses display recognition of
global inequalities, or ethnocentric views of American superiority. There is a fine line
between counting ones blessings and extolling ones virtues.
Additionally, student case studies exemplify the potential that goes unrealized
when a global education program like BRIDGE does not reach a child. Shelby, for
example, has the open-mindedness and empathy that characterize a positive affective
orientation, but she doesnt have the knowledge and the faces with which to cognitively
connect her feelings.
Similarly, Erica, another non-BRIDGE student, does not display the affect to
accompany her knowledge and past experience. She displays a great deal of geography
knowledge (the result of some interactive globe games her grandparents have purchased
her), but while she can name things on a map, she does not know about the people in
those places she is pointing to. Erica is in a math class with one of the former BRIDGE
students, Evan, and a new Mexican student who does not speak any English. Erica does
not know this students name, and although she has been on a cruise to Latin America,
she can not identify where he is from, saying I dont know, he speaks a whole different
language. She also comments that people in America might not greet him with respect.
Evan, on the other hand, knows that this boy is named Luis, he speaks Spanish,
and he is from Mexico. Evan displays a greater level of empathy for Luis, and looks

67

beyond the language barrier to the boy behind it, noting that Luis is probably shy because
he cant communicate with anyone right now. In recognizing these feelings, Evan
displays empathy by putting himself in Luis shoes. While these differing levels of affect
cannot be directly attributed to the BRIDGE program, they are noteworthy, especially as
Erica has physically been to another country while Evan has not.
While we cannot take these circumstantial results as an indicator that BRIDGE
negatively impacts affective orientation, we also cannot make any claims that it has a
marked positive impact. An interesting comparison can be made to a previous study at
Lafayette that found that intensive focus on Japan may have unforeseen negative effects.
In a M.A.T. thesis entitled The Effects of Global Education on 3rd Graders Cultural
Sensitivity: Understanding the Japan BRIDGE Project, Lindsay Meyer (2005) found
that this global education initiative had some unintended consequences for students
sensitivity towards those of other cultures. Her findings show that Japan essentially
became a mascot for the world; popular and well-loved, but not seen as representative of
the entire world. While BRIDGE did foster intrigue and interest in the Japanese culture
and increased levels of open-mindedness towards people of that particular culture, it
didnt actually result in students expressing heightened sensitivity to people from all
other cultures. Meyer actually found that students became more closed-minded to anyone
from other cultures except Japan (87).
A childs affective orientation is a difficult thing to teach to and influence in the
classroom. Lessons may have unintended affects as the children processes information in
different ways. Yet, the BRIDGE program does not have a negative affect on the childs
orientation. The examples of non-BRIDGE children whose weak affective orientation do

68

give highlight the need to have global education reach all students, to provide students
with images and knowledge that they can attach their ideas and emotions to. The
knowledge component does correlate with the affective component; if one knows about
people of another culture, one is certainly more likely to care about those people. While it
seems that BRIDGE could do more in addressing the affective component of the global
perspective, it also seems that students affect is better off being involved with BRIDGE,
than not being exposed to any global education or experiences at all.

Skills

Technology as a means to an end is a major goal of the BRIDGE project, and I

was curious to see whether BRIDGE students were more technologically adept than their
non-BRIDGE peers. I have seen some finished products that are quite impressive for
students at the elementary school level. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to
physically observe students technology skills, and could only evaluate their self-reported
69

skills in response to the question If your teacher told you to find out information about
the holidays in India, how might you find that out?
All six of the BRIDGE students could provide me with a knowledgeable
explanation of how one would use the internet to find out information about another
country. I would go on www.google.com. You would type in the holidays for whatever
country, youd click Search, youd go under and find all the holidays (Kodi).
These technological skills do not seem to be solely due to BRIDGE, however;
four of their non-BRIDGE counterparts could provide knowledgeable explanations as
well. The students at Lafayette all participate in computer classes for an hour each week,
and this seems to have greatly benefited the students. It is noteworthy that one of the two
students who showed no knowledge of this task was a boy who had just entered the
school this year, and had previously attended a different school that did not place such an
emphasis on technology training. Although the entire school had the benefit of receiving
this technology training, many of the BRIDGE students indicated that the BRIDGE
program was helpful in aiding them with their research and giving them practice and
purpose for utilizing the Internet and Microsoft Publisher. It also seems to be one of the
only times in which they experienced first-hand the process of interacting with other
cultures through the use of technology.
Consideration of Alternative Causal Variables
As I have alluded to previously, BRIDGE is certainly not the only factor
influencing these students global perspectives. One intent of the interviews was to
account for other causal variables: the nature of the parents global perspectives, the
impact of the childs past experiences, and the presence of other educational influences.

70

In so doing, I hoped to either eliminate alternative causal variables on the effects of the
BRIDGE findings, or, if they could not be eliminated, to explore how these other
variables impacted the childrens global perspectives.
The most influential people in the life of a child are his or her parents. Every
student entering these classrooms comes from a home that promotes a different
worldview, and it could just be that the students in this BRIDGE sample came from more
globally-minded households. I began the interviews with various background questions
that assessed the influence of parental global perspectives, like Do your parents watch
the news? and Have your parents ever been to a different country? Additionally, I
probed the children at points throughout the interview where it seemed suitable to ask
about their parents ideas or experiences.
There does not seem to be a discernible difference in the parental influence of the
BRIDGE and the non-BRIDGE populations. Only one BRIDGE and one non-BRIDGE
student indicated that their parents did not watch the news, although the other students
could not differentiate between news sources or local vs. world news. To evaluate the
parents travel experiences, I developed the following ranking system:
3- Parents have been to a different country.
2- Parents have been to a different state.
1- Parents have never been out of state.

One must allow for some error in the student-reports of their parents occupations; many
did not seem to really know. The comparison between the two groups, however, reveals
an equal number of parents at each rank (2 level 3s, 3 level 2s, and 1 level 1 in each
group). Beyond this, there was little I could do to account for differences in parental
influence.

71

In assessing the students past experiences, I asked about whether or not they
knew anyone who was from a different country, and where the student had traveled. Here,
there does seem to be a slight indication that the BRIDGE sample has had more
perspective-widening background experiences than the control sample. All six BRIDGE
students fell into the level 2 category of having traveled out of state, while half of the
non-BRIDGE students had never been out of state (although that group also did have on
student who had been abroad). Only one student from each sample knew someone from a
different country (the previously mentioned Luis).
One interview in particular reminded me of the many other factors from a childs
background that factor in to his or her global perspective. For many of these children, the
media and internet technology are very powerful in forming childrens global
perspectives. Jessie, the interviewee, was not a participant in the BRIDGE program, nor
has she ever traveled out of state. Yet, the principals door displays a picture of Jessie
dressed as a Japanese Geisha girl for Halloween. Her responses displayed one of the
strongest global perspectives of all the students. It seems that, in addition to the
schoolwide Japanese awareness program and the positive influence of her parents, most
of Jessies global knowledge and acceptance comes from the TV shows, movies, and
internet sites she is exposed to. I watch a lot of TV, she tells me. And I love the
Internet! Jessies responses highlight the way in which technology can shape the world
of a solitary child in Waterloo, as well as the potential for the role that technology can
play in enhancing global perspectives.
Throughout the interviews, I did not see any evidence that the students had
participated in any other global education initiatives in school, besides the traditional

72

New York state curriculum. These two fourth-grade classes were selected because the
other ones are currently involved with a China global education program. Most internal
school influence can be safely correlated to participation or non-participation in
BRIDGE.
To summarize, I could not pinpoint any external causal variable that may have
impacted my results. The parental influence and non-BRIDGE classroom experiences of
the two groups seemed to be comparable. While the BRIDGE sample may have had
slightly more extensive backgrounds through their travel experiences, this may have been
balanced by other students exposure through the media, and is too small of a difference
to constitute a substantial alternative cause. While there are certainly many factors
influencing the students global perspectives, consideration of these alternative variables
leads me to believe that these alternative factors are comparable for each group.

Conclusion
In some cases, external influences and past experiences impacted the students
global perspectives. In other cases, the school provides the makings of a childs global
perspective. My study reveals that BRIDGE cannot claim to enhance students affective
orientations, but it also demonstrates the importance of programs like BRIDGE in
introducing students to the world. One non-BRIDGE student, Zack, exemplifies what
happens when neither external nor internal global influences are present. He displayed no
knowledge of other cultures, no interest in visiting another country, and strongly felt that
other people would want to come to America because We are a free country. If Zach
had had exposure through a global education program like BRIDGE, his responses would

73

have displayed at least a rudimentary level of awareness that another culture exists. Zach
has not had the life experiences to introduce him to foreign people, places, or ideas. If his
education does not expose him to these things at some point along the way, Zach may
become a dangerous ethnocentric threat, or a marginalized pawn, in the globalization
system.
The BRIDGE effort, therefore, is quite important. Even with the limited sample of
these twelve students, my findings lead me to suspect that it does have an impact. The
BRIDGE students display a more global cognitive orientation than their non-BRIDGE
peers. They certainly demonstrate more knowledge of Japan, as well as slightly more
knowledge of other countries. The affective component is the weakest distinction, but
positive affective orientation is evidenced. As for the skill component, BRIDGE students
seemed to be more adept with using technology to learn about and participate in the
world. The differences between the BRIDGE and the non-BRIDGE students are small
and potentially arbitrary, but they do point to one significant trend: the overall responses
of the BRIDGE students indicate higher levels of the global perspective components than
do the responses of the non-BRIDGE students.
Preliminary Comparison Between Geneva and Lafayette
The interviews with students at Lafayette Intermediate School in Waterloo and
those at North St. School in Geneva were not conducted in a systematic and controlled
enough way to directly compare the results of the two studies. Additionally, the students
were of different academic abilities and at different states of involvement with the
BRIDGE program when they were interviewed. As these two fourth-grade classes both

74

composed such a great amount of my research, however, I would like to articulate some
speculative comparisons.
While conducting my research, I was initially impressed with the different racial
compositions at the two schools. According to GreatSchools Incorporated, a not-for-profit
organization that provides comprehensive profiles for more than 120,000 schools
nationwide, the population of Waterloo Central School district is 94% white, 3% AfricanAmerican and 3% Hispanic. Geneva, on the other hand, is only 68% white, and is 19%
African-American, 11% Hispanic and 2% Asian/Pacific Islander (2005).

Born in or near (within 30 miles of) Geneva

Born in U.S. but not Geneva
Born in another country

As I began my research, I soon learned that this visual racial diversity also
represented a great diversity of ethnic and national backgrounds. As the pie charts
demonstrate, over half of the Geneva research sample was born in an area other than
Geneva, and three of those students were from foreign territories (Mexico and Puerto
Rico). The Waterloo students, on the other hand, were of much more local backgrounds
(only one student was born out-of-state and all were born in America).

75

When diversity is not present in a classroom, programs like BRIDGE that provide
alternative perspectives are particularly important. BRIDGE gives a face to the
ambiguous world by illuminating it through the eyes of the class HWS ambassador
and others who have been to Japan or, better yet, are from Japan. This face is so
important, particularly in a relatively insular school district like Waterloo. Lafayettes
principal Sally Covert recognizes this need, and supports BRIDGE and develops other
programming as a means of meeting this need.
When a class has a diverse body of students, however, as is the case for Christine
Taylors class and many other classes throughout the United States, it is equally
necessary to have global education, but it could possibly be done in a more meaningful
way. It is worth considering the possibility of capitalizing upon the diversity in the
classroom as a basis for effective global education. There is rich possibility for growth in
all four areas of the global perspective by incorporating and building upon the diverse
backgrounds that students bring to the classroom and using these to provide faces for the
world. Interviews with Christines kids revealed that BRIDGE is indeed influential upon
global perspectives, but not nearly as much as the backgrounds and friendships that
students already have.
Many of Christines top students could recall a few things about Vietnams rice
paddies or water puppets, regurgitating the information that they had heard in class. But it
was Antonio, a Mexican immigrant child who was classified as a Special Education
student, who displayed the greatest understanding of life in a different country. In survey
responses, Antonio indicated that he would want (very much) to go to Mexico to see my
family. He appreciated the economic disparity that exists in the world, noting that

76

People from other countries dont have enough money to come to America because they
are poor.
Those in the class who knew Antonio had their own real-world experiences that
were formed in the process of befriending someone from a different country. As one boy,
Kevin, said I think it would be very easy to become friends with someone from a
different country because Antonio is from another country, and I am friends with him.
BRIDGE is certainly valuable to these students nonetheless, but it doesnt account for the
diverse personal experiences that students bring to the classroom, and the wealth of
education that can be gleaned from those experiences.
The world is not real to these students unless specific experiences (either in real
life, through the media or through education) make it real. Although Christines class
experience with BRIDGE was very limited, these students were much more supportive of
the idea of visiting and making friends with people from Vietnam, a country they had
studied and learned about, than they were of ideas about the world in general. The
Lafayette students could think and talk about and identify with the world because they
had facts and faces and ideas to associate with. Any educational efforts that help to make
the world real for students, either by drawing upon the experiences therefore, are very
valuable. BRIDGE gives students a way to grasp on to the concept of the world.

77

Chapter Seven
The Rhetoric Versus the Reality of Global Education
Problems of the BRIDGE Program
The field (of global education) has been marked over the years by a maximum of rhetoric and a
minimum of action (Kerr 1979: 115).

While my research revealed some interesting findings about BRIDGEs

significance, my difficulties in securing a research sample left me feeling uncertain about
claims of the programs effectiveness. As I encountered numerous dead ends in my
attempt to find a BRIDGE classroom to study, I adopted an analytical perspective to
assess why exactly I was encountering such difficulty. Why could I not find a class to
study? What structural and circumstantial factors were contributing to the programs
failure? Where was the program that I had read so much about in grant proposals and on
posters at HWS?
My experiences with BRIDGE are not inconsistent with other studies of global
education programs. The literature reveals a vociferous debate about the rhetoric versus

78

the reality of global education. The reality I observed did not reflect the rhetoric of
BRIDGEs grant proposals and reports. There have been, however, times and situations in
which BRIDGE has been quite successful, and in comparing these against the present
situation, I have identified three factors that may be responsible for the programs poor
performance in the Geneva schools this year: insufficient training of, support for, and
shared vision among the involved parties; a lack of institutionalization resulting in
burnout; and the deference of a non-integrated program to competing curriculum that is
mandated and integrated. I will analyze these three factors and make recommendations
for improvements for Hobart and William Smiths BRIDGE Program, as well as the
school districts involved.
Insufficient Training of, Support for, and Shared Vision Among the Involved Parties
It is evident that there is insufficient training and support for those parties whom
are crucial to the success of BRIDGE. From the Hobart and William Smith students, to
the elementary school teachers, to the administrative personnel, there are many
individuals involved with BRIDGE who do not seem capable of adequately performing
the tasks that they have been assigned. There also does not appear to be a shared vision
among all of the parties involved.
While the Hobart and William Smith students who are studying abroad (Student
Fellows) do have a short pre-trip training session and are given a student guidebook,
most of them do not have any previous elementary education experience. Of the eleven
students who participated over the past two years, only three had experience in Hobart
and William Smiths education program. It takes substantial training and experience with
teaching to create effective, developmentally-appropriate lesson plans. In its grant

79

proposals, BRIDGE claims to be greatly reliant on the participation of innovative preservice teachers (Brophy et al. 2004a) for the program to be successful; one can
therefore see why it would be unsuccessful when BRIDGEs participants are actually
untrained, unsupported students living in a foreign country.
Not only are students insufficiently trained in elementary education; they are also
not well-trained in the technology use that is crucial to BRIDGEs success. The BRIDGE
program is greatly dependent upon digital and communication technologies, and many of
the students do not have the technological know-how to effectively utilize the technology.
Particularly in countries that are not very technologically developed, the program seems
to be most successful when there is at least one technologically adept student or faculty
member facilitating the communication from the foreign country.
The lack of preparation of teachers is not simply the fault of the BRIDGE
program, but is indicative of a problem in the teacher education system at large. The
global education movement will be fueled by the development of a generation of teachers
who have their own global perspectives, and therefore also have the knowledge and
motivation to equip their students with such a perspective. Angene H. Wilson (1993),
professor of education and associate director of International Affairs at the University of
Kentucky, discusses the need to encourage pre-service teachers to develop their own
perceptions of, and experiences in, the world. Whether through first-hand international
experiences, or on-campus cross-cultural experiences, it is necessary for pre-service
teacher education programs to provide teachers with the substantive information and
perceptual framework that will enable them to bring global education into their
classrooms (25). Currently, it does not seem that this is a very substantial priority of most

80

teacher certification and training programs. In fact, the course requirements for education
students often discourage them from studying abroad, as it often prevents them from
graduating on time. There seems to be a lack of study-abroad programs that are aligned
with meeting education certification requirements. Most certified teachers will enter their
classrooms without ever having engaged in significant international relationships or
experiences.
One can see, therefore, that as the Geneva BRIDGE teachers have not had many
of these cross-cultural experiences themselves, they do not always have high levels of
interest and passion in the countries about which they teach. This is quite problematic.
Merryfield (1998), in her analysis of the practice of Social Studies teachers as they teach
global perspectives and the contexts in which teachers made instructional decisions,
found that The most important contextual factors are teachers beliefs, values,
experiences, their knowledge of globalization and access to resources to teach it (366).
With many other subjects about which the teachers are much more knowledgeable and
have many more resources, the study of foreign cultures or global issues are not readily
pursued. Teachers must be given the opportunities to personally experience those foreign
people and places, or at least to thoroughly study them, and then be given the materials
and resources with which they can effectively teach others.
Just as the HWS student fellows and the elementary school teachers do not always
have sufficient training and passion, it also seems that some of the programs
administrators are not particularly well-suited to their roles either. For a collaborative
program like this to succeed, it must be directed with passion, and a thoughtful
consideration for the needs and desires of all of the parties involved. Personal investment

81

in the form of visits to support the HWS fellows in the country of study, as well as
accountability to the area schoolteachers, is essential.
In informal interviews with many of the elementary school principals and
teachers, it was commonly reported that the administrators of BRIDGE are not always
attuned to the teachers and students needs and wants. While many of the HWS faculty
members involved with BRIDGE are seen as being very helpful, passionate, and invested
in the experience of the elementary school teachers and students, there are other BRIDGE
administrators who are viewed with disappointment and frustration. Many teachers
seemed disillusioned with BRIDGE, feeling that the program sometimes is more focused
on providing positive publicity for Hobart and William Smith Colleges than actually
enhancing the global education of the elementary school students it is supposed to serve.
Even more problematic than the lack of training and inconsistent administration, I
see a lack of unified vision among the involved parties. Everyone comes from a different
position with different working situations, goals, and backgrounds. While the
collaboration between these diverse bodies is what provides such exciting potential for a
program like BRIDGE, it is the disunity among these bodies that will be its downfall. In
the case of the BRIDGE program, it seems that the goals and perspectives of the teachers,
program administrators, school principals, and HWS student fellows must be reevaluated
to form a more effective and mutually beneficial partnership.
A Lack of Institutionalization Resulting in Burnout
Teachers live busy lives. In elementary schools, the incessant needs of twentysome-odd children, the search through a vast array of resources to develop effective
curriculum, and the training and assessment demands from local, state and national policy

82

makers can leave a teacher feeling quite exhausted at the end of the day. At the college
level, professors are overwhelmed with grading papers, conducting their own research,
and meeting the various demands of their own institution. The addition of a global
education program like BRIDGE to these busy lives for the past five years has proven to
be an added stress that has resulted in burnout among many of its participants.
I was assessing BRIDGE in its fifth year, the final year of its Freeman grant. On
both ends of the project- that of the elementary school teachers, and of the HWS faculty
participants- there seems to be a sense that BRIDGE was a neat program, but that they as
individuals are ready to move on to something else. The excitement and enthusiasm for
the project that existed in past years has dulled, and some participants seem to have tired
of BRIDGE. The unsystematic, opportunistic way in which BRIDGE is organized leads
to burnout among its participants.
This is because BRIDGE is not an institutionalized program; it is more of a shortterm project. It is highly dependent upon certain key players, and when those individuals
get sick, or take maternity leave, or leave campus for a semester with a study-abroad
program (three things that happened this past year), the entire program falters. This lack
of institutionalization is not unique to BRIDGE; Tyes case study analysis of ten global
education programs reflects similar difficulties. Tye (1990) finds that global education
programs usually flounder in their third or forth year for the following reasons: the initial
grant money is withdrawn and program must stand alone, initial founding faculty
turnover, and the polarization of faculty into participants and non-participants (22). In the
case of BRIDGE, the initial founding faculty turnover has certainly had an effect, and
there also does seem to be clear division between those in the school who participate in

83

BRIDGE and those who do not. The non-participants show no interest in becoming
participants. As the initial grant money is withdrawn at the end of this year, it seems
doubtful that the study of Vietnam will continue in the Geneva school district.
For a small-scale collaborative effort like BRIDGE to be successful, I would offer
the following recommendations:
1. Center the program in the education department of the college or university.
The faculty and students of the education department already have an established
connection with the elementary schools theyll be serving, as well as the
education skills to develop effective curriculum and programming.
2. Provide professional resources for teachers.
The elementary school teachers will not participate in a significant global
education program without travel experiences, in-country training, quality
curriculum, and adequate training.
3. Make it a school-wide initiative.
Develop supportive networks of collaborative and enthusiastic teachers at each
school to provide support and reduce burnout. Invoke administrative support and
passion from those in charge of curriculum instruction.
4. Unify the vision and mission of the program by addressing the needs of all
involved parties.
Yearly retreats and frequent contact among all participants could enhance the
working relationship of the teachers, school administrators, HWS BRIDGE
administrators, and HWS student fellows. Additionally, more communication
between the three elementary schools involved with BRIDGE could be beneficial
as they share ideas, resources, and best-practice techniques. It is necessary for all
participants to have a clearer vision for mutually beneficial goals of the program.
Deference to Mandated, Integrated Curriculum
While the Geneva BRIDGE program may soon be coming to an end, the
Lafayette Intermediate School in Waterloo, highlights BRIDGEs success, and provides a
valuable model for institutionalizing global education at the local level. It is heartening to
see how the study of Japan has been introduced through BRIDGE, institutionalization of
the program has taken place, and the study of Japan will continue even after the BRIDGE
money is withdrawn. But even in witnessing BRIDGEs success under the leadership of
Principal Covert at Lafayette, one has to wonder what will happen when Covert herself

84

moves on. Has global education been integrated thoroughly into the fabric and faculty of
the school? Moreover, are the district, state, and national education curriculum developers
working to bring global education into schools in a regulated and normalized way?
In every classroom, there are many more things to learn about than there is time to
learn them. When push comes to shove, the material that will be covered will be the
material about which the students will be tested. If global education is perceived of as a
fun extra project, and is not incorporated into the curriculum in a meaningful way, it will
never find a place of lasting significance in the national education agenda. Some of the
problems I observed with BRIDGE reveal the deference of a non-integrated program to
competing curriculum that is mandated and integrated.
In New York State, the state-mandated curriculum does make some effort to
recognize the importance of global education. Sherry Gibbon, President of NYSCSS (The
New York State Council for the Social Studies) and 2003 recipient of the NYSCSS
Distinguished Educator Award, says that it is beneficial that, in New York State, statemandated assessments (state and Regents exams) require that schools teach social studies.
This is not the case in all of the countrys states. The NYS curriculum includes looking at
world communities in third grade; the U.S, Canada, and Latin America in fifth grade; the
Eastern Hemisphere in sixth grade, and Global History and Geography in ninth and tenth
grades. Additionally, Gibbon feels that within the curriculum, there is still freedom to
design thoughtful and rigorous lessons about various subjects.
Americas biggest threat to global education, as Gibbon sees it, is the federal
governments No Child Left Behind Act. Gibbon observes that:

85

By mandating that schools assess ELA, math and now science but not social
studies, we are finding that many schools are eliminating social studies from their
schools. This is especially true in the elementary classrooms. Even in New York,
despite the assessment in social studies at 5th grade, many elementary schools are
devoting less and less time for social studies while spending more time on ELA
and math (Gibbon 2006).
I have seen evidence of this in my own teaching experiences, as well in my
observations of BRIDGE lessons. The multitude of standardized tests, and the pressure
for school districts and individual teachers to perform well on those tests, often leaves
teachers frantically racing through required material and focusing on test-taking
strategies. A learning environment such as this leaves little room for additional, optional
learning topics. As long as global education is not effectively integrated into the
curriculum and assessment practices of U.S. schools, it will remain on the fringes of the
education agenda, and will continually be marginalized in the classroom.
About fifty miles from Geneva and Waterloo, school districts, galvanized by
Friedmans The World is Flat, have been discussing changing curricula to better prepare
students to meet the job challenges presented in a system of globalization. In Victor, a
suburban school district near the city of Rochester, superintendent Tim McElheran has
fostered discussion of Friedmans ideas among teachers, parents, community members,
and political and business leaders. The district is focusing on strengthening math, science
and technology skills to produce students who are innovative competitors in the global
economy; adding foreign language classes like Arabic and Mandarin Chinese; and
implementing Social Studies courses like Far Eastern history and culture. Our children
are going to be working with these other children, and we should understand their
cultures and way of life, McElheran said. Other Rochester- area districts are organizing
discussions of Friedmans book as well, and are taking initiatives to assess themselves

86

against districts (both nationally and internationally) that seem to be successfully meeting
Friedmans challenges, and developing processes to make appropriate improvements in
their own districts (Loudon 2006).
These districts display the potential for effective institutionalized global education
at the district level. Rather than riding on the backs of individual teachers, this movement
is recognized and supported by the administration and surrounding community. It is being
implemented into the curriculum in a thoughtful way. Granted, the resources needed to
support such a movement are much easier to come by in wealthy suburban districts. But
as weve witnessed the wealth of global education that can be contributed by the diversity
often present in inner-city schools, and also the fact that these students futures will be as
susceptible (if not more so), to global changes as will those of their suburban peers, it is
imperative to provide quality global education to all students in whatever ways are
possible.
For these district initiatives to have any substantial impact, the following actions
must be taken:
1. Assure compatibility with the New York State learning standards.
All public schools in New York State are held accountable to these learning
standards. These districts must find ways to align their global education initiatives
with these standards. Or, policy changes must be made in the New York State
curriculum to more adequately align the standards with the proposed global
education curriculum. If such changes are not made, these global education
initiatives will not have lasting significance.
2. Incorporate global education into the curriculum to ensure its continuance.
Recognize the need for curriculum changes, explore options for this change, and
provide resources to support this change in a lasting way.
3. Align support from parents, politicians and businesses in a community-wide
effort.
The broader the foundation of support for a global education program, the more
resources it will have to draw upon, and the farther-reaching its impact will be.
4. Provide opportunities for discussion and action among teachers and
administrators at a district-wide level.

87

Communication and supportive networks are crucial to forming a global

education change in a districts curriculum. If global education is to be undertaken
in an enthusiastic and sustainable way, it must receive support from both the
teachers and the administrators.
BRIDGE is truly an innovative program, and given the magnitude of what it is
trying to accomplish, BRIDGE has worked considerably well for the past five years.
Many of those involved report positive experiences, and my study indicates that, on some
levels, BRIDGE does seem to enhance the global perspectives of those who participate.
However, for all of the reasons previously discussed, BRIDGE may soon be falling
down. How could a nation, then, construct extensive, enduring global education bridges
that would reach and serve all of its students?

88

Chapter Eight
The Asia Education Foundation: A Model for Global Education at the National
Level
The global education movement is not a recent development. I was surprised to
find that my literature review produced many sources dating from the 1970s. Even
during the Cold War era, educators, philosophers, economists and college students were
writing about our global world and the necessity of educating students as global citizens.
Yet decades have passed, and the movement has not caught hold in an extensive and
enduring way.
As discussed at the beginning of this paper, recent technological advancements
and a developing world system of globalization have elevated the need for global
education (and also the possibilities for global education) to a new level. Australia, a
country whose culture, economy and education systems are similar to those of the United
States, has recognized and acted upon this need for global education in an
institutionalized and innovative way. Much can be learned from an analysis of this
comparative national model.
In 1992, the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training
established the Asia Education Foundation (AEF). AEF is a joint program with the

89

AsiaLink Centre at the University of Melbourne and The Curriculum Corporation. They
define themselves as a national organization that supports Australian Asia engagement
through studies of Asia in primary and secondary schools. The foundation, in
partnership with government and non-government agencies, universities, philanthropic
foundations and the corporate sector, works to do the following:

Promote and support the study of Asia across the curriculum

Develop Asia-related print and electronic materials
Promote the study of Asia through professional learning
Educate the broader community about the importance of young Australians engaging with
Asia

The AEF argues that global education is essential for preparing students to live, work
and learn in their world (Asia Education Foundation website 2006).
The foundation was established in recognition of Asias critical importance to the
people of Australia. Asians are Australias closest neighbors and trading partners, and
Asias rich cultural heritage provides many opportunities for cross-cultural learning
opportunities and social connections. Moreover, Asia is also very important to the world
at large. As the home to 60% of the worlds population and 30% of world land mass, Asia
contains the worlds second-largest economy (Japan), and the fastest-growing major
economies (China and India) (National Statement for Engaging Young Australians 2006:
2). As the Asian region will be playing a critical role in the world to come, it is essential
to prepare tomorrows citizens with the skills, knowledge, and appropriate affective
orientations to work successfully with people of Asian cultures.
AEF has been quite successful in establishing itself and fulfilling its
mission. A Curriculum Outcomes in Access Asia Schools report conducted by program
review consultants was concluded with the following statement:

90

This report provides an illumination of what is possible for the education of students through
studies of Asia in the school curriculum. It shows what schools and creative teachers are
capable of achieving if they are supported by the educational systems in which they work.
There is ample evidence in the change literature to show that ongoing system level agencies
play a crucial role in school improvements and change. The study shows that the AEF has
played an invaluable role in supporting studies of Asia which has been appreciated by
schools, and valued by State and Territory jurisdictions (Owen and Andrew 2003: 30).

Today AEF supports a network of almost 3000 primary and secondary schools.
Participation reports vary, but all indicate that at least 30% of the schools in Australia
today are involved with AEF (National Statement for Engaging Young Australians 2006).
One may wonder, what can the United States as a globally-minded country learn from
Australias initiative? I will argue that AEF is successful because it has clear objectives
and means of attaining those objectives, it offers both macro- and micro- level support,
and it facilitates institutionalization of global education.
Clear Objectives and Means of Attaining Them
First of all, for a program to be successful, it must know what it is trying to
accomplish, and how this achievement will be reached. AEF has clearly defined
objectives and well-articulated means of meeting those objectives. The objectives of what
students will know, understand and be able to do by the end of their schooling as a result
of studies of Asia and Australia in the curriculum fall into the following general
benchmark categories:
Students will understand Asia
Students will develop informed attitudes and values
Students will know about contemporary and traditional Asia
Students will connect Australia and Asia
Students will be able to communicate
Under each of these benchmark categories, specific objectives are enumerated, such as
Students will be able to understand, critically analyze and respond to stereotyped views

91

of Asian peoples, cultures, societies and organizations, or Students will increasingly be

able to communicate in one or more Asian languages (National Statement 2006: 7-9).
The articulation of objectives is meaningless unless there are specific and realistic
means of achieving those goals. AEF defines six elements that are essential for meeting
its objectives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Teaching and learning (studies of Asia are included in course content across the
curriculum).
Curriculum resources (all schools have access to high-quality Asia curriculum
resources).
Teacher professional learning.
Engaging parents and community.
Teacher education (preparation of pre-service teachers).
Quality assurance (assessment).

AEF recognizes, promotes and supports each of these six areas to ensure that its Asia
education objectives are met.
Recent developments in Americas education system have demonstrated a definite
trend towards clearly defined standards, objectives, and assessment strategies. If global
education is to be an established part of the national education agenda, it too must have
clear objectives and benchmarks. A great deal of AEFs success is due to this defined and
clearly articulated vision.
Macro-Level Support
The magnitude of the AEF, as a combined effort of the Australian government, a
major university, and a curriculum corporation, equips the AEF with a great deal of
momentum, and an ability to establish large-scale support for global education. The
established macro-system strategies of AEF allow it to support education reform on a
larger scale and in a more effective way than is possible in the United States. Nearly all
of the programs that I encountered throughout my research in America were micro-level
approaches, with individual teachers, or sometimes individual schools, attempting to

92

create global education programs on their own. Programs like these, as exemplified by
BRIDGE, lack the sustainability and expertise that would lead to permanent, widespread
success. It is imperative that the U.S. government considers ways to provide this macro
support on a nationwide scale, implementing structural strategies that provide optimal
organization for success.
BRIDGE often feels like an experiment in elasticity, stretching its participants to
their limits and hoping that they do not snap. While Asia Education in Australia would
certainly require time and effort on the part of those involved, it would not stretch the
teachers time, ingenuity, and resources, nearly so much. The Australian government has
made global education a priority through AEF, and provides the core funding for the
organization. Trained, paid employees of the AEF provide the curriculum resources,
professional development opportunities, help with institutionalization, troubleshooting
support, and clear objectives and assessment suggestions that so often stretch and
discourage unsupported global education pioneers in America. Studies of Asia Advisors
are available in each and every state and territory to provide professional learning and
curriculum advice, and to support teachers and schools (AEF website).
Instead of relying on the inconsistent pictures and lessons from untrained college
students, as BRIDGE does, AEF provides educators with reliable, quality resource
material through Asia EdNet, an electronic communication system that is funded by the
government and managed by AEF. AEF also provides print resources and curriculum
materials. Their biannual publication, AEF news, is sent free of charge to all Australian
schools. Included in the publication is discussion of key issues relating to AustraliaAsia
engagement, information about current programs and projects being undertaken relating

93

to study about Asia, updates on new and forthcoming Access Asia curriculum resources,
and information about forthcoming studies of Asia events. This provides a wellpublicized forum for AEFs purpose, programs and services. If nothing else, even if
educators do not act upon the information received through this publication, it creates a
sense in the country that the study of Asia is valued by the society (AEF website).
Their extensive curriculum materials are not reliant upon the research of
individual teachers, but are developed and provided by the Curriculum Corporation, one
of the primary partners of AEF. The Curriculum Corporation is an independent education
support organization owned by all Australian education ministers that was established to
assist education systems in improving student learning outcomes. As their website says;
As Australia's key school curriculum organization, we are a major provider and
publisher of high quality print and digital curriculum products, provide highlyregarded educational project management services, deliver assessment and testing services to
education systems, provide a model for online delivery and nurture strategic partnerships.
(The Curriculum Corporation)

Such expertise in the creation and implementation of curriculum is invaluable to forming

quality global education. AEF has overseen the production of sixty-five Access Asia
resources, some of which have won prestigious awards for educational publishing
(National Forum 2005b).
The AEF is structured in a way that enables the formation of large supportive
global education networks. As a large organization that is a national priority, AEF can
mobilize large groups of educators who, working cooperatively, can create a broad base
for the advancement of global education. Networks of Access Asia schools meet regularly
to exchange ideas and resources and to participate in local professional development
activities.

94

The presence of external support through a foundation like AEF does not
automatically lead to the implementation of global education. It is still the choice of the
schools and the teachers whether or not they will take on this responsibility. But this
government initiative legitimizes global education, and makes implementation a
possibility (Owen and Andrew 2003).

Micro-Level Support
Such macro-level support is clearly necessary in creating sustainable global
education. But in the end, regardless of what foundations and organizations and
governmental departments are providing, the only way global education will really reach
and resonate with a child is through the childs teacher. Recognizing this essential role of
the teacher, the AEF provides micro-level support as well as support at the macro level.
AEF is not a mandated requirement in Australian schools. Its practices and policies are
not imposed down upon teachers, but instead are built up by the teachers. These teachers
are supported by AEF, ensuring the teachers success and the success of their students.
First of all, the AEF values continual professional development for teachers.
Teacher programs from the National Department of Education, Science and Technology
programs include online tutorials, downloadable materials, postgraduate courses, and
many other teacher resources. Besides these, the AEF provides in-country professional
learning programs in the form of short-term study tours, exchanges, international
conferences, and intensive in-country study programs for language teachers. Since 1993,
over 2000 educators have taken part in these programs (Asia Education Foundation
website).

95

One teacher in the assessment report commented, Professional development is

the key; developing your own understanding and increased confidence in teaching studies
of Asia is essential (Owen and Andrews 2003: 21). By providing teachers with
information, resources, and a forum to exchange and experiment with new ideas, AEF
provides Australian educators with dynamic ways to bring the Asia Education movement
to life.
These professional development opportunities may involve in-house curriculum
planning days during which teachers can collaborate and create units together. They may
also be conducted by AEF personnel who are experts about Asia education. Professional
Development can also take the form of AEF international study tours and conferences.
AEF builds their movement by targeting promising teachers and awarding scholarships to
visit Asian countries to gain knowledge and experience and affection for a certain country
of study. Upon their return, these teachers usually lead the Asia education movement in
the school (Owen and Andrew 2003).
The AEF recognizes the need to offer support at the micro-level by building up
the college student base. Like America, however, they offer little evidence of any
substantial initiatives to address this. Pre-service teacher education goals must be betterrealized, both by the government with teacher certification requirements, as well as in the
commitment of colleges and universities to providing education students with
opportunities to enhance their global perspectives abroad and on campus.
One can see that BRIDGE, like AEF, was most successful when the school
personnel had personally experienced the foreign country of study. Coverts enthusiasm
for Japan was undoubtedly a result of this professional learning opportunity; the passion

96

she derived from visiting the country and meeting its people could not be paralleled by
any amount of non-experiential training or research. Effective global education
movements should note this and make every effort to provide its teachers and
administrators with travel experiences. A program will be only as good as the teachers
who are implementing it; those teachers should be trained, supported and inspired
accordingly.
Institutionalization
Studies of Asia is not an event. It is a planned and structured process that requires
internal and external support (AEF).
Whereas BRIDGE is more a short-term project, developed as an experimental
grant-funded initiative, Australias Asia Education Foundation is invested in creating
sustainable educational change. The distinction in these differing visions fundamentally
affects the ways in which they operate, and the ways in which their global education
efforts are implemented. AEF recognizes both a school level of influence, and a system
level of influence. While school level of influence is at more of the micro level, and the
system level of influence refers to the macro-level, both are imperative to forming
institutionalized global education.
At the macro system level, AEF consults with many different groups (principals,
Asia scholars, education professors, classroom teachers, parents and students) to form
their policy. This communication among all involved parties helps to establish a
promising base, upon which a productive partnership can grow. In October 2005, AEF
held a National Forum to discuss strategic visions for the future. Over 130 key education
stakeholders were involved in this program. The forum provided an opportunity to draft a
National Statement, meet with state, territory and national teams to share best-practice

97

techniques, and to list priorities and next steps for progress on every level (individual
schools, territories and AEF as a whole). The main goal established for the National
Statement was to move Asia beyond a possibility to a requirement in Australian schools.
AEFs commitment to defining a strategic vision for the future reflects its commitment to
becoming an institutionalized, permanent curriculum reality.
At the micro level, AEF is committed to a whole-school approach to the global
education institutionalization process. The AEF Schools Development Program supports
over 2200 primary and secondary Access Asia Schools. A partnership between
government, Catholic, and independent school authorities in each state and territory, the
School Development Program is organized into networks that combine resources, share
ideas and work together to implement studies of Asia in the curriculum. The school
development program helps schools to develop comprehensive, self-sustaining studies of
Asia in the curriculum. To do this, it is said to be imperative to commit to work for
inclusion in schools strategic plans or working policy. This written documentation
articulates priorities over a given timeframe. Appearance in official school documents
shows explicit commitment to the studies of Asia.
Whole school commitment helps to create a shared, supportive team vision. It
allows for school-wide professional development, and across the school activities such
as special events, excursions, and projects pertaining to the study of Asia. (Owen and
Andrews 2003). One of AEFs teacher resources, Change is a Journey, Not a Blueprint,
provides procedural advice on how to successfully incorporate global education into the
fabric of a school. This resource offers detailed advice on embedding Access Asia

98

initiatives into the schools formal documentation, overcoming the challenges that will
inevitably arise, utilizing the Access Asia resources, and much more (McRae 2001).
AEF recognizes the need for institutionalization in creating widespread and
sustainable change. They realize that it is a challenge to change educational practice, but
they have developed guidelines and support to guide the institutionalization process. The
AEFs goal is that Asia studies will achieve a status comparable with other studies
traditionally included in the curriculum.
To achieve this goal, the state curriculum frameworks must be aligned with AEFs
curriculum objectives. Teachers Asia units are linked with the curriculum frameworks,
and as the movement grows, it is hoped that the frameworks can be adapted to more
directly address the need for Asia studies. It is noteworthy that the AEF recognizes and
appreciates Australias flexible curriculum frameworks that can readily accommodate
global education, noting that other countries have much more stringent and limiting
curriculum requirements that prevent such accommodation (Owen and Andrews 2003). If
the U.S. is to implement global education in any way that is comparable to Australia, it
would have to either relax state and federal curriculum requirements, or reevaluate those
requirements to incorporate global education.
AEF provides a valuable model of what successful, institutionalized global
education can look like. It addresses many of the issues that were detrimental to the
BRIDGE program. While it faces many of the same obstacles BRIDGE did, its
widespread support on both the macro and micro levels creates a much more sustainable
model for change. AEF demonstrates how a nation can be institutionally committed to
implementing global education.

99

To institutionalize global education at the national level, the following steps must
be taken:
1. Establish objectives and means of attaining them.
It is necessary to define the movements vision and strategic plan for success.
2. Macro-level support.
This offers larger potential for generating resources, producing quality
curriculum, forming extensive networks, and supporting sustainable change.
3. Micro-level support
The movement must be built on the base of enthusiastic teachers. These teachers
must be supported, trained and inspired to assure quality student instruction and
prevent burnout.
4. Institutionalization
There must be national recognition of the need for and importance of global
education to support systematic change.
Global education must also be institutionalized at the school level by taking a
whole-school approach.

100

Chapter Nine
Concluding Remarks
Every day, the world is growing increasingly interdependent. With the growth of
transnational corporations; regional trade organizations like the North American Free
Trade Association; international trade organizations like the World Trade Organization;
international governmental bodies like the United Nations; and internet, digital and
satellite-based communications; decisions made and actions taken in one area of the
world will increasingly affect people in other areas of the world.
It is our obligation to prepare our children for the world in which they will live.
The must become cognitively aware that they are living in a global world, and that their
job opportunities, political actions, and even their sneaker purchases will affect and be
affected by global forces. We must equip students with the knowledge and skills that they
will need to succeed in this world. We must educate against the stereotyping,
ethnocentrism and apathy that leads to destructive wars, debilitating prejudice,
degradation of human rights, and environmental destruction. Globalization may hold
positive promises for the world, but it also poses many negative threats; it is imperative
that we employ education to maximize the positive promise of globalization and
minimize its negative threat.

101

BRIDGE has attempted to meet these challenges in an innovative way, facilitating

global education for elementary school children. It has provided Geneva-area students
with windows out into the global world, helping them to establish a foundation upon
which they can build larger global perspectives later in life. My limited study suggests
that BRIDGE may indeed have a positive effect on the global perspectives of the students
involved. This effect was most potent when personal experiences or diversity in a childs
classroom had exposed the child to aspects of the world that were embedded into the
childs global perspective.
My study also, however, illuminated many shortcomings of the BRIDGE
program. Insufficient training of, support for, and shared vision among the involved
parties, a lack of institutionalization resulting in burnout, and the deference of a nonintegrated program to competing curriculum that is mandated and integrated, have
inhibited the success of the BRIDGE program. BRIDGEs shortcomings highlight the
need for institutionalized global education at the school, district, state and national levels.
There are school districts in the Rochester area that are working to implement sustainable
global education, and there are nations like Australia that are working to institutionalize
global education in a widespread and meaningful way.
The obstacles to implementing global education may seem prohibitive, but my
personal experiences in the world have helped me realize the great benefits that can come
from investing in a global education experience. Harry Potter, after all, was not the only
thing I found in Vietnam. I was immersed in a chopstick-wielding, mango-eating, tai-chi
exercising, motorbike-maneuvering world that I had previously never even imagined. I
made connections with human beings who lived in ways that I had never even

102

contemplated. I befriended people whom my parents generation had been trying to kill. I
came to understand a place and a culture that had never even factored into my worldview
before. My global perspective expanded exponentially.
Now, I spend my days in an elementary school classroom. I feel the weight of
standardized curriculum and high-stakes testing, and the challenge that this presents to
incorporating non-mandated global education. But I teach, I guide, I socialize, and I
worry about the world my students will someday inhabit. I am concerned about the planet
that may be struggling to sustain them throughout their life spans. I fear that
transnational corporations may control their lives, and that the globally-competitive job
market will marginalize many of them. I question the ethnocentric mindset that their
society instills in them, and wonder how this will be affected as the worlds balance of
power shifts.
I smile as they learn to interact with our new Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican
student, forming cross-cultural friendships that I was never exposed to as a child. I hope
that their generation will be one in which global awareness and cross-cultural friendships
can eliminate the conflicts that have devastated the lives of so many before them.
As a society, it is our responsibility to prepare our children to meet the social,
political and economic challenges of their future, and to seize the opportunities that a
globalization system offers. It is through our education systems that we can best reach all
of our children, and these education systems must therefore be prepared to accept the
responsibility to educate the future citizens of the world. With systematic change at all of
the necessary organizational levels, this global education rhetoric can- it must- become a
reality.

103

104

Works Cited
American Council on Education. (1997) Educating for Global Competence. In
Changing Perspectives on International Education. Patrick OMeara,
Howard D. Mehlinger, and Roxana Ma Newman, eds. Bloomington, IN:
University Press, 2001.
Angell, Ann V. and Patricia G. Avery. Examining Global Issues in the Elementary
Classroom. Social Studies 83, (May/June 1992): 113-117.
Becker, James M. Goals for Global Education. Theory into Practice 21.3 (Summer
1982): 228-233.
Brophy, Scott. Interview. Director of the Bridge Program. 19 Sep 2005.
Brophy, Scott, Lilian Sherman and Scott Makinster. Freeman Foundation
Undergraduate Asian Studies Initiative Year Two Progress Reports.
Geneva, NY: Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Spring 2004.
Brophy, Scott, Lilian Sherman and Scott Makinster. The Continuance and
Efficacy of the BRIDGE Project: A Report to the Independent College Fund
of New York and The John Ben Snow Memorial Trust. Geneva, NY:
Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 27 February 2004.
Bullard, Betty M. A Promising Agenda: International Studies in Elementary and
Secondary Education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 449 (May 1980): 91- 101
Case, Roland. Key Elements of a Global Perspective Social Education 57.6
(October 1993): 318-325.
Cole, Donna J. Multicultural Education and Global Education: A Possible Merger.
Theory into Practice, 23.2 (Spring, 1984): 151-154.
Collins, H. Thomas, Frederick R Czarra, and Andrew F. Smith. Guidelines for Global
and International Studies Education: Challenges, Culture, Connections. Social
Education 62.5 (Sep 1998): 311-318.
Cornwell, Grant Hermans and Eve W. Stoddard. Globalizing Knowledge: Connecting
International and Intercultural Studies. Washington, D.C: Association of
American Colleges and Universities, 1999.
Covert, Sally. Principal of Lafayette Intermediate School in Waterloo, NY. Interview.
13 February 2006.
Czarra, Fred. Global Education Checklist for Teachers, Schools, School Systems

105

and State Education Agencies. The American Forum for Global Education 173
(2002-2003).
Duckworth, Eleanor. The Having of Wonderful Ideas and Other Essays on
Teaching and Learning. New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.
Enger, Eldon D. and Bradley F. Smith. Environmental Science: A Study of
Interrelationships. 10th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.
Evans, Charles S. Teaching a Global Perspective in Elementary Classrooms. The
Elementary School Journal 87.5 (May 1987): 544-555.
Fabos, Bettina and Michelle D. Young. Telecommunication in the Classroom:
Rhetoric versus Reality. Review of Educational Research 61.3 (Autumn, 1999):
217-259.
Freeman, Robert E. Collaboration, Global Perspectives, and Teacher Education.
Theory Into Practice 32.1 (Winter 1993): 33-39.
Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books, 2000.
Gibbon, Sherry. Interview 2/6/06
Gibbons, M. and M. Neuman. Enacting a curriculum for the global future.
Educational Leadership 43 (1985-1986): 72-75.
GreatSchools, Inc. www.GreatSchools.net. The Premier Online Guide to K-12
Schools. San Francisco, CA, 2005.
Gutek, Gerald L. American Education in a Global Society: Internationalizing
Education. Chicago: Longman Publishing Group, 1993.
Hanvey, Robert. An Attainable Global Perspective. Theory into Practice, 21.3
(Summer, 1982): 162-167.
Hood, M.V. and Irwin L. Morris. Give us your tired, your poor But make sure they
have a green card. Political Behavior 20.1 (March 1998): 1-15.
Kerr, Clark. Education for Global Perspectives. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science 442 (March 1979): 109-116.
Livesley, W.J., and Bromley, D.B. Person perception in childhood and adolescence.
New York: Wiley, 1973. In VanderZanden, James W. Human Development. 7th
ed. NewYork: McGraw Hill, 2003, p 310.
Manner, Nika. HWS Student BRIDGE Fellow 2005. Interview 19 February 2006.

106

Merryfield, Merry M. Science-Technology-Society and Global Perspectives. Theory

into Practice 30.4 (Autumn 1991): 288-293.
Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press,
1968.
Metzler, John D. (1998). International Outreach for the New Millenium. In
Changing Perspectives on International Education. Patrick OMeara,
Howard D. Mehlinger, and Roxana Ma Newman, eds. Bloomington, IN:
University Press, 2001.
Meyer, Lindsay. The Effects of Global Education on 3rd Graders Cultural
Sensitivity: Understanding the Japan BRIDGE Project. M.A.T. Thesis,
Geneva, NY: Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 2005.
Nussbaum, Martha C. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal
Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.
OMeara, Patrick, Howard D. Mehlinger, and Roxana Ma Newman, eds. Changing
Perspectives on International Education. Bloomington, IN: University Press,
2001.
Senders, Stefan.
Smith, Carolyn. Understanding Globalization. Professor Senders Breadwinners
and Losers Class, 5 May 2004.
Spring, Joel. Education and the Rise of the Global Economy. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1998.
Stoddard, Eve Walsh and Grant H. Cornwell. Peripheral Visions: Towards a
Geoethics of Citizenship. Liberal Education (Summer 2003).
Tye, Kenneth A., ed. Global Education: School-Based Strategies. Orange, CA:
Interdependence Press, 1990.
United Nations Website. http://www.un.org/News/facts/. Facts About the United
Nations: Protecting the Global Environment. United Nations Department of
Public Information, June 1999.
VanderZanden, James W. Human Development. 7th ed. NewYork: McGraw Hill, 2003.
Wilson, Angene H. Conversation Partners: Helping Students Gain a Global Perspective
Through Cross-Cultural Experiences. Theory into Practice 32.1 (Winter 1993): 21-26.

107

Woyach, Robert B. and Richard C. Remy. A Community- Based Approach to Global

Education. Theory into Practice 21. 3 (Summer 1982): 177-183.
Young, Marlene, Christine Taylor and Kathy Khuney. Responses to Teacher Surveys.
Geneva and Waterloo, New York. October 2005.

108