Transforming our research horizons: How research on study abroad and international

service-learning can improve research in both and in domestic service-learning

Dr. Richard KielyCornell Universityrck6@cornell.edu

Think and Share• Have you conducted research in the areas of study abroad or (I)SL?

If so, what did you study? If not, what would you like to study? (i.e., outcomes, impacts, processes, programs, policies, theories, methods, approaches, contexts…)

• What concepts, theories or models did you draw from or will you build on to inform your study in study abroad or (I)SL?

• What research studies in study abroad and (I)SL have you developed are you aware of?

• How might study abroad and ISL research and theory inform (domestic) service-learning?

Discourses, intersections & globalization

• Any comparative analysis of the purposes, goals, outcomes, problems, practices and processes of SA and ISL AND SL must take into consideration the unequal socio-economic and political impact of globalization on different regions of the world

• The rhetoric of intercultural and global competence in the US reflects the dominant discourse that persists in study abroad. Although there is emerging scholarship on transformational learning and global citizenship in SA, there is very little research focused on the type and value of programming in negotiating and addressing unequal relations of power that result from globalization.

Emerging discourse in ISL

• There is also an emerging discourse in (I)SL on what it means to critically engage in global citizenship and socially responsible action in diverse contexts (which one might contend more reflective of the dominant discourse in ISL).

What are the dominant discourses in SA, (I)SL?

• What the historical traditions, theories, concepts and elements within specific/general frames of reference that define them as they evolve? What’s missing from the dialogue and scholarship?

• Creating a dialogue to find intersections and bridge these discourses is central to any analysis of the relationship between SA and ISL AND SL. Collaborative research and theory-building will assist in these endeavors describing “life as it is, as it could be and as it should be…”

Research Areas: Exploring intersections and building bridges

• Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning

• Program Model and Components

• Institutional Support, Policies and Structures

• Research Approach and Theories

• Community Partnerships and contexts

Concepts, Models & Theories in SA

• Theories of Culture shock, Adjustment, Adaptation, Acculturation,

• Reverse Culture Shock or Re-entry • Developmental theories and frameworks for SA, (i.e., U- and

W-curves) • Cognitive developmental models of intercultural sensitivity

and intercultural transformation and transformational learning theory)

• Purposes, goals and outcomes of SA (i.e., KSABs related to disciplinary and language acquisition, intercultural and global competence/sensitivity)

ISL Outcomes and Processes• Transformational Learning Processes

– Contextual Border Crossing (Historical, Personal, Structural, Programmatic)

– Dissonance (Type, Intensity, Duration)– Personalization, Connecting, Processing

• Transformational Learning Outcomes– Emerging Global Consciousness

• Envisioning (Intention to Act)• Transformative learning domains (Moral, Political, Intellectual, Personal,

Cultural, Spiritual, Social, Emotional• Chameleon Complex

(Kiely, 2002, 2004, 2005)

Intersection Challenge #1: Building TheoryWhere’s the theory in SA, (I)-SL?

• Learning Theory

• Citizenship Theory

• Program Planning Theory

• Community Development Theory

• Service-Learning Theory

Theoretical FrameworksLearning Theory:

Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy, Perry (1970) Scheme, Belenky et al (1986), Baxter-Magolda’s (1990) MER, Kegan’s (1994) Constr Dev, Bennett’s (1994) Model for Intercultural Sensitivity, Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory, Jarvis’ (1987) Social Learning; Fenwick’s (2000, 2003) Experiential Learning, Vygotsky, Lave & Wenger (1990) Situated Cognition, Heron’s (1992, 1998) Affective Learning, Mezirow’s (1991, 2000) Transformational Learning Theory, Cone & Harris (1998), Wolfson & Wilinsky (1998), Kiely’s (2002, 2004, 2005) Transformative Service-Learning Model…

Citizenship TheoryKahne & Westheimer (2005), Boyte (1998), Barber (1992), Coles (1993), Nussbaum (1990), Dower (2002, 2003), Carter (2002), Falk (1994)

Program Planning TheoryCervero & Wilson (1994, 2005), Reardon (1998), Jacoby & Associates (2004)

Community Development TheoryKorten (1990), Kretzman & McKnight (1994), Green & Haines (2002), Werner (1982), Chambers (1998), Selener (1996), Strand et al (2003), Greenwood & Levin (1992),

Intersection Challenge #2: Assessing Learning Outcomes

• Most folks who experience (I)SL find that it is fundamentally different than classroom learning…even transformative

• Need to defining and specify learning outcomes

• Need to assess program outcomes (indirect & direct measures, criteria, rubrics) and program components that foster outcomes

Intersecting Learning Outcomes• Knowledge acquisition (i.e., language, culture, content…)• Development of problem-solving/finding skills• Awareness of real-world problems and issues• Development of critical thinking/conceptual skills• Application of academic knowledge/skills (reflective practice)• Increased intercultural competence• Changes in attitudes, values and beliefs• Social, emotional, civic and political learning• Personal growth, efficacy, motivation, confidence, leadership and socially

responsible behavior• Understand origins and solutions of complex problems• Learning for global citizenship: Intellectual, Political, Moral, Cultural, Personal,

Spiritual, Visceral, Social & Emotional…• Transformational learning (rethinking assumptions/worldview and social)

Challenge # 2: Intersecting Processes• Contextual Border Crossing

• Culture Shock – Dissonance – Stressors - Problems

• Adjustment - Adaptation-Acculturation-Learning

• Cognitive – Identity Development

• (Critical) Reflection

• Dialogue

• Observation

• Group Dynamics

Learning Process Qs in Study Abroad & (I)SL • What does the SA (I)SL/SL learning process entail? Does ISL learning

occur as a U-curve, or W-curve or some other shape?• Is the learning process technical, practical/communicative and/or

transformative?• What are the roles of context, dissonance, reflective and non-

reflective modes of learning (i.e., affect, somatic, emotional, visceral, spiritual) in SA/(I) SL

• What does culture shock/dissonance mean in SA (I)SL contexts? Is culture shock/dissonance a key facet for triggering the learning process? Is culture shock/dissonance a useful construct in (I)SL?

• What is the role of cognitive, affective, somatic, emotional, social and connected modes of knowing and learning in SA (I)SL?

• How doe preparation, reflective and non-reflective strategies foster learning in SA and (I)SL?

• How do community connections, immersion in cross-cultural context, interpersonal relationships, service work and multiple discourse communities influence the learning process and outcomes in ISL?

• Re-entry is characterized by a struggle to integrate learning along many dimensions. What does re-entry mean for SA (I)SL students?

• Pedagogy– Learner: Motivation, pre-conceptions, expectations, self-efficacy, participation,

learning styles, outcomes– Process: Dissonance, Reflection, Dialogue, Group Dynamics, Outcomes– Educator: Philosophy, motivation, skills, strategies, methods, training, learning– Context: Place, history, structures

• Program Design & Institutional Models– Pre-orientation– Program Model: Sandwich, intermediary, course, program, internship– Duration – Level of Immersion - Re-entry– Service– Centers/Support Structures

• Research and Theory– Focus: students, faculty, institutions, policies, programs, courses, practices…– Theory, Methodology and Design– Sample – Instruments & Methods

• Community – Partnerships-Roles-Social Networks and Impact

Resources• Websites

– http://www.globaled.us/– NAFSA: www.secussa.nafsa.org/samplingresults.2– Forum on education abroad:http://www.forumea.org/research-READ.htm– National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, Campus Compact, CCPH

• Books– Bringle, Hatcher, Jones (2010) International Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and

Research– Brewer & Cunningham (2009). Integrating Study Abroad into the curriculum– Lewin (2009). The Handbook of practice and research in study abroad– Savicki (2008). Developing intercultural competence and transformation

• Journals– Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning– Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement– Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal for Study Abroad– Journal of Research in International Education– Journal of Studies in International Education– International Journal of Intercultural Relations– IIE Networker & International Educator

Models for Service & Learning: Amizade-Bolivia

SL Model: Direct Service, CBO-Non-Profit-University

Immersion: High (food, shelter, service, and learning with community)

Community: High – Informal (Religious, Business, Govt,& Neighborhood)Partner

Staff: Instructor (Poly Sci), Facilitator, On-site Director & Center

Students: 4yr students, age 18-25, Various majors

Academic Global Citizenship, Culture, Politics, History, & Language (seminars, presentations, group reflection, journals, papers, & research)

Service: Construction Projects (School & orphanage)

Theory: IL, EL, & IR

HTS: Important Protocol

Program Models for Service & LearningTC3-Nicaragua

SL Model: Direct Service (Faculty Driven, Group/Individual, Agency/Comm-Based, C & R)

Immersion: High (food, shelter, service, and learning with community)

Community: High – Formal & Informal Collaboration in T-R-S (Religious, Bus, Govt, Org &Partner Neighborhood)

Staff: Faculty-driven – (3cr) Nursing & (3cr) Political Science-General

Students: 2-4yr stuents, age 18-65, community & various majors (6-12)

Academic: Health, Culture, Politics, History, Language (seminars, papers, presentations, journals, group reflection, & research)

Service: 30 Clinics (2, 500 patients), Hospital Work (1, 250hrs), 10 Neighborhood Health assessments, 12 Workshops, 10 Skits & Construction (School Bldg), Donations, Affirming Initiatives, New Relationships & Partnerships

Theory: CD, PAR, Health, IL, EL & AL

HTS: Important-Protocol

IC as a Process & Outcome• Ward et al., (2001) define intercultural competence as

affective, cognitive and behavioral responses that make up part of a larger acculturation process in which a sojourner undergoes “psychological adjustment” and “sociocultural adaptation” (pp. 42-43). Their model departs from culture shock or problem approaches to cross-cultural adaptation by integrating the stress and coping theories and culture learning perspectives of the acculturation process (p. 43). The process of acculturation is defined as psychological adjustment which has to do with affective reactions in actively coping with the stresses adjusting to a new culture and sociocultural adaptation, which has to do with learning social skills to communicate, interact and function more effectively with the host culture (p. 43).

SA & Transformation• Paige’s (1993) statement below highlights the contradictions inherent in

both the potentially transformative and problematic impact that cross-cultural experiences can have on individual self-awareness

• It takes a jarring life transition, such as an intense intercultural experience to force self-reflectiveness and self-awareness. Such confrontations with the self can be challenging and painful. As learners realize that their cultural reality may not be central to the perceptions of culturally different others and is definitely not seem as superior, they will begin to question their own assumptions. As learning activities begin to test the learners’ flexibility, openness, tolerance, and other qualities, they may come to view themselves differently and not necessarily in previously naïve or positive terms. They may, in fact, learn things about themselves they would rather not know. It behooves intercultural educators to create a climate that encourages self-discovery and to inoculate learners against the inevitable stresses of self-awareness. (p. 17)

Intercultural Transformation• Adler (1975, 1987): Cross-cultural adaptation is a

series of developmental transitions of self and cultural awareness. Contact, disintegration, reintegration, autonomy and independence describe the five stages of personal identity development as a result of experiencing culture shock.

• Adler (1977, 1987) envisioned the development of a multicultural person who could serve society as an effective cultural mediator between different cultures, someone who could envision alternative and innovative ways of thinking, feeling and acting in the world

Intercultural Trans: The Bennetts• Janet Bennett differentiates what she terms “constructive

marginality” and “encapsulated marginality” (1993). She uses the term “encapsulated marginality” to characterize individuals who are in a problematic and dysfunctional situation of being stuck between “conflicting cultural loyalties and unable to construct a unified identity” (Bennett, 1993a, p.113). “Constructive marginals,” on the other hand, have developed a more functional level of epistemological understanding that all knowledge “is constructed and that what they will ultimately value and believe is what they choose" (Bennett, 1993a, p. 128).

• “the encapsulated marginal is one who is never at home in the world, while the constructive marginal is never not at home. Having transcended culture shock, the homeless mind becomes the global mind” (Shames, p. 140).

Intercultural Sensitivity• Milton Bennett’s (1986, 1993b) developmental model of

intercultural sensitivity suggests that cross-cultural learning can transform normally ethnocentric individuals into becoming more tolerant of cultural difference. Transformation along Bennett’s cross-cultural continuum means that individuals develop increased sensitivity to or greater tolerance for cultural difference. He characterizes intercultural learning as a movement along six possible stages from ethnocentrism, the three lowest levels of intercultural sensitivity, to ethnorelativism, the three highest stages of intercultural sensitivity. Bennett’s (1993) developmental model for intercultural sensitivity consists of the following six stages: denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation and integration.

CTQ of the Constructivist View• Sparrow (2000) contends that intercultural theories of a

constructivist bent assume the existence of a unified, self, capable of acting rationally and autonomously, cognitively free from social constraints while largely ignoring that identity development as a process that is intimately interconnected and structured by social, cultural, economic, political and historical forces. Based on the experience of the “multicultural” participants in her study, her findings refute the constructivist position that multicultural or bi-cultural individuals, particularly those who are members of oppressed or minority groups, are truly free to act upon their cultural values, let alone shift back and forth among different cultural frames of reference.

Kim’s Intercultural Transformation• There are four main elements to Kim’s (2001)

integrative theory of intercultural transformation: personal and social communication competence, host environmental conformity and receptivity, the sojourner’s adaptive predisposition, and intercultural transformation (pp. 71-94). Intercultural transformation, the last and most important element, represents a sojourners successful adaptation to another culture through the integration of the other three elements.

• The successful integration of all four components leads to what Kim labels “intercultural personhood” (p. 194). Kim describes intercultural personhood opaquely as the “highest degree of internal harmony” and “psychic evolution” (p. 195).