P

KK

a

AA

fidmeimtcei4

ifkaa

fi

0d

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 161– 168

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journa l h o me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

lanting seeds for peace: Are they growing in the right direction?�

enneth Cushner ∗

ent State University, 401 White Hall, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:ccepted 30 December 2011

a b s t r a c t

In this paper, originally presented as the Presidential Address at the 6th Biennial Confer-ence of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, the author attempts to explainan intercultural conundrum suggesting that young people may be more sophisticated interms of intercultural sensitivity than their teachers. The paper examines the intersectionof four interrelated areas as they pertain to education and the development of intercul-tural sensitivity – intercultural content knowledge, intercultural pedagogical knowledge,intercultural experience, and intercultural applications of technology. Each of these influ-ences, all coming together in the lives of young people in ways never before encountered,offers insights into the different life experiences encountered by students and their teach-ers. Areas of further intercultural research and possible policy implications for educatorsare considered.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

I have walked in two worlds over the course of my career, being a teacher and teacher educator who is also active in theeld of intercultural training and research. While I have sometimes felt on the margins of both fields, this feeling has beeniminishing in recent years as interactions between these two areas have begun to intersect on a larger scale and in moreeaningful ways. An colleague of mine once remarked how interesting he found it that my work could often be found in the

mpty spaces where few others seemed to be – traveling internationally with young ten- and eleven-year old children earlyn my career as part of their formal school experience; guiding preservice teachers to better understand their own cultural

akeup and to explore ways to integrate an international perspective in their teaching by facilitating overseas studenteaching placements; or working with teachers in schools in southeastern Kenya as a way to help build trust between localommunity members and conservationists working on behalf of elephants and other wildlife. Today, more than ever, it isssential that we apply much of what we have learned in the intercultural field to ultimately reach young people. And,nfluencing teacher education, as I see it, has a multiplier effect, with each future teacher reaching anywhere from 750 to500 or more children over the course of a career.

In this presentation I will highlight the contributions of many of our own colleagues in the Academy whose work, as I seet, lies at the intersection of intercultural research and teacher education. More specifically, I wish to draw our attention toour interrelated areas as they pertain to education and the development of intercultural sensitivity – intercultural contentnowledge, intercultural pedagogical knowledge, intercultural experience, and intercultural applications of technology, allreas that I see coming together in the lives of young people in ways never before encountered. I then wish to propose some

reas of further research and possible policy implications that should be considered.

I will begin this talk with an intercultural conundrum I have uncovered that emerged directly from recent work in theeld of intercultural education and training. Many intercultural researchers have been using the Intercultural Development

� Presidential address: International Academy for Intercultural Research, 6th Biennial Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 16, 2009.∗ Tel.: +1 330 672 0728.

E-mail address: kcushner@kent.edu

147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.01.001

162 K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 161– 168

Inventory, or IDI, to assess intercultural sensitivity among various populations (Hammer & Bennett, 1998). The IDI, based onBennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS, Bennett, 1993), has become, perhaps, the most compre-hensive assessment tool designed to identify where an individual falls along a continuum of intercultural development fromhighly ethnocentric to highly ethnorelative. Three stages lie on the ethnocentric side of the continuum – Denial, Defense andMinimization, and three stages reflect increasingly ethnorelative perspectives and sensitivities – Acceptance, Adaptationand Integration. A brief overview of the Model follows.

On the ethnocentric side of the DMIS, Denial refers to the inability to see cultural differences, and is evident whenindividuals isolate or separate themselves into homogenous groups. Defense is characterized by the recognition of culturaldifference coupled with negative evaluations of those whose culture is different from one’s own. Minimization, the last stageon the ethnocentric side of the continuum, reflects the recognition of superficial cultural differences (e.g., eating customs,money), yet retention of the belief that all human beings are essentially the same. This perceived similarity can be defined interms of physical universalism (e.g., “We are all the same—we all eat, sleep, breathe, bleed red, and die”) or around spiritualuniversalism (believing that “Deep down we are all children of the same God, whether we know it or not”). AlthoughMinimization is the most advanced stage of the ethnocentric side of the DMIS continuum, people at this stage often negatethe importance and value of cultural difference, believing that “people are all alike;” meaning that “everyone is just like me.”Individuals in Minimization tend to see people as basically the same, making little recognition of the differences that aresignificant, that continue to divide people, and that underlie most intercultural interactions. Minimization is a comfortableplace to be. Feeling good about saying the “right” thing to themselves and others (e.g., ‘I don’t see color – I treat all peoplealike’), it is often difficult to move people out of this stage.

Acceptance, the first stage on the ethnorelative side of the continuum, represents an individual’s ability to recognizeand appreciate cultural difference in terms of both people’s values and their behavior. Adaptation is the stage when peoplebegin to see cultural categories as more flexible, becoming more competent in their ability to communicate and behaveappropriately across cultures. Individuals use empathy effectively, shift frames of reference, and are better able to understandothers and be understood across cultural boundaries. Integration, the final stage which is rarely achieved, refers to theinternalization of bicultural or multicultural frames of reference, with individuals at this level able to mediate and movefreely and easily between multiple groups.

Studies looking at the intercultural sensitivity of teachers repeatedly show the majority to be on the ethnocentric sideof the continuum. Mahon’s (2003) study found that of 155 teachers in the Midwest, all were at Minimization or below(Mahon, 2003, 2006). A more recent study by Mahon (2009) among 88 teachers in the Western states found 84% to be inMinimization or below. Bayles (2009) found 91% of 233 teachers in a U.S. urban, southern district at Minimization or below.And Pappamihiel’s (2004) study of early childhood education students, although not using the IDI but based on the DMIS,reported that even after taking two multicultural education courses, few of the 28 preservice teachers surveyed woulddifferentiate behavior w/ESL children, giving them all hugs and smiles as the essential expression of caring, placing themclearly in Minimization or below.

These studies are not limited to the United States. Grossman and Yuen (2006) reported that of 107 teachers in Hong Kong,98% were in Minimization or below. Yuen’s (2009) more recent survey of 386 teachers in nine schools in Hong Kong revealedthe majority in denial/defense, emphasizing cultural similarities with minimal recognition given to cultural differences.

Two studies looking at the intercultural sensitivity of young people show some surprisingly unexpected results. Pederson(1998) used a modified version of the IDI with 145 twelve-year old 7th graders, and found 35% in high Minimization and 35%in Acceptance. And among 336 high school students in an international school in Southeast Asia, Straffon (2003) found 71%to be in Acceptance and 26% in Cognitive Adaptation, while only 3% were on the ethnocentric side of the continuum. Both ofthese studies showed that the greater the amount of exposure to difference (city versus suburban and rural schools in thePedersen study and the amount of time in international schools in the Straffon study), the higher the level of interculturalsensitivity.

So, herein lies an intercultural conundrum – the majority of teachers – those we make responsible for advancing knowl-edge, skill and attitude of young people – appear to be stuck on the ethnocentric side of the continuum, while their studentsshow evidence of being more sophisticated in terms of intercultural development. How might this be explained? It is pos-sible that we do not have sufficient tools to assess intercultural sensitivity in young people. It is also conceivable that forsome people, any intercultural sophistication they may have when they are young diminishes as they age and are socializedinto adulthood. It is also possible that something else is going on – perhaps even a confluence of powerful and fundamentalchanges in both society in general as well as within the field of education more specifically, all with intercultural overtones,that are converging at this time and that may offer an explanation for this observation. It is at the intersection of intercul-tural content knowledge, intercultural pedagogical knowledge, intercultural experience, and intercultural applications oftechnology that I will focus.

1. Intercultural content knowledge

Although education is still out of reach for many young people around the world who do not have access to adequateinformation and schooling, it is nonetheless increasing and unfolding in new and profound ways that has the potentialto significantly alter the outcome and impact of the work in which we as educators are all engaged. Around the world,the enrollment rate of children attending school has been rising steadily since 2001 (World Bank, 2011). In 2009, 46% of

pawe

aenfmm

hktct

tnoasm

giaiiddottaaahCscNtsmga

WstsJti1

–sa

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 161– 168 163

re-primary age children under the age of five, 87.8% of eligible primary age students, and 59.8% of eligible secondaryge students were enrolled in schools. Although only 27.1% of tertiary aged students were enrolled in higher educationorldwide in 2009, this is up from 8.5% in 1985. All regions of the world except South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa have

nrollment rates between 90% and 95%.While I do not want to be overly-optimistic and ignore the still striking disparities in both the availability of schooling

nd the quality of educational experience worldwide, we are witnessing a slow but rather dramatic shift in the way peoplexperience education that may accelerate the rate and frequency at which young people are exposed to new experience,ew people, and new ideas. Some of this change may occur at random or on its own accord simply as a result of the increased

requency of travel and movement of people. But as more and more children attend school, and educators worldwide becomeore knowledgeable and skilled in international and intercultural matters as well as in the integration of technology, weay be able to accelerate and facilitate more positive outcomes of this interaction.Content knowledge refers to the specific subject matter that is being taught and presumably learned in schools. While we

ave long known that U.S. young people lag behind many of their international counterparts in terms of their interculturalnowledge of the world, quite a lot of activity has been going on in schools in recent years to suggest that we may haveurned this corner. The formal as well as informal curriculum to which young people today are exposed to, for instance, hashanged dramatically in recent years – and this will serve to lay a foundation for greater knowledge acquisition and attitudesoward difference.

The U.S. currently has about 3.5 million K-12 public and private school teachers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008), morehan half of whom are Baby Boomers. Children growing up in the United States today are children of Millennial parents, theame given to the roughly 75 million Americans born between 1977 and 1999 – about 25% of the total U.S. population. Theldest members of the Millennial generation have graduated from college and are embarking on their careers; the youngestre still in elementary school. Post-Millennials are entering schools now. My own experiences growing up, which were veryimilar to the majority of teachers who grew up 40 or 50 years ago in the United States as well as other Western nations,ay help shed some light on the conundrum identified earlier that I am trying to understand.I am a relatively new grandfather of three young boys. When I compare my kindergarten class photos to those of my

randsons, for instance, one thing immediately stands out – there is little, if any, visible cultural, racial or ethnic diversityn my kindergarten class compared to theirs. Their experiences as kindergarteners growing up, interacting and learningbout the world are significantly different that the ones I had at the same age. I, for one, grew up during the Civil Rights eran a time of substantial racial and ethnic disharmony, alienation, and at times, segregation. Not that the social situation isdeal, but children growing up today encounter far greater exposure and are more likely to have positive experiences withifference. While my generation communicated primarily using snail mail and analog telephones, they interact via instantigital technologies, with the very real possibility that within ten year’s time translation software may be built directly intour mobile phone devices. I grew up playing with friends more often than alone, frequently outdoors and in group games;oday, children’s play is more individualistic, or when interacting with others, it is increasingly through computer-mediatedechnologies. The games I grew up with are still played today, only now as International Monopoly and intercultural Chutesnd Ladders. And while I may have played the game of Life, and when daring experimented with the Quija Board to reach

virtual and supposed spiritual life, children today play Second Life and other games in real-time virtual worlds. While well watched television and learned from puppets, cartoons and wizards – oftentimes in stereotypical ways, children todayave far greater exposure to multicultural media content than I could ever imagine, with one of our own Fellows, Carlosortes, serving as multicultural consultant to the Dora the Explorer children’s television series. I read far too many Disneytories, Mad Magazine, and comic books growing up; children today are exposed to a much greater array of ethnic andultural content in their reading material. I learned about the world in a rather dry and impersonal manner, from reading oldational Geographic magazines, listening to teachers, and watching static images on television. My only real personal long-

erm connection with another was with an Israeli pen-pal I corresponded with throughout my elementary and secondarychool years – albeit via delayed aerogrammes. Children today learn much more about the world through a variety of means;uch more immediately than we ever did; and from many more voices. Suffice it to say that still today, many teachers have

rown up in vastly different worlds from the students in their charge, with access to very different sources of knowledgend experience. This has a dramatic effect on how children are taught as well as the perspectives brought to the classroom.

The tides, however, are turning. Globally there has been greater attention given to intercultural content than ever before.hile approximately half a billion people speak English as a first language worldwide, close to 2 billion have learned it as a

econd or third language, making it the world’s current international language. Increasing numbers of Chinese students takehe SAT in English each year. But this is not only one-way learning of English. In Australia, for instance, 360,000 studentstudy the Japanese language – a higher proportion of its population than any other country (Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofapan, 2011). And, in the United States, a nation never known for its emphasis on foreign language study, indications are thathings are improving. More students are studying a greater variety of foreign languages than ever before, with a surge ofnterest in Arabic (now the 8th most popular language studied, increasing 46.3% from 2006 to 2009) and Chinese (increasing8% from 2006 to 2009), as well as other critical languages (MLA, 2010).

Worldwide, we see increased attention to global and intercultural concerns in the general curriculum in most schools from the integration of culturally diverse literature in general literacy education to greater international attention in theocial studies and sciences; as well as increased recognition that subject-matter curricula should include the experiencesnd knowledge of traditionally marginalized groups. And, we see growth in the number of schools worldwide offering the

164 K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 161– 168

International Baccalaureate program, from 700 in 1998 to more than 3313 in 2011 today in 141 countries, with the mostrapid growth in the past ten years occurring in Asia and the United States (IBO, 2011).

2. Intercultural pedagogical knowledge

Pedagogical knowledge refers to the instructional processes and methods of teaching and learning. This includes themotivations and values that underlie education, how these influence the design and implementation of the curriculumin both schools in general as well as in the preparation of teachers, and how such things as classroom management andstudent assessment are carried out. In this realm we see increased attention to the inclusion of all students regardlessof ability, gender, cultural background, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation or sexual orientation. How one teachesbecomes as important as what one teaches, and the intercultural dimension underlies both the how and the what.

Much of the work of intercultural researchers has provided the theoretical basis behind much that we have done inschools. The study of prejudice formation and reduction, for instance, both with regard to content and process, has longbeen a concern in schools (Allport, 1954; Saroglou, Lamkaddem, Van Pachterbeke, & Buxant, 2009; Stephan & Stephan,1996b). The contact hypothesis and research on intergroup relations was applied to desegregation and busing in the 1960sand 1970s (Allport, 1954; Stephan & Stephan, 1996a), and more recently to cooperative learning instructional strategiesin schools (Cooper & Slavin, 2004; Pettigrew, 2008). Acculturation research at both the psychological or individual levelas well at the group level has assisted educators to better understand the experiences faced by an increasing number ofimmigrant and refugee students and families in a large number of communities and schools (Berry, 2005, 2008). Learningstyle has been increasingly examined across a variety of cultures (Joy & Kolb, 2009), discussed in terms of teaching andlearning across international contexts (Hofstede, 1986), as well as applied to exceptional populations such as the culture ofthe Deaf (Siple, 1994). Discussion of identity occurs across multiple domains (e.g., gender, religion, ethnicity) has increasingimportance in schooling (Stephan & Stephan, 2000; Kim, 2008). And, attention to the cultural dimensions of conflict andconflict management has increased in schools as young people learn to resolve conflict in positive ways (Mahon, 2009).

3. Intercultural experience

Intercultural experience of both teachers and students, although still relatively limited, shows signs of increasing, andsometimes in rather profound ways. The focus here will be on what we have learned about the impact of the interculturalexperience on young people and schooling today.

The teacher can be a vital link in the development of intercultural competence in young people, but here we must considerboth sides of this double-edged sword. On the one hand, educators must become knowledgeable about the influence ofculture in their own lives and how it impacts their interactions with others. At the same time, they must become competentand confident in their ability to effectively transfer this knowledge to the pupils in their charge. This is no easy task given whatwe know about the demographics of the teaching field, the experiences of most inservice as well as preservice teachers,the process of culture learning, and what we’re learning about the development of intercultural sensitivity from the IDI.Such data exists on the teaching force in the United States, and although I do not have similar data from other nations,conversations with teacher educators in other countries suggests that this picture is not much different, except that thepredominant ethnic background of teachers may vary from nation to nation (Cushner, 1998).

Across the United States, teaching is still a rather homogeneous profession, the majority being European American withonly 15% being teachers of color (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Females continue to dominate the field,representing 65–70% of teachers overall, and more than 80% in elementary or primary schools. U.S. teachers are linguisticallylimited, with fewer than 10% speaking a second language – and that’s with the United States being the 4th or 5th largestSpanish-speaking country in the world. The majority of teachers come from middle class backgrounds; live in small-tomedium-sized suburban communities; and have limited intercultural knowledge and experience, with teacher educationstudents among the least knowledgeable about international affairs. This is in contrast to the increasing percentage ofstudents of color in American public schools, now representing up to 40% of the school population nationwide and higherin many urban areas, and the fact that an increasing number of students live in poverty.

Today’s teacher education students, at least in the United States, do not bring much change to these demographics. Thosestudying to be teachers tend to be relatively cross-culturally inexperienced and place bound, with most living within 100miles of where they were born. Few report an eagerness to teach in urban or multicultural environments – preferring insteadto teach in schools similar to the ones they themselves attended. Add to this the fact that the majority of teacher educationstudents spend all or most of their time with people of their own ethnic and racial group, and that most believe minority andlow-income children are not capable of learning the higher level concepts in the subject areas they are preparing to teach,and the situation gives us cause for concern. Teachers and teachers in training, it appears, live in vastly different worlds fromthe majority of their students (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2012). There is still much work to do in this regard.

But there are glimmers of hope. While we may still have our work cut out for us in terms of the diversity and experiential

base of the teaching force, the demographics and experiences of young people are changing; they are interacting with peopledifferent from themselves with increasing frequency and across a greater variety of cultures; and, they are the group fromwhich will come the next generation of teachers. The Millennial and post-Millennial generations exhibit greater cultural andethnic diversity than previous generations, with the percentage of minorities increasing from 27% among the baby-boomer

goalp

aet

iiahbi5ti

sartCwh

ectaeciLioy

ioetrlopatt

wceMd

tia

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 161– 168 165

eneration to 43% among post-Millennials. In the past 40 years we have witnessed a far greater diversity of countries ofrigin of immigrants to the United States – the resultant face of which increasingly reflects more parts of the globe. Whilet the turn of the last century, 90% of immigrants traced their roots to Europe, this decreased to 60% in the 1950s and isess than 20% today. This pattern is occurring in many parts of the world, with immigration rates, as well as the diversity ofoints of origin of new immigrants, increasing throughout Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Intercultural researchers have studied the impact extensive intercultural interaction, and in particular the role that studybroad, has on the potential to influence change in terms of people’s intercultural understanding and subsequent globalngagement. This should be instructive to us as we consider how to make the most of the increased intercultural interactionhat is taking place in society in general.

The American Council on Education’s survey of 1500 incoming university freshmen provides some promising insightsnto the international experiences and desires of today’s college student (ACE, 2008). Incoming freshmen university studentsn the United States reportedly bring with them a range of international experiences, with almost all (96%) having studied

foreign language in high school, 26% speaking a language other than English at home, 61% having traveled abroad, 51%aving a friend or family member abroad, and 10% having hosted an international student in their home. By far, the majorityelieve it is important that their university offer a variety of international experiences (e.g., study abroad, international

nternships, and opportunities to interact with international students). And when asked about their plans to study abroad,5% say that they plan to study abroad as undergraduates, while another 26% say they would like to. And of those who plano study abroad, 70% say they would study the language of their country of choice. The disappointing part of this, however,s that while 81% say they plan or wish to study abroad, only 5% ultimately do.

While we still have our work cut out for us in order to find ways to help more students realize their desire for overseastudy, there are indications that things are in the process of changing. Even though only 5% of U.S. students currently studybroad, the numbers have steadily increased with 270, 604 students studying abroad in the 2009–2010 academic yeareflecting a four-fold increase in the past two decades (Open Doors, 2011). The situation is the same in Europe where morehan 213, 266 students participated in the Erasmus Student Exchange program in the 2009–2010 academic year (Europeanommission, 2011), a program that enables European students to complete part of their education in another universityithin the European Union. We anticipate continued growth in the number of students seeking an education outside theirome country, from just over 2 million in 2005 to close to 4 million by 2025.

Another important observation is that U.S. students are choosing to study in a far greater variety of host countries thanver before, with all regions of the world experiencing an increase except Europe which has decreased as a destination ofhoice. Deresiewicz (2009) offers a possible explanation for this. He suggests that since the collapse of the Soviet Union andhe rise of globalization, young Americans are beginning to see themselves as citizens of the world and that their destiniesre linked with what happens elsewhere. Young people, he goes on, understand culture in the anthropological sense, not thesthetic sense – hence seek out travel experiences outside the traditional destinations in Europe, having a desire to makeontact with difference and define themselves in relation to that – not with history that was behind many people’s travelsn the past. This, then, is coupled with the fact that young Americans may feel increasingly comfortable going to places inatin America and Asia because, as the data presented earlier suggests, the people with whom they have grown up withncreasingly reflect more regions of the world than ever before. Even if their own families do not come from Senegal, Jamaicar the Philippines, they know people whose families do. Mexico and India seem more familiar than France and Germany tooung people today, because they are.

Studies continue to show what many of us have known for a long time – there is positive impact as a result of extendedntercultural engagement and study abroad. AFS Intercultural Programs, perhaps the most extensive high school exchangerganization operating worldwide, provides impactful exchange experiences for approximately 13,000 secondary studentsach year in 50 countries. The AFS Long-Term Impact Study has shown us not only the initial impact of study abroad, but alsohe benefit of following a secondary school exchange experience with one at university (Hansel, 2008). From this extensiveesearch, we find that 89% of AFS participants who subsequently study abroad at university speak at least one foreignanguage; 39% of AFS participants who also study abroad at university report having friends outside their own culture; 45%f AFS participants who also study abroad at university report having professional networks outside their own culture; AFSarticipants who also study abroad at university have lower intercultural anxiety levels – even 25 years after the experience;nd, those who study abroad at university (both with AFS experience and without) have higher developmental scores onhe IDI. These results are all greater than those who have had one study abroad experience, which, in turn, are greater thanhose who have never studied overseas.

More recently, the SAGE Study – Study Abroad for Global Engagement (Fry, Paige, & Stallman, 2009), has looked at theays individuals have become globally engaged as a result of studying abroad (including such actions as working for the

ommon good, enhancing social justice and environmental preservation). Preliminary results suggest that of 12 collegexperiences rated by former study abroad participants, the international experience was the most influential and impactful.ore importantly, perhaps, is the finding that the duration of that experience with respect to future global engagement,

oes not seem to matter.

The message for educators is clear – we should do all we can to encourage and provide opportunities for young people

o study, travel and live abroad at all levels of their education. But educators, too, must become more knowledgeable aboutntercultural contact so they can better encourage, and then build upon, the diverse domestic experiences young peoplelready have since so many will not have an opportunity to travel overseas.

166 K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 161– 168

In review, what do I see happening, how might we explain it, and what might this suggest for us as educators concernedwith intercultural development? Although we have no data on the intercultural sensitivity of people in earlier generations,recall the conundrum – young people appear to be more culturally sensitive than those in older generations. While it maybe a bit premature to make such a statement, I do see many factors coming together that at least suggest that the seedsof change may be sown and that we may be on the verge of something we have not witnessed in the past. This may bedue to: an increasing number of young people in school around the world; an increase in overall exposure of young peopleto cultural diversity through general demographic shifts, the general media and informal activities of children occurringin many communities around the world; a more concerted effort in schools to provide more culturally relevant content inthe courses offered to students, with a subsequent increase in participation in language learning across the board; greaterunderstanding and attention to intercultural concepts as they relate to the instructional process itself, with the importantapplication of intercultural research in a variety of areas; and, a growing desire on the part of young people to participatein study abroad in general, a recognition of its value, and the increasing number of students seeking degrees outside theirhome countries.

4. Intercultural applications of technology

We might be on the edge of something significant that is being facilitated, and perhaps even explained in large part, bythe 4th sphere of influence – technology. I have to admit, that as optimistic of a person as I am, and as forward-thinking as Ilike to think of myself, when it came to the use of technology in multicultural and intercultural education, I initially was anay-sayer. I know the critical importance that experience plays in culture learning; I have written about it many times withregard to the role of study abroad and the importance of immersion experiences in the lives of future and current teachers(Cushner, 2007; Cushner & Mahon, 2009). I understand that the development of intercultural competence is an evolutionaryand not a revolutionary process, knowing that it takes time for individuals to become more sophisticated in their thoughtand actions (Bennett, 1993; Deardorff, 2009). But now I am rethinking my belief, considering that perhaps the increased useand ubiquitous nature of digital technologies may actually be playing a critically important role in laying the foundation forfostering global awareness and enhancing intercultural understanding among young people in schools and communitiesaround the world.

Millennials, the most technologically savvy generational group so far, are more proficient with technology than most oftheir teachers and parents. The proportion of children in the U.S. with access to computers at home has increased steadilyfrom 15% in 1984, to 76% in 2003, to more than 90% in 2009 (Rideout et al., 2010). The percentage of children who use theInternet at home showed a similar increase, rising from 22% in 1997, the first year for which such estimates are available, to42% in 2003, to more than 90% in 2009. Internet penetration rates are increasing worldwide – especially in Africa where ithas increased 2527%; the Middle East where it has increased 1987%; Latin America where it has increased 1037%, and in Asiawhere it has increased 707% since 2000 (Miniwatts Marketing, 2011). By 2010, 22% of the world’s population had access tocomputers carrying out 1 billion Google searches every day, 300 million Internet users reading blogs, more than 700 millionFacebook users, and 2 billion videos viewed daily on You Tube (Antara News, May 26, 2011). Even my teacher colleaguesin rural Kenya who live in an area without electricity or telephone lines are now sending me text messages from their cellphones when elephants are raiding their small farms.

Millennials do not think of computers as new technology as many of their teachers do. Rather, young people experiencethe Internet is an essential part of life that keeps them connected around the clock. The focus of these screenagers, as theyare often referred to, is how to be an active participant who works with a piece of technology, not a passive observer moreconcerned with how it works as it has been for many in the older generations. Millennials get targeted messages and cancreate their own content (think Facebook, iPods, iPads, Podcasting, Twitter), with more saying that they can live withouttelevision than without the computer.

International linkages in education have existed at least since the 1920s when a number of global learning networks beganin Europe and the United States. Such efforts made use of available technologies and modes of communication that enabledclassrooms to exchange cultural artifacts such as letters, photos and flowers from their local area with children in otherparts of the world. A number of years ago I used literacy development as a means to enhance intercultural understandingbetween children in two countries through the joint writing of internationally collaborative partnership stories (Cushner,1992). But this, too, although serving as a superordinate task that helped build long-lasting relationships between schoolswhile enhancing cross-cultural understanding, was still dependent upon snail mail.

Today’s technology makes it increasingly easy to bring children into more frequent and regular interaction with oneanother – and oftentimes in very meaningful ways. A number of engaging Internet-based school linkage initiatives exist,including: iEARN, the International Education and Resource Network, one of the world’s largest global networks, currentlyworks with more than 1 million K-12 teachers in 20,000 schools in 115 countries (http://iearn.org); Global Nomads Groupfacilitates interactive educational programs with students in 40 countries, reaching more than one million young people

(www.gng.org); ePals, a Global Community that has linked more than 8 million students and teachers in 120,000 classroomsin more than 200 countries and territories through a number of electronic exchange programs (http://www.epals.org);and Peace Corps World Wise Schools that has helped more than 3 million U.S. students communicate directly with PeaceCorps Volunteers all over the world (http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/). And there are numerous others creating similar

ot

5

pifio

tcbodctt

ttal

itppaR

R

A

AA

B

B

BBBC

CCCCC

DD

E

F

G

HH

HI

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 161– 168 167

pportunities for students and teachers worldwide to interact in extended and meaningful ways. We have yet to explorehe impact of such activity.

. Future research and policy implications

Perhaps the conundrum presented at the beginning of this paper – that is, how to explain the observation that youngeople appear to be more sophisticated in terms of intercultural sensitivity than their teachers – can be explained, at least

n part, by some of the interrelated activities that are currently operating in the lives of young people. And, I believe that ourelds of intercultural research and intercultural education and training will continue to contribute and have quite a lot toffer teachers and teacher educators in all of these areas.

We are left with numerous questions that can serve to guide future research as well as inform educational policy. Whilehe field of intercultural competence has received considerable attention in recent years (see Deardorff, 2009), most of thisontinues to be focused on adults. We need to know how young people develop intercultural competence; how educators canest facilitate its growth, as well as how it can be more effectively assessed. Related to this is to enhance our understandingf how we can best facilitate the intercultural development of teachers. If we recognize that interculturally effective teachersevelop better rapport with their students, families and communities; that they are more inclusive in terms of expandingurriculum to be more inclusive of all groups; or that they are more active in introducing their students to others beyondheir immediate borders, then state licensing boards as well as teacher educators might be more mindful and strategic inhe identification of teacher candidates or in the curricular experiences required for teacher licensure.

We also need to learn the mechanisms involved in intercultural interaction and development that are enhanced throughhe use of technology. We should collaborate with those who study how children learn, and how good teachers teach inechnology-rich environments. Here, too, we may need some policy directives in schools and colleges of education thatre designed to assist teachers to better understand the potential these tools hold to enhance and facilitate internationalinkages and intercultural development.

There are many unanswered questions, however, and numerous places which to investigate, from the intersection ofntercultural and content knowledge, to the intersection of pedagogy and culture; to technology and pedagogy, to content andechnology. But the most exciting opportunities, I believe, are at the intersection of them all – at the interface of where content,edagogy, intercultural understanding and technology intersect. We must take an active role, both in helping educators andolicy-makers to set new directions as well as better understand the processes and outcomes of such encounters. Perhapst this time in our evolution we must begin to think of schooling in terms of the four R’s – Reading, ‘Riting, ‘Rithmetic andelations. And the Academy is well-suited, I believe, to assume this leadership.

eferences

CE, American Council on Education. (2008). College bound students’ interests in study abroad and other international learning activities. AmericanCouncil on Education, Art and Science Group LLC, and the College Board. Retrieved from: http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=3997

llport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.ntara News. (2011, May 26). AnataraNews.com. Retrieved December 28, 2011 from: http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/71940/google-earth-

demonstrates-how-technology-benefits-ris-civil-society-govtayles, P. (2009). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of elementary teachers in bilingual schools in a Texas school district (Doctoral dissertation). University

of Minnesota, Minneapolis.ennett, M. (1993). Toward ethnorelatism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation (pp. 27–69).

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.erry, J. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712.erry, J. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(July (4)), 328–336.ureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Retrieved December 27, 2011 from: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos318.htmooper, R., & Slavin, R. (2004). Cooperative learning: An instructional strategy to improve intergroup relations. In W. Stephan, & W. Vogt (Eds.), Education

programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 55–70). Teachers College Press: New York.ushner, K. (1992). Creating cross-cultural understanding through internationally cooperative story writing. Social Education, 56(1), 43–46.ushner, K. (1998). International perspectives on intercultural education. Lanham, MD: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.ushner, K. (2007). The role of experience in the making of internationally-minded teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 27–40.ushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2012). Human diversity in education: An intercultural approach (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.ushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2009). Developing the intercultural competence of educators and their students: Creating the blueprints. In D. Deardorff (Ed.),

Handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 304–320). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.eardorff, D. (2009). Handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.eresiewicz, W. (2009, July 20). Beyond Europe: The new student travel. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/

article/Beyond-Europe the-New-Student/47105/uropean Commission: Education and Training. (2011). Lifelong Learning Programme: The ERASMUS Programme 2009–2010. Retrieved December 27, 2011

from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/stat/0910/report.pdfry, G., Paige, M., & Stallman, E. (2009). Beyond immediate impact: Study abroad for global engagement. In 6th Biennial Conference of the International

Academy for Intercultural Research Honolulu, Hawaii, August 15–19, 2009.rossman, D., & Yuen, C. (2006). Beyond the rhetoric: A study of the intercultural sensitivity of Hong Kong secondary school teachers. Pacific Asian Education,

18(1), 70–87.

ammer, M., & Bennett, M. (1998). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.ansel, B. (2008). AFS long term impact study report 2: Looking at intercultural sensitivity, anxiety, and experience with other cultures. New York: AFS

International.ofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301–320.

nternational Baccalaureate Organization. (2011). Retrieved December 27, 2011 from: www.ibo.org

168 K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 161– 168

Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 69–85.Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 359–368.Mahon, J. (2003). Intercultural sensitivity development of practicing teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(7), 2353A (UMI No. 3097199).Mahon, J. (2006). Under the invisibility cloak? Teacher understanding of cultural difference. Intercultural Education, 17(4), 391–407.Mahon, J. (2009). Conflict style and cultural understanding among teachers in the western United States: Exploring relationships. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 46–56.Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2011). Japan–Australia relations. Retrieved December 27, 2011 from: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-

paci/australia/index.htmlMiniwatts Marketing. (2011). Internet world stats usage and population statistics. Retrieved December 28, 2011 from: http://www.internetworldstats.

com/stats.htmMLA, Modern Language Association. (2010). New MLA survey report finds that the study of languages other than English is growing and diversifying at US colleges

and universities. Retrieved December 27, 2011 from: http://www.mla.org/pdf/2009 enrollment survey pr.pdfNational Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Selected characteristics of students, teachers, parent participation, and programs and services in traditional

public and public charter elementary and secondary schools: 1999–2002. Retrieved January 21, 2008 from: http://www.nces.govOpen Doors. (2011). Open doors online: Report on international educational exchange. Retrieved December 27, 2011 from: http://www.iie.org/en/Research-

and-Publications/Open-DoorsPappamihiel, E. (2004). Hugs and smiles: Demonstrating caring in a multicultural early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Development and Care, 174(6),

539–548.Pederson, P. V. (1998). Intercultural sensitivity and the early adolescent (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International,

9826849.Pettigrew, T. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199.Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved December 28,

2011 from: http://kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdfSaroglou, V., Lamkaddem, B., Van Pachterbeke, M., & Buxant, C. (2009). Host society’s dislike of the Islamic veil: The role of subtle prejudice, values, and

religion. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(September (5)), 419–428.Siple, L. (1994). Cultural patterns of deaf people. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 345–367.Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1996a). Intergroup relations. Boulder, CO: Westview.Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1996b). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(Summer–Autumn (3–4)), 409–426.Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (2000). The measurement of racial and ethnic identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(5), 541–552.Straffon, D. A. (2003). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students attending an international school. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 27, 487–501.

Yuen, C. (2009). Dimensions of diversity: Challenges to secondary school teachers with implications for intercultural teacher education. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 26, 732–741.World Bank. (2011). Ed stats: The state of education. Retrieved December 27, 2011 from: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/

EXTEDUCATION/EXTDATASTATISTICS/EXTEDSTATS/0,contentMDK:21528857∼menuPK:4324013∼pagePK:64168445∼piPK:64168309∼theSitePK:3232764,00.html