By Jessica Murphy 

“From today and into the future, the horizons for developing identity, for creating a good life, need to be global” (Chickering, 2009, p. 3).

This blog entry is offered to you as the collected thoughts of fine scholars and good thinkers and doers. And is presented to you by me- a doctoral candidate seeped in coffee, in love with pencils and yellow tablets, and full of gratitude for you- the people who do this work. What follows is my explanation of what I hear others saying- a second hand conveyance. I find myself in your good company, linked to you through ideas and action. What follows is an expression of gratitude for what you have done with your minds, hands, hearts- it is your strength. Now, let’s get down to thinking. The question that we are starting with is this: what are the effects of international service-based experiences on the development of undergraduate students as global citizens?

Why should we ask this question? (I know, already, that you are likely the person on campus that answers this question. Do you ask it?) We must ask this question again and again because we are the ones answering it. Let us remember, we are not smart in answering it. The smart ones are the ones who ask it. We must ask- what will happen to the students who participate in this service learning stuff? Will it help them understand what it is to be a global citizen?

Graduates leave our colleges and universities, to enter a globalized market place and interconnected world of diverse communities (Karakas & Kavas, 2009; Martin, Metzger, & Pierre, 2006). The intensification of worldwide social relations connects “distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (Giddens, 1990, p. 64). This “flattening” of the world, as Friedman (2005) calls it, presents the challenge of reframing citizenship education (Battistoni, Longo, & Jayanandhan, 2009). As professionals in this field, particularly in this incredible country of beautifully diverse people and democratic ideals, we know that the whole world is nearby, in our neighborhood. We may step into another culture with virtually no barriers- the world is flat.

International service learning (ISL) is a fitting pedagogical tool that utilizes community service in an international setting for the purpose of gaining greater understanding of course content, global and intercultural issues, appreciation of the host country, and increased sense of purpose as a local and global citizen (Bringle & Hatcher, 2011).

For those of us who understand our work as global service learning, we must humbly admit that we have arrived at our choice of words not because of some great insight of our own but because the conversation of international service learning has been evolving since it began quite some time ago. Global service learning is international service learning but with a shifted center of gravity. Here’s why I say that- As Hartman et al., say it, global service learning is “a community-driven service experience that employs structured, critical reflective practice to better understand self, culture, positionality, social and environmental issues, and social responsibility in a global context” (Hartman, Kiely, Friedrichs, & Boettcher, in press). Definitional differences between ISL and GSL go beyond semantics. In the definitions of ISL and GSL we can see a shift in conversation. ISL and GSL recognize academic and co-curricular learning differently, and emphasize different conceptualizations of power and privilege, sustainability, and location of learning.

First, by definition, GSL does not distinguish students, instructor, or community as separate groups; instead, the learning experience is characterized as a community-driven experience, while ISL gives great emphasis to the experience of students. Second, GSL is defined as community-driven implying that the community will be able to sustain work after students leave; whereas ISL situates the learner in a position of power to meet community needs and then leave the communities to deal again with unmet needs. Third, GSL does not designate a geographic restriction for learning, while ISL states that learning occurs while the student is abroad. Finally, GSL is not defined as a formal or curricular learning, another distinct difference from “course-based and credit-bearing” ISL (Bringle & Hatcher, 2011, p. 19).

This conversational shift easily leads us to the topic of global citizenship. In this shift a bit of conceptual framework is laid for understanding our role as citizens in a shifting, interconnected, flattened (Friedman, 2005) world. ISL is where the conversation begins and GSL is an open field we have come into together. Within the framework of GSL there is a democratization of knowledge and membership thus, our question is raised again: what are the effects of international-service based experiences on the development of undergraduate students as global citizens?

Emergence of Global Citizenship Development 

To understand the current conversation around global citizenship development, let’s look to Campus Compact (1999) and the Council of Europe (2006) who have deemed it essential that institutions of higher education act in their roles of civic responsibility at the local and global levels through globally-oriented education (Battistoni et al., 2009).

“The term ‘global education’ is as good as any to evoke the whole field…it implies a focus on many different, though overlapping levels from very local and immediate to the vast realities named with phrases such as ‘world society’ and ‘global village.’ It implies also a holistic view education with a concern for…emotions, relationships, and sense of personal identity as well as with information and knowledge” (Ballin, Griffin, & Alexander, 1999, p. 1).

Early scholars Plato and Socrates advocated the Greek philosophy of cosmopolitanism- the conceptualization of the individual as a citizen of the world (Nussbaum, 2008; Schattle, 2009). Appiah (1996) roots the role of the cosmopolite to have “an appreciation for the importance of learning about the interconnected world while trying to improve conditions locally” (Battistoni et al., 2009, p. 92). Rooting cosmopolitanism in the local environment introduces students to global citizenship as an approachable and commonplace concept. The iteration of linked local and global citizenship challenges students to consider the ethical implications of participating in or withdrawing from the local community. The internationalization of higher education is an ethical issue that “helps students to examine their implicit and explicit beliefs about whose wellbeing matters, and to develop a more globalized sense of responsibility and citizenship” (Kahne, 2009, p. 49).

John Dewey wrote of the Technological Revolution, “One can hardly believe there has been a revolution in all history so rapid, so extensive, and so complete. Through it the face of the earth is making over, even as to its physical forms; political boundaries are wiped out and moved about as if they were indeed only lines on a paper map…” (1899, p. 22). Though of a different depth and extent, Dewey’s words are fitting to the phenomenon of globalization (Plater, 2011).

American higher education has, since its beginning, carried the mission of preparing students to be active citizens (Jacoby & Associates, 1996; Smith, 1994). Citizenship is a state of membership that leads citizens to civic engagement; that is, “acting upon a heightened sense of responsibility to one’s communities. This includes a wide range of activities including…taking an active role in the political process; participating actively in public life, [and] public problem solving and community service” (Coalition for Civic Engagement & Leadership, 2010). With a history of preparing graduates to responsibly participate in their communities, the same dedication must be used to prepare students to consider their responsibilities toward communities they are connected to through trade, economics, and social media. Educating for local and global citizenship is nearly one and the same, because the flattening of the world has increased the number of communities that American students are connected to.

The Role of Service-Learning 

Service learning is designed to spur student learning through service in the community context and cultivate a care ethic for others (Mbugua, 2010; O’Grady, 2000; Sheckley & Keeton, 1997; Szente, 2008). A central objective of service learning is enhancing civic responsibility and engagement (Mbugua, 2010; McCartney, 2006; Mitchell, 2008). Research demonstrates that service learning improves civic attitudes and skills, as well as promotes social and civic responsibility (Batchelder & Root, 1994; Braskamp & Engberg, 2011; Eyler, Giles, & Braxton, 1997; Giles & Eyler, 1994; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993; Mayhew & Engberg, 2011; Myers-Lipton, 1998). Rich interaction across differences is a core characteristic of service learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999) and is essential to students developing a capacity to connect with people from different racial backgrounds, socioeconomic classes, and cultures (Daloz, 2000; Mather, 2012; Parks, 2000). Service learning increases students’ levels of global concern (Myers-Lipton, 1996), their ability to see connections between global and local issues (McCartney, 2006), and apply principles from service learning experiences to larger societal challenges (Hartman, 2008). “Students building a robust civil society through their common local actions actually play an important part in the international network connecting the local to the global” (Battistoni et al., 2009, p. 94).

We have an opportunity to use service learning in a global context to help students develop as engaged citizens (Brown, 2011; Plater, Jones, Bringle, & Clayton, 2009) in an interconnected world. Contextualized by globalization, service learning provides students the opportunity to move beyond campus borders and classroom discussions. When students enter local and international communities to work alongside community members and volunteer organizations they strengthen global civil society. ISL is designed for students to achieve “an enhanced sense of their own responsibilities as citizens, locally and globally” (Bringle & Hatcher, 2011, p. 19). Engaging with global civil society gives students the chance to connect with others beyond their own families and home country around common interests and to advance those interests. Through this collaborative activity students act “as citizens of their communities, their nations, and the world [and] are empowered as agents of positive social change for a more democratic world” (Jacoby, 2009, p. 9).

If we design things right, we can leverage GSL to facilitate transformative interactions between and for college students and marginalized populations through service partnerships that promote social justice to an extent that opposes structures of oppression. Exposure to different cultures, economic systems, and social structures gives students the opportunity to interface with social issues they are unlikely to encounter otherwise.

“The opportunity to observe citizenship in play in other nations allows students to see, appreciate, and perhaps understand why behaviors, mores, and laws that are unacceptable or even illegal in their own nation or locale are acceptable, and in some cases appropriate in their host nation or locale, and vice versa. The experience of contrast calls upon the student to question why the differences exist, even if the perceived differences cannot be reconciled” (Plater et al., 2009, p. 489).

These experiences commonly introduce students to the way their home country is viewed outside of the United States and encourages further reflection about citizenship and political allegiance based on new understanding of “American cultural hegemony, consumerism, foreign policy, and cultural norms” (Prins & Webster, 2010, p. 7).

Implications

ISL is a powerful approach to achieving the twin goals of global citizenship development and international learning experience that develops intercultural competence (Plater et al., 2009), and a broadened sense of belonging to the global community (Killick, 2012). Compassion, curiosity, courage, collaboration, creativity, capacity building, and competence are core principles that should guide ISL and GSL students as they engage with their host communities (McKinnon & Fealy, 2011). The challenge of global citizenship development rests heavily in the fact that citizenship is a status that all nation-states will continue to hold to. “Global citizenship clearly has implications both of rights and responsibilities, duties and entitlements, concepts which are not necessarily explicit in global education” (Davies, 2006, p. 6).

Global citizenship is potentially threatening terminology to the autonomy and sovereignty of national ideals and interests, which potentially makes global citizenship development appealing to non-democratic nations. Davies poses the question of “whether global citizenship education is not simply more informed local citizenship education” (2006, p. 6). This question summarizes the definitional tensions of global citizenship. Is global citizenship purely a theoretical construct? A transnational status? Or is it a compassionate and logical philosophical leaning? Does the question have to be answered?

Global citizenship is a widely used term that is “rarely conceptually or operationally defined” (Morais & Ogden, 2011, p. 445) and therefore difficult to prove as an outcome. This presents an enormous concern to colleges and universities asserting global citizenship as a valuable component of higher education. Identifying global citizenship as central to university mission without defining and operationalizing the term is unacceptable because students enter the university with an expectation that they will be aptly prepared as such when they graduate.

Jessica Murphy is an experiential learning specialist with experience and interests in cooperative international development and education programs. It has been her deep joy to work with nongovernmental organizations and at universities both in academic and student development divisions. She is completing her doctorate in higher education at Loyola University of Chicago, where her research focuses on community perspectives of a global service-learning partnership between several US universities and community-based organizations in Haiti. 

References

American Council on Education. (1998). Educating for global competence. Washington, DC: American Council on Education,.

Appiah, K. (1996). Cosmopolitan patriots. In M. Nussbaum & J. Cohen (Eds.), For love of country (pp. 21-29). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Ballin, B., Griffin, H., & Alexander, T. (1999). Building blocks for global learning. Derby, UK:

Batchelder, T., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academic learning and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341-355.

Battistoni, R. M., Longo, N. V., & Jayanandhan, S. R. (2009). Acting locally in a flat world: Global citizenship and the democratic practice of service-learning. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 13(2), 89-108.

Braskamp, L. A., & Engberg, M. E. (2011). How colleges can influence the development of a global perspective. Liberal Education, 97(3), 34-39.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2011). International service learning. In R. G. Bringle, J. A. Hatcher & S. G. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (pp. 3-28). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Brown, N. (2011). A 360-degree view of international service learning. In R. G. Bringle, J. A. Hatcher & S. G. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (pp. 57-68). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Campus Compact. (1999). President’s declaration on the civic responsibility of higher education. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.

Chickering, A. W. (2009). Global perspectives for creating a good life. Paper presented at the Institute of College Student Values, Tallahasse, FL.

Coalition for Civic Engagement & Leadership. (2010). Working definition of civic engagement. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

Coucil of Europe. (2006). Higher education and democratic culture: Citizenship, human rights and civic responsibility. Strausbourg: Coucil of Europe,.

Daloz, L. A. (2000). Transformative learning for the common good. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning and transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 103-123). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5-25. doi: 10.1080/00131910500352523

Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning?. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of service-learning in John Dewey: Toward a theory of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1(1), 77-

Hartman, E. (2008). Educating for global citizenship through service-learning: A theoretical account and curricular evaluation. Dissertation. Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. University of Pittsburg.

Hartman, E., Kiely, R., Friedrichs, J., & Boettcher, C. (in press). Building a better world: The pedagogy and practice of glboal service-learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in today’s higher education: An overview. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 5-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jacoby, B., & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices.

Kahane, D. (2009). Learning about obligation, compassion, and global justice: The place of contemplative pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2009(118). doi: 10.1002/tl.352

Karakas, F., & Kavas, M. (2009). Service-learning 2.0 for the twenty-first century: Towards a holistic model for global social positive change. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 17(1), 40-59. doi: 10.1108/19348830910948896

Killick, D. (2012). Seeing-ourselves-in-the-world: Developing global citizenship through international mobility and campus community. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(4), 372-389. doi: 10.1177/1028315311431893

Markus, G. B., Howard, J. P. F., & King, D. C. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 410-419.

Martin, D., Metzger, J. L., & Pierre, P. (2006). The sociology of globalization: Theoretical and methodological reflections. International Sociology, 21(4), 499-521. doi: 10.1177/0268580906065298

Mather, P. C., Karbley, M., & Yamamoto, M. (2012). Identity matters in a short-term, international service-learning program. Journal of College & Character, 13(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1515/jcc-2012-1835

Mayhew, M. J., & Engberg, M. E. (2011). Promoting the development of civic responsibility: Infusing service-learning practices in first-year “success” courses. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 20-38. doi: 10.1353/csd.2011.0007

Mbugua, T. (2010). Fostering culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy and global awareness through the integration of international service-learning in courses. Journal of Pedagogy, 1(2), 87-98. doi: 10.2478/v10159-010-0011-8

McCartney, A. R. M. (2006). Making the world real: Using a civic engagement course to bring home our global connections. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(1), 113-128. doi: 10.1080/15512160500484143

McKinnon, T. H., & Fealy, G. (2011). Core principles for developing global service-learning programs in nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 95-100. doi: 10.5480/1536-5026-32.2.95

Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50-65.

Morais, D. B., & Ogden, A. C. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 445-466. doi: 10.1177/1028315310375308

Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1998). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program on college students’ civic responsibility. Teaching Sociology, 26, 243-258.

Nussbaum, M. (2008). Toward a globally sensitive patriotism. Daedalus, 137(3), 78-93.

O’Grady, C. R. (2000). Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Plater, W. M. (2011). The context for international service learning: An invisible revolution is underway. In R. G. Bringle, J. A. Hatcher & S. G. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (pp. 29-56). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Plater, W. M., Jones, S. G., Bringle, R. G., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Educating globally competent citizens through international service learning. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 485-505). New York, NY: Routledge.

Prins, E., & Webster, N. (2010). Student identities and the tourist gaze in international service-learning: A university project in Belize. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(1), 5-32.

Schattle, H. (2009). Global citizenship in theory and practice. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global

Sheckley, B., & Keeton, M. (1997). Service-learning: A theoretical model. In J. Schine (Ed.), Service-learning: Ninety-sixth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 32-55). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Smith, M. W. (1994). Issues in integrating service-learning into the higher education curriculum. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Effective learning, effective teaching, effective service. Washington, DC: Youth Service America.

Szente, J. (2008). Preparing pre-service teachers to work with culturally and linguistically diverse children: A service-learning experience. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29(2), 140-145.