The Value of A Global Education:
Meeting Accountability Standards through Critical Thinking
Roger W. Wiemers
Tennessee State University
Barbara Denson
Tennessee State University
What is global education? For many, it involves the concept of comparative education where differing cultures, beliefs, and systems are contrasted and compared. Students may study languages, geography, economies, or other relevant topics where two nations are compared for similarities in these arenas. Comparative education has an obvious role in global education; however, it cannot fully describe the latter. One aim of global education is the reduction of provincial attitudes (Diaz, Massialas, and Xanthopoulos, 1999). “To reduce provincial attitudes and teach truly international perspectives, global education must go far beyond presenting contrasts between developed societies and underdeveloped ones” (p. 25).
In 1976, Hanvey (published 1984) described a global perspective in five broad concepts. These areas included perspective consciousness, state of the planet awareness, cross-cultural awareness, knowledge of global dynamics, and awareness of human choices (p. 2). Hanvey’s description was the rallying cry for proponents of global education. It has created a broader definition of the topic to include a conscious examination of one’s own views, values awareness, interactive participation in global issues, the examination of social justice, and the development of critical-thinking skills among students. Ibrahim (2005) suggested that global education is based on respecting human rights, developing cooperative solutions to non-violence, becoming aware of cultural diversity, and promoting democracy and tolerance. It is characterized by “pedagogical approaches based on human rights and a concern for social justice, which encourage critical thinking and responsible participation,” (p. 178).
Hence, global education is more than hearing that certain educational systems have school six days a week or that teachers in secondary schools of one nation move from classroom-to-classroom, rather than the students. It is actually the development of conscious thought about the way we think and why. Global education is the understanding that Americans are ethnocentric to point that we would never consider another cultural perspective as being superior to ours in a certain realm, yet it is not is not hearing that truth as fact, but coming to a realization of it as we struggle with realities very different from our own. As Lamy (1991) described, global education is the ongoing controversy over “contending images of how the world is and how it ought to be” (p. 49). As an outcome of this controversy, areas relevant to global education are self-awareness, critical thinking, cooperative learning, conflict resolution, and cultural understanding and empathy (Lamy). From this controversy, “global educators who encourage critical thinking and the ‘weighing of evidence’ from contending perspectives are seen as guilty of imposing their social and political preferences on students, encouraging disrespect for American institutions…” and going against the superiority of the American system (p. 52). On the other hand, a positive way of viewing this action is called critical patriotism. According to Banks, et al (2005), “critical patriotism encourages reasoned loyalty; pride in the ‘rights’ of the nation alongside a commitment to correct its ‘wrongs’” (p. 23). Global education is based upon the foundation of an open society that can use critical discourse to examine long-held beliefs that may impede democracy or undermine cooperation that is necessary in an interconnected world (Banks, et al).
Global educators affect the lives of students by “developing open-mindedness, anticipation of complexity, and resistance to stereotyping” (Merryfield, 2002). Teachers with global perspectives concentrate on the promotion of thinking, thus wanting to witness how their students “produce knowledge, rather than how they merely reproduce knowledge” through the regurgitation of facts (Lee, Ng, and Jacobs, 1997, p. 3). Entire teacher education programs are built upon the stated purpose of enhancing the appreciation of cultural diversity so that incoming teachers will be prepared to develop thinking students (Conway, 2007). Merryfield, Jarchow, and Pickert (1997) wrote a text about preparing teachers to teach global perspectives. They listed elements of a global education: human belief and values, global systems, global issues and problems, global history, cross-cultural understanding/interaction, awareness of human choices, development of analytical and evaluative skills, and strategies for participation and involvement (p. 8-9). In describing analytical and evaluative skills, they expressed that teachers need to assess information from different viewpoints, use critical thinking skills, and recognize the role of values and worldviews in inquiry.
Paige and Mestenhauser (1999), in discussing the internationalizing of educational administration, defined internationalization as a complex learning process that was based upon knowledge construction in seven dimensions. An international mind-set (or perspective) develops from the combination of these dimensions. “Internationally minded educational administrators do not ignore daily problem solving, but are driven by higher-level goals, such as maintenance and defense of democracy and basic freedom, human rights, peace and social justice, and international and intercultural cooperation” (p. 505). Hence, they are not bound to just the acquisition of this knowledge. They seek to put knowledge constructed from critical exploration and thought to proper use by doing something positive with it (doing the right thing!).
The Critical Thinking Process
Elder and Paul (1996) defined critical thinking as “the ability and disposition to improve one’s thinking by systematically subjecting it to intellectual self-assessment” (p.1). Critical thinking is a not just one skill that can be taught and learned in a one-step process. Elder and Paul described critical thinking in six stages of learning about one’s particular way or method of thinking. The stages are Stage One - The Unreflective Thinker, Stage Two - The Challenged Thinker, Stage Three - The Beginning Thinker, Stage Four - The Practicing Thinker, Stage Five - The Advanced Thinker, and, Stage Six - The Master Thinker. In stage one, the thinker is relatively unaware of the thinking process, and lacks the ability to assess their thinking and therefore improve it. In stage two, the thinker was described as being aware of the initial role that thinking plays in his/her life. In stage three, the thinker begins to realize that s/he has basic problems in thinking and realizes the need to fix them, but lacks a basic plan to be able to do so. In stage four, the thinkers have an idea of what they need to do to take charge of their thinking, but since they are still beginning to approach their improvement process, they still lack the ability to access the deeper level of thought needed to tap into deeper levels of the embedded problems in their thinking process. The stage five thinkers have developed their thinking habits to a point where they can actively analyze their thinking and have better insight into problems at the deeper levels of thought. However, they are still not able to be consistently fair-minded or always maintain control over their egocentric nature. The stage six thinkers, Master Thinkers, have taken control of their thinking, and are constantly monitoring, revising, and re-thinking ways to improve their thinking. At this level, critical thinking is both conscious and intuitive. Master thinkers are committed to being fair-minded and have a high level of control over their egocentric nature (Elder & Paul).
Though Elder and Paul’s contributions provided philosophical views about critical thinking, the cognitive psychology community, as well as the behavioral psychology community has made other contributions. According to a cognitive psychologist’s view, critical thinking can be defined as the “active, systematic process of understanding and evaluating arguments. An argument provides an assertion about the properties of some object or the relationship between two or more objects and evidence to support or refute the assertion. Critical thinkers acknowledge that there is no single correct way to understand and evaluate arguments and that all attempts are not necessarily successful” (Mayer & Goodchild, 1990, p. 4). The behavioral psychologists’ views contend that their contributions “help to establish the operational definitions associated with critical thinking. They work to define the subtasks associated with final outcomes and the methodologies teachers can use to shape initial behaviors towards the final outcomes” (Huitt, 1998, p. 2).
Content specialists see a practical application for critical thinking. Mertes (1991, p. 24) described critical thinking as “a conscious and deliberate process which is used to interpret or evaluate information and experiences with a set of reflective attitudes and abilities that guide thoughtful beliefs and actions.” According to Huitt (1998), critical thinking can be taught in different content areas such as reading, literature, social studies, mathematics, and science. This is an especially important contribution because it appears that critical thinking is best developed as students grapple with specific content rather than taught exclusively as a separate set of skills.
Benjamin Bloom led a committee of colleges in identifying and describing three domains of learning (Clark, 2001). Bloom’s taxonomy, in the cognitive domain, orders cognitive processes from simple remembering up to higher order critical thinking. The levels in Bloom’s revised taxonomy ranging from simple to complex are Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create (Noble, 2004).
Cody (2006) described Ennis’ definition of critical thinking as “the correct assessing of statements” (p. 404). Cody relates that Ennis developed a twelve-step process to use when one makes an assessment. The steps involve both inductive and deductive reasoning. Ennis further delineated these steps by stating, “ assuming that critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do, a critical thinker:
- Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives
- Tries to be well informed
- Judges well the credibility of sources
- Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions
- Judges well the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions, and evidence
- Can well develop and defend a reasonable position
- Asks appropriate clarifying questions
- Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well
- Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context
- Draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution
- Integrates all items in this list when deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 2002, p. 404).
Critical Thinking As it Affects Diversity
Elder (2004) considered a barrier to diversity issues as being native egocentrism and sociocentrism. Elder believed that because of our egocentric way of thinking, “we believe that what we believe is true because we believe it, and because we are creatures of mental habit, we naturally defend what we already believe” (p.3). Therefore, this mode of thinking prevents us from seeing things from different perspectives, which leads to prejudice toward people who think as we do and against those who do not nor have ideas that are different from ours. Elder contended that “critical thinking makes an integrated approach to instruction possible” (p. 4). When students learn to think critically, and think through complex issues, they are typically less likely to adhere to the thought processes that tend toward egocentrism or sociocentrism. “Students develop the intellectual tools necessary for understanding and considering individual and group differences, for learning in any subject, for reasoning through any problem in any context, indeed for becoming life-long learners” (p. 5).
The Accountability Movement and Standardized Testing
Standardized testing is mandated for every state in the United States (U. S. Department of Education, 2002). States are required to set standards for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade, and then, through standardized testing, determine if the students are adequately progressing in their achievement. According to studies conducted by the U. S. Department of Education, nine year olds scored better in reading during the last five years than they did in the last 28 years combined. In 2005, 13 year olds scored the highest math scores ever recorded. African American and Hispanic nine year olds scored better in Reading and math than any other year (U. S. Department of Education, 2006). However, old ideals of students’ abilities to score well on a standardized test of basic skills, though still appropriate, cannot be the sole means by which we judge the academic success or failure of our students (Huitt, 1998). Testing well and thinking well are two different issues.
Eisner (2003) argued that measuring outcomes of schooling by tests employed within the school is an invalid assumption. Too often, we assume that the standardized tests we utilize will accurately measure the teaching/schooling process’ impact on our students. The problem that pervades testing is that test scores most accurately predict other test scores. “Their status as proxies for other forms of performance is dubious” (Eisner, p. 651). Their predictive value on real life performance cannot be measured.
The unavoidable conclusion is that teachers realize that testing cannot fully measure the students’ performance, but they are forced by legislation to prepare students for standardized tests. “Because of accountability today, especially with No Child Left Behind, we have no choice but to concentrate our teaching around what is to be tested. Those who don’t are called unemployed” (Raise tests scores without selling your soul, 2006, p.14). Teaching what is important to teach through critical thinking approaches, and at the same time teaching what must be taught for testing purposes, becomes a balancing nightmare for teachers.
Education is not the memorization of facts. It is the connecting of information for achieving understanding (Campbell, 2000). This process is going to be different for everyone; it is individualistic in nature. A textbook or even a series of courses will not produce the same education in each individual. The individual connects the information from that setting with previous experience and knowledge, resulting in a form of authentic education. Hence, “authentic education cannot really be measured accurately in any formal way – at least not immediately after it has taken place” (p. 405). Since real education takes some time, it is difficult to measure it accurately; thus, in order to make an effort at measurement, standardized tests are utilized. Facts can be measured. Authentic education cannot be reduced to a test.
The Impact of Critical Thinking on Test Scores and Knowledge
In a study conducted by Reed (1998), students at a community college in South Florida that were taught using a critical thinking model designed by Richard Paul scored significantly higher on history content exams as well as contemporary issues than did students who were not trained in that method. The students that were taught to think like a historian out performed those who were administered the standard lectures and questions at the end of the chapter type of instruction. According to Reed, though, this model of critical thinking was used in the instruction of history lessons; the applicability of it is acceptable across the curriculum (Reed). In this study, Reed referred to the Critical Thinking Workshop Handbook from 1996 published by the Foundation for Critical Thinking, where it is contended that any subject area or content area should be presented to students as a way of thinking. Reed believed that critical thinking about a subject area should be inclusive of cognitive skills, affective dispositions, as well as normative standards.
Lee, Ng, and Jacobs (1997) listed many research studies that revealed the use of cooperative learning that involved critical thinking skills and helped students to have superior achievement on tests that called for higher order thinking (not just multiple choice tests). They stated, “there is research evidence for the efficacy of cooperative learning in promoting thinking and problem-solving” (p. 9). One theoretical basis for critical thinking and cooperative learning is global education where students learn the skills and the desire to cooperate with others for the general welfare of all (Baker-Thorne, 1992).
Though they complain about the standardized tests, students want easy, absolute answers. This is the safe route because it allows for conservatism in thinking. No guesswork or messiness – quick, readily available answers! Yet, the world does not function with easy responses to its difficult challenges. Global educators must model inquisitiveness and skepticism to break students out of this conservative mold (Byrnes, 1997). They must promote an appreciation for complexity and a willingness to grapple with the “either-ors” and the “both-ands” (p. 98).
Using Critical Thinking and Technology as Tools in the Content Areas
The Learning Technology Center in Austin, Texas conducted research that revealed higher test scores for students that were involved in cooperative learning and knowledge construction in English and the social sciences. The National Assessment Educational Process noted that students that were involved in real-life simulations scored higher than students taught in more traditional methods (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2005b). When teachers are deciding on the appropriate use of technology in the classroom, considerations should be taken to include activities that encompass standards mandated federally, by the state and local education association. The use of technology in the classroom should “support inquiry, enhance communication, extend access to resources, guide students to analyze and visualize data, enable product development, or encourage expression of ideas (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2005, p. 21).” Another recommendation from the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory is that while using learning circles, teachers can offer opportunities for students to exchange ideas with other students, teachers, and professionals across the world (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory). According to Riel (1993), “Learning Circles are virtual communities that have no fixed locations or time zones. A Learning Circle is group conversation carried over electronic mail in slow motion” (p. 1). In this way, the classroom and the virtual classroom can become seamless.
Baker-Thorne (1992) outlined how global perspectives could be infused into many areas of the curriculum. Economic, ecological, cultural, and political systems can be studied and investigated in many courses. The use of creative and critical thinking was listed as a benefit of examining global perspectives. “Helping students acquire a global perspective, it seems to me, simply cannot occur without at the same time encouraging and enabling them to be critical thinkers. By the same token…students cannot really be considered critical thinkers without a global perspective” (Dorman, 1992, p. 2).
Since critical thinking is a key element for responsible global citizens (Ibrahim, 2005), it can be used to explore issues and values across all subjects. It is not relegated to social studies classrooms only. Emphasis should be put on “developing the capacity to critically reflect on issues, experiences, and viewpoints as well as the process for participating in decision-making” for multiple courses of study in the curriculum (p. 185).
The Global Classroom Promotes Critical Thinking
Courses and entire programs have been developed to teach global perspectives through a critical –thinking conduit. These courses focus on “helping students to integrate fair-minded critical thinking, justice, and social action” (Butt, Miller, Sutton, and Zhang, 1996, p. 6) and on developing an understanding of the interconnectedness of the world and one’s individual life in relation to the world (Merryfield, 1994). Some courses use problem-solving processes to help students realize real-world problems are difficult challenges, rather than a correct answer in a multiple-choice list (Pesce, Faughnan, and Kurtzberg, 1996). Still, other methods are used in courses to authentically measure student understanding, rather than just the repetition of facts (Campbell, 2000).
Conclusion
In conclusion, because critical thinking is a component of global education, all students should be exposed to them simultaneously. Content standards give structure to the teaching process, and assessments let us know if we have potentially reached that goal. The pathway to meeting accountability standards can be reached through critical thought enveloped with global education where students are stretched to gain new perspectives and value differences.
Students that learn how to think and accept differing world perspectives around them will grow into adults that value education, seeking to learn from every situation and person. These components applied consistently will produce thoughtful, critical thinking citizens in an ever-shrinking world – a world that suffers daily from provincialism on many fronts.
References
________________ (2006). Raise test scores without selling your souls. Curriculum Review, 45, (6).
Baker-Thorne, B. (1992). Model for infusing a global perspective into the curriculum. ERIC Document (ED 367 575).
Banks, J., Bank, C., Cortes, C., Hahn, C., Merryfield, M., Moodley, K., Murphy-Shigematsu, S., Osler, A., Park, C.,
and Parker, W. (2005). Democracy and diversity: principles and concepts for educating citizens in a global age.
Center for Multicultural Education, College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Barker, C. (2000). Education for International Understanding and Global Competence Report of a Meeting Convened by
Carnegie Corporation of New York January 21, 2000. Retrieved from
http://www.carnegie.org/pdf/global.pdf#search='teaching%20global%20education %20and%20meeting%20accountability
%20standards' on October 5, 2006.
Butt, M., Miller, B., Sutton, K., and Zhang, W. (1996). Helping students teach in a diverse world: a rationale and course.
ERIC Document (ED 394 917). Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
Conference, Chicago, IL.
Byrnes, R. (1997). Global education’s promise: reinvigorating classroom life in a changing, interconnected world. Theory Into
Practice, 36, (2).
Campbell, D., (2000). Authentic assessment and authentic standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, (5).
Clark, D. (2001). Learning Domains or Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
on January 7, 2007
Cody, D. (2006). Critical Thoughts on Critical Thinking. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (4), 403-7.
Conway, K. (2007). Enhancing an appreciation for cultural diversity among pre-service teachers and promoting techniques for
teaching it. In Educating for a worldview, Landham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
Dorman, W. (1992). “The not so odd couple: critical thinking and global education.” ERIC Document (ED 371 980). Paper
presented at the International Conference for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University.
Diaz, C., Massialas, B., and Xanthopoulos, J. (1999). Global perspectives for educators. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Eisner, E., (2003). Questionable assumptions about schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, (9).
Elder, L. & Paul, R. (1996). Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory with Implications for Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/ct-development-a-stage-theory.cfm on January 6, 2007.
Elder, L. (2004). Diversity: Making Sense of it Through Critical Thinking. Retrieved from:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/diversity.cfm on January 6, 2007.
Ennis, R. (2002). A Super Streamlined Conception of Critical Thinking. Retrieved from
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/rhennis/SSConcCTApr3.html on January 7, 2007
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (1996). Critical Thinking Workshop Handbook. Santa Rosa, Author.
Hanvey, R. (1982). An attainable global perspective. Theory Into Practice, 21, (3).
Huitt, W. (1998). Critical thinking: An overview. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
[Revision of paper presented at the Critical Thinking Conference sponsored by Gordon College, Barnesville, GA, March
1993.] Retrieved from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/critthnk.html January 6, 2007.
Ibrahim, T. (2005). Global citizenship education: mainstreaming the curriculum? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, (2).
Lamy, S. (1991). Global education: a conflict of images. In Global education: from thought to action, 1991 Yearbook of the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Lee, C., Ng, M., and Jacobs, G., (1997). Cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: research and theoretical perspectives.
ERIC Document (ED 408 570). Paper presented at the International Conference on Thinking, Singapore.
Mayer, R., & Goodchild, F. (1990). The critical thinker. New York: Wm. C. Brown.
Merryfield, M., (1994). In the global classroom: teacher decision-making and global perspectives in education. ERIC Document
(ED 401 249). Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Merryfield, M., (2002). The difference a global educator can make. Educational Leadership, 60, (2).
Merryfield, M., Jarchow, E., and Pickert, S., (1997).
Preparing teachers to teach global perspectives: a handbook for teacher educators.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mertes, L. (1991). Thinking and writing. Middle School Journal, 22, 24-25.
Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy With Multiple Intelligences: A Planning Tool for Curriculum
Differentiation. Teachers College Record. 106 (1), 193 – 211.
North Central Regional Education Laboratory.(2005). Critical Issue: Using Technology to Improve Technology. 1-28. Retrieved from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm on January 9, 2007.
Paige, R., and Mestenhauser, J. (1999). Internationalizing educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35, (4).
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2005). Road to 21st century learning: A policymakers' guide to 21st century skills.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/images/stories/otherdocs/P21_Policy_Paper.pdf on January 9, 2007.
Pesce, L, Faughnan, K., and Kurtzberg, R. (1996). Addressing society’s problems in a global studies class. Social Studies,
87, (2).
Riel, M. (1993). Learning Circles: Virtual Communities for Elementary and Secondary Schools. Retrieved from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/Guidelines/Riel-93.html on January 9, 2007.
Tye, K. (ed.). (1991). Global education: from thought to action. 1991 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
U. S. Department of Education. (2002). Stronger Accountability Testing for Results. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/testingforresults.html on January 7, 2007.
U. S. Department of Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind is Working. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.html on January 7, 2007. |
