Enhancing global and intercultural competencies in Master of Public Administration classes

Abstract

In the 21st century Master of Public Administration (MPA) programs need to meet the challenge of preparing public affairs professionals for an increasingly global and interdependent world in which complex social problems often span national boundaries and cultural differences. In that context, various internationalization strategies can be helpful in developing the necessary global, international, and intercultural (GII) competencies that public affairs professionals need. In this paper, we evaluate a model known as Cultures and Languages Across the Curriculum (CLAC) as an internationalization at home tool which may have potential in public affairs programs. We describe the philosophical and pedagogical approach of CLAC, and compare our experiences with three levels of CLAC integration within graduate-level public affairs classes. Based on feedback from students and observations from faculty we are able to offer preliminary assessments on the effectiveness of the CLAC approach in MPA education, and advice for MPA programs and instructors who may be interested in using CLAC to develop GII competencies among their students.

Keywords

Intercultural competencies internationalization case studies cultures and languages innovative pedagogy

Introduction

In the 21st Century, public organizations and practitioners in public service face the challenges of a globalized, interdependent, and diverse world. The technological advances in the realms of transportation, communication, and production have linked national and local economies around the world as never before. As a result of both voluntary migration and forced displacement, families, cultures, and languages are more widely dispersed. Consequently, violent conflicts, economic crises, natural disasters, and public policy decisions in one part of the globe impact people in other parts more quickly and more directly than in earlier generations. In that context, countries as well as local communities, groups as well as individuals, and organizations in all sectors are faced with challenges of globalization. In particular, professionals in the public sector need to learn how to leverage the benefits of greater diversity within and across public organizations, and how to better serve more diverse communities.

Globalization demands that professionals across disciplines, and public administrators in particular, have an understanding of the political, economic and social circumstances in other countries and a broad spectrum of intercultural competencies. “Awareness, valuing, and understanding of cultural differences; experiencing other cultures; and self-awareness of one’s own culture” (Deardorff, 2006: 247), have been identified as salient elements of such intercultural competencies. Developing these competencies requires an attitude of openness, respect, and curiosity, as well as cultural knowledge and skills to appropriately communicate and behave in intercultural situations (Deardorff, 2006). Building upon numerous streams of work, Soria and Troisi synthetize intercultural competences into a broader label of global, international, and intercultural (GII) competencies “to include knowledge about several dimensions of global and international cultures; appreciation of cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity; understanding of the complexities of issues in a global context; and comfort in working with people from other cultures” (Soria and Troisi, 2014: 262).

In this context, developing GII competencies is particularly important for public service professionals who need to work effectively as part of diverse, international, intercultural, and collaborative teams (Rubaii, 2016). Moreover, public organizations and policies can be even more effective as a result of diversity, and active representation will be possible only when public officials have cultural competencies (Carrizales, 2010). There is little doubt of the importance of incorporating strategies in public administration education to develop intercultural competencies (Carrizales, 2010; Rice, 2007).

Internationalization of higher education, through the inclusion of international experiences including diverse linguistic and cultural perspectives, has been pinpointed as a key strategy to develop intercultural competencies (Deardorff, 2006; Brustein, 2009; Soria and Troisi, 2014). Numerous studies provide empirical evidence that internationalization efforts of higher education institutions are associated with measurable positive outcomes for students. A survey of college students from Australia and the United States shows that students who have experiences with international education in the form of study abroad, interaction with international students, or courses with a globally-focused curriculum have higher levels of intercultural competency (Parsons, 2010). Specific positive outcomes observed included foreign language proficiency, knowledge of foreign regions and countries, and cross-cultural skills (Parsons, 2010). Similarly, others have found evidence of the impact of internationalization efforts, specially study abroad programs, on students’ appreciation of global issues and intercultural awareness (Douglas and Jones-Rikkers, 2001), intercultural development (Rexeisen et al., 2008), intercultural communication skills (Langley and Breese, 2005), and intercultural proficiency, openness to cultural diversity, and global mindedness (Clarke et al., 2009). Using a pretest–posttest model, Rundstrom Williams (2005) illustrates that two intercultural communication skills, adaptability and sensitivity, were positively related to students’ general exposure to other cultures, regardless of whether that exposure occurred through their engagement in study abroad programs or by other internationalization experiences at home.

While the benefits of internationalization are well established, an ongoing challenge facing graduate public affairs programs is that traditional semester- or year-abroad programs are not practical for most students. The question then becomes, what forms of internationalization can be used in Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs to promote global, international, and intercultural competencies? In this paper, we evaluate one specific model for internationalization designed to improve GII competencies called Cultures and Languages Across the Curriculum (CLAC) and compare three versions of this model to better inform decisions by faculty and program administrators considering their options.

We begin with a review of the literature about the rationale for internationalization strategies in higher education, the importance of internationalization strategies in public administration education, and the CLAC model. This is followed by an explanation of our comparative case study methodology and a description of three cases of public administration courses that incorporated the CLAC model at different levels. The cases represent basic, advanced, and intense levels of complexity and degrees of integration of CLAC activities into the course design. GII competencies are developed over a lifetime, and are not something we expect to be fully acquired in a single 15-week semester. Thus, our assessments are preliminary and are based on the results of evaluations from students and observations of faculty for each course; we do not attempt to objectively measure students’ GII competencies beyond self-assessments and instructor-observations. Instead, the purpose of this paper is to provide program directors of MPA, MPP, Master of Public Management and comparable degrees with other titles, as well as the faculty who teach in these programs, with an introduction to CLAC and sufficient guidelines to allow them to utilize the CLAC model in their curricula and courses intending to promote intercultural competencies.

Review of the literature

This research draws upon literature from three related threads. First, we review the literature which presents a broad rationale for and alternative strategies of internationalization at the institutional level with attention to how internationalization can be a tool for enhancing GII competencies. Second, we summarize the scholarship on the application of internationalization strategies within the realm of public affairs education. Finally, we focus specifically on the CLAC model as a philosophical and pedagogical tool that could be used as part of public affairs internationalization, and we supplement the relatively sparse academic literature in this third area with information about CLAC at our university.

Diversifying internationalization strategies

The American Council on Education’s Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement provides a compelling case for the need for “comprehensive internationalization” of the higher education experience, asserting that,

“it is the obligation of colleges and universities to prepare people for a globalized world, including developing the ability to compete economically, to operate effectively in other cultures and settings, to use knowledge to improve their own lives and their communities, and to better comprehend the realities of the contemporary world so that they can better meet their responsibilities as citizens.” (American Council on Education, 2011)

In addition to the educational rationale for internationalization, universities may also be motivated by evidence that the reputation of top universities worldwide is positively influenced by their internationalization efforts (Delgado-Márquez et al., 2013).

As part of their internationalization efforts, universities develop institutional policies and programs, as well as varied organization and program strategies and activities (Knight, 2004). They may diversify their faculty and student body, engage in international research and teaching partnerships, offer dual degree programs, promote faculty exchanges, provide second language courses and programs, and much more (Brustein, 2009). Their efforts may encompass both curricular and co-curricular elements (Ward, 2016). This varied set of possibilities can be divided into two broad categories: internationalization abroad, which refers to any sort of experience studying abroad; and internationalization at home (IaH), which encompasses practices that would happen on a home campus aiming to enhance international understanding and competencies (Knight, 2004; Otten, 2003, Soria and Troisi, 2014). The cornerstone of internationalization is the traditional study abroad model in which students spend a semester or year in another country, enrolled at another higher education institution, and experiencing student life there. Traditional study abroad is “widely recognized as an effective strategy to help students recognize their biases, develop appreciation for different cultures and contexts, and build skills in effective intercultural communication” (Rubaii et al., 2015: 180). Semester- or year-abroad programs may be particularly poorly suited to professional master’s degree students who have only a short amount of time to complete a highly structured curriculum and who may be older and have more personal and professional commitments than the traditional undergraduate student. To address the time and financial constraints, and to make study abroad more accessible to a larger number and more diverse array of students, universities are increasingly turning to short-term (one- to six-week) faculty-led programs. Even as these short-term alternatives to traditional semester or academic year programs increase in number (Fitzsimmons et al., 2013) and participation increases, select groups of students including students of color, first-generation students, and graduate students are notably underrepresented (Institute of International Education, 2015; Martinez et al., 2009; Parkinson, 2007; Picard et al., 2009). According to the Institute of International Education (2015), less than 10% of US undergraduate students who complete a four-year degree will have a study abroad experience, and the participation rate is even lower among associate, master’s, and doctoral students.

While working to overcome the obstacles to study abroad and increase participation, universities are also directing their attention to IaH strategies noting that exposure to other cultures can contribute to intercultural communication skills regardless of whether the exposure takes place abroad or at home (Baldassar and Mckenzie, 2016; Rundstrom Williams, 2005). Furthermore, IaH approaches have the potential to be more accessible to more students, and be more fully integrated into the entire educational process rather than as part of an isolated experience. At the institutional level, IaH may be reflected in governance and operations arrangements such as policies, leadership, and structure devoted to internationalization efforts (Knight, 2004). At the program level, foreign language studies, internationalized curricula, area or thematic studies and centers, teaching/learning processes, cross-cultural training, visiting lecturers/scholars, international conferences and seminars may all be part of IaH strategies while promoting social interaction among students from different countries (Knight, 2004; Soria and Troisi, 2014). A comprehensive multicultural curriculum should include all four dimensions of learning in the multicultural experience, namely faculty, students, course content, and pedagogy; in practice IaH strategies incorporated in any course design may take numerous forms and different levels of intensity (Sciame Giesecke et al., 2009). IaH strategies may vary from simply incorporating a reading about another country or written in another language, to inviting an international guest speaker, or to pairing faculty and students from universities in different countries to share a full-semester course and developing the teaching–learning process in a collaborative manner (see, for example, Abrahamse et al., 2015). Drawing upon this body of literature in this paper we explore the pedagogical elements, institutional supports, and learning objectives associated with CLAC as an IaH strategy at different levels of intensity.

Internationalization within public affairs education

Arguably, internationalization and GII competencies are important across all professions and disciplines. In public administration, in particular, internationalization efforts aiming to develop intercultural competencies and incorporating diversity into the curriculum are highly encouraged and recognized as a sign of quality. The Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) includes diversity as an important value that should be incorporated by MPA or MPP programs seeking accreditation (Wyatt-Nichol and Antwi-Boasiako, 2008) and requires that accredited programs document their students’ cultural competencies, specifically their ability to “communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry” (NASPAA, 2009: 7). Similarly, the task force created by the Division of Public Administration and Development Management of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration, includes the promotion of inclusiveness as one of the eight standards of excellence in public administration education (Rosenbaum, 2014). Diversity and inclusiveness are, therefore, understood to represent critical features distinguishing high quality public administration education. Among NASPAA programs, defining, instilling, and measuring cultural competencies has presented more challenges than the other more technical competencies required for accreditation (Rubaii and Calarusse, 2014).

In theory, a full range of internationalization strategies can be utilized by public administration programs aiming to develop their students’ intercultural competencies. However, internationalization strategies such as education abroad programs limit the impact of these initiatives to the reduced number of students who can participate in them. A comprehensive strategy, therefore, should include different alternatives throughout the curriculum. A comprehensive cultural competency curriculum in public affairs educations would incorporate knowledge-based, attitude-based, skills-based, and community-based approaches (Carrizales, 2010). This is consistent with the mentioned definition of cultural competencies that encompass knowledge as well as skills and attitudes towards different cultures and, ultimately, towards diversity (Rice, 2007).

The emphasis on moving beyond the necessary but not sufficient normative understanding of diversity to incorporate skills and attitudes (Carrizales, 2010), highlights the relevance of practice. In public administration education, practice has been identified as a distinctive feature. Many have called for the use of experiential learning as well as the integration of theory, research, and practice in public administration education (see e.g. Alford, 2014; Goodwin and Meek, 2016; Rosenbaum, 2014). In that sense, it is through practice and reflection on attitudes that it is possible to develop a skill-based component of cultural competencies. In her call to design immersion programs more appealing to MPA students, Ryan (2010) points out the importance of reflection after internationalization activities as an exercise that could help to produce the awareness of a student’s own culture and other cultural characteristics.

The potential and power of CLAC relies on the fact that it can be articulated throughout the curriculum, in multiple courses, in a consistent manner, and, as we present here, with different levels of intensity. Therefore, CLAC strategies may fit the realities of MPA programs more than other internationalization strategies. In a 2008 assessment of the curriculum of NASPAA-affiliated MPA programs, Wyatt-Nichol and Antwi-Boasiako (2008) found that most MPA programs do not create new courses on specific diversity-related issues; instead, programs incorporate these issues into their current courses. This same study documented that MPA program directors expressed a general aversion to creating new programs or courses on new or specific topics. In that sense, CLAC may present an opportunity for programs aiming to meet quality standards through modifications of existing courses and curricular arrangements.

CLAC as an internationalization strategy

Cultures and Languages across the Curriculum is a philosophical and pedagogical approach used principally at the undergraduate level by a small but dedicated cadre of universities in the United States. It is neither well documented in graduate or professional degree programs nor is it explicitly recognized as a tool for internationalization (VanTyle et al., 2011). Similar to the concept of Content and Language Integrated Learning from the study by Rubtcova and Kaisarova (2016), which illustrates the possible usage of English language in public administration study in Russian Universities, CLAC has the potential to internationalize the curriculum and the teaching–learning process, and to be an important addition to a university’s and public administration program’s IaH toolbox.

Two of the most important aspects of internationalization in higher education are the exposure to foreign languages (Doiz et al., 2013) and the development of knowledge, skills and appreciations for working across cultural differences. The philosophy behind CLAC is that teaching and learning about languages and cultures should not be limited to those courses housed in language departments or referencing culture in the course title. Among the structural problems CLAC tries to address is the tendency for language learning to be limited to language classes, and for languages to only be relevant after graduation to students who choose to major in a language (Sudermann and Cisar, 1992). CLAC advocates that courses across the entire range of disciplines and from the first year through the senior year provide opportunities for students to utilize their language skills – in whatever language and at whatever level – to enrich the learning experience (Bettencourt, 2011; Sudermann and Cisar, 1992). By incorporating explicit readings, assignments and discussions linked to language and cultural diversity, students are challenged to better understand themselves and others, and to enhance their intercultural competencies. It is important to note, however, that CLAC is not a type of language instruction pedagogy.

The roots of the CLAC movement in the United States date to the 1980s and 1990s (Straight, 1998). As of 2017, the Cultures and Languages Across the Curriculum Consortium consists of 24 institutions of higher education in the US, ranging from small private liberal arts colleges to large public and private research universities (https://clacconsortium.org/). The 10th conference of the CLAC Consortium which was held at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, in 2016 was structured around the theme of “Developing Responsible Global Citizenship Through CLAC” and the 11th conference is scheduled to be held at the University of Denver, Colorado, in 2018 around the theme of “Providing Access: Inclusivity in Internationalization through CLAC.” Both conference themes suggest a logical linkage to internationalization efforts.

Within the common philosophical framework of integration of language and cross-cultural learning throughout the curriculum, different methods of implementation have been developed. One of the earliest program models was developed at Binghamton University (State University of New York) in what they refer to as Languages Across the Curriculum (LxC). Although the LxC label appears to emphasize languages at the expense of culture, the program clearly aims to not only promote language learning but also raise cultural awareness. The LxC model facilitates students’ exploration of the course content in a target language with the support of language resource specialists (LRSs). LRSs are other students with international or multilingual backgrounds who are hired by the LxC program to lead study groups comprising students who share the same target language in a specific course. In this way, the LxC program and its LRSs assist faculty members from a range of disciplines to insert language and cultural components into their courses. The primary job of an LRS is to assist students with language usage related to class topics while inspiring comparative perspectives among cultures.

Traditionally, in order for students to participate in LxC groups, they need a certain proficiency in at least one language other than English. In a modification adopted in 1991, the LxC program added a Global English option which facilitates participation by students who only speak English (Binghamton University – OIP: Languages Across the Curriculum, n.d.). In Global English groups, students communicate with one another and conduct research in English focusing on an English-speaking country other than the United States. This variation of CLAC recognizes that within a single language there can be wide differences in language usage among and within countries linked to historical and cultural factors.

It is in this specific LxC context of CLAC programs that we have experimented with, evaluated, and now report on three alternative approaches to CLAC in graduate public affairs education as an explicit IaH strategy to promote GII competencies. In the following section we present three case examples of the application of CLAC in graduate-level public affairs courses, and assess their ability to provide students with meaningful internationalization experiences without leaving the country.

Methodology: Comparing and contrasting three levels of CLAC in MPA classes

Over the course of several years, we utilized three very different levels of CLAC integration in master’s level public administration classes to assess their abilities to promote GII competencies. In this paper, we document the cases and provide preliminary assessments of their effectiveness. The cases are labeled as basic, advanced, and intense, reflecting increasing levels of complexity and degrees of integration of CLAC activities into the course design.¹ For each case, we present the course objectives related to internationalization, a description of the CLAC elements in the course designed to support those objectives, and student and instructor feedback on the effectiveness of CLAC as an IaH tool to promote GII competencies. Our overarching goal is to contribute to the dialogue on classroom strategies which can support development of GII competencies among MPA students.

The basic level of CLAC involved a semester-long individual project incorporating CLAC principles, a series of short, in-class activities to highlight issues of language and culture within the course material, and an online discussion board to promote reflection and discussion. The more advanced version continued the use of short in-class assignments, and added semester-long team projects to the mix in which the team composition and the team topics were deliberately selected to highlight language and cultural diversity. The most intense operationalization of CLAC was through a fully-integrated technology-assisted international partnership between classes in the United States and Colombia, with teams spanning both countries, and the use of both in-class and semester-long team projects.

Despite their differences in the intensity of CLAC integration, all three classes highlighted the role of CLAC as a pedagogical principle in the course syllabus. Positioning CLAC in this way was intended to help combat the inertia stemming from the context of a classroom in a United States university in which most courses in the program draw heavily on journals, books, and media coverage from American English sources, thereby limiting their generalizability on a global scale. This tradition can also contribute to a tendency for students to develop a US-centric approach in which the United States is erroneously treated as a homogeneous entity. Having CLAC as a core pedagogical approach in the classes reinforced the importance of having a comparative mindset in the contemporary internationalized environment. The following sections describe the design of the three courses and highlight the integration of CLAC elements in each case. Later, building upon that description, course evaluations from students, and observations from instructors, we identify the particular pedagogical elements, institutional support, and learning objectives linked to internationalization associated to each case.

Case Number 1: Basic CLAC through individual and short-term group application

The first documented use of CLAC within a graduate level course in any discipline at Binghamton University was in the spring of 2013. The course, which incorporated CLAC in a basic manner, was titled “Managing Immigrant Services” and was a cross-listed undergraduate and graduate course spanning multiple disciplines. A stated goal of the class was to prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to work effectively across the cultural and language differences that various immigrant populations represent regardless of the professional or community setting in which they may interact. Immigration clearly has international causes and consequences and thus the course topic is ripe for some type of IaH strategy to enhance the learning experience of students; in this case the CLAC approach was particularly useful.

Internationalization via CLAC was incorporated into the class through the following methods: (1) in-class activities; (2) an online discussion board; (3) a semester-long individual project; and (4) a final reflection paper. The entire course was supported by LRSs described earlier. Students with any level of non-English language skills were encouraged to use those skills to expand the scope of their course materials; students without other language skills applied the Global English approach to reflectively incorporate materials from English-speaking countries outside the United States.

In-class activities included a “Two-Way Google Translate” exercise, and a comparison of visa application forms and other materials for immigrants on the websites of various countries, among many others. The purpose of these and the other activities was to illustrate to students how language and culture intersect as part of the immigrant experience.

Based on the nature of the individual learning contract (LC) projects (see below), students were assigned to discussion board groups to build on classroom discussions and explore how to use the course concepts in their individual projects. Discussions for all groups were facilitated and guided by the instructor and the LRSs assigned to the course.

A main component of the class was a semester-long project defined through an individual LC. LCs are a process by which students identify their own learning needs and learning objectives, develop strategies for addressing the needs, and specify what evidence they will provide of their learning and the criteria by which they and the instructor will evaluate the learning (Knowles, 1986). LCs have been praised for providing a “culturally responsive pedagogy” (Wlodkowski and Ginsberg, 1995: 9) and fostering “an awareness of individual and cultural differences” (Anderson et al., 1996: 12). Within the public affairs context, LCs have also been shown to provide a “viable solution to the struggle of accommodating diverse student learning needs and interests, motivating students with varying levels of experience and different values, and maintaining academic rigor” (Rubaii-Barrett, 2006: 381). In this course, students’ LC projects took several forms including writing a traditional research paper, producing an informational video, developing culturally sensitive materials across multiple languages for local organizations to use when serving immigrant populations, and organizing events on campus, among other things.

Finally, following Ryan’s (2010) recommendation about the importance of reflections after an internationalization experience, in the end-of-course written reflection students were explicitly asked to what extent and in what ways the CLAC experience contributed to their appreciation of international differences and immigrant experiences. Students were provided with flexibility in how to format this final writing assignment; some wrote traditional essays, others wrote letters to family members or friends, and still others wrote in the form of a newspaper editorial or blog post. Student feedback suggests that the CLAC techniques achieved many of the goals commonly associated with internationalization such as improving self-awareness, enhancing appreciation of differences, and fostering more patterns of behavior required for global citizenship. Suggesting increased self-awareness, one student commented “I am more aware of my filters. I am more cognizant of needing to understand sociocultural norms when dealing with populations markedly different from those within whom I regularly engage.” As evidence of the increased appreciation for difference another student remarked that moving forward he would “solicit input and ideas from a broad range of people, sources and organizations, and make sure that a representative sample of constituents and clients is considered in making service-providing decisions.” A student who identified himself as having entered the class with largely anti-immigrant views, noted at the end of the course that he had not considered “how difficult it is for immigrants to come to a new unfamiliar country that may not be overly welcoming;” this same student said that “moving forward” he “will look at issues from all viewpoints to better understand all the factors affecting the issue.” In explaining how the CLAC approach illustrated how the same events receive markedly different media coverage in various parts of the world, one student from China noted “As a result I have already made a greater effort to consume media not only from China and America, but also from other countries.”

Case Number 2: Advanced CLAC through domestic CLAC teams

The second case which we have labeled as an example of advanced level CLAC comes from a required first-year MPA course offered in spring 2016 titled “21st Century Governance.” The course examines issues of diversity, globalization, and technology and how those factors influence and create challenges for professional public administrators. In this course, the CLAC model was designed to not only enhance internationalization, but also to promote social equity and to raise awareness among students of the privileges and marginalization faced by different populations within and across societies.

Like the basic CLAC example described earlier, this course also used the strategy of a series of in-class CLAC activities. The CLAC activities were designed to help students understand language barriers, to be aware of the potential biases caused by information channels, to respect diverse perspectives, and to appreciate colleagues who have other language proficiencies. A series of five activities were used in this course. In addition to the Two-Way Google Translate activity described in the previous case example, the students also engaged in a Wikipedia activity in which they were asked to review and compare pages of the same term in different languages as a means of appreciating how much more detail is provided on the English pages. Students also engaged in two activities involving the comparison of newspapers within and across countries and languages. First using a website which catalogs newspaper front pages over time (http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/) students compared front page layouts, graphics and content on the same day in history, and using the LexisNexis®, they compared headlines and perspectives on a current major international crisis. Finally, students engaged in a search engine activity in which they compared the results of a search of a basic term (such as America) using Google (which most of them rely upon heavily) and any other search engine (for example, http://www.searchenginecolossus.com/).

While the variety of in-class activities used in this course was more extensive than in the first case, that is not what makes it a more advanced application of CLAC. The key was the use of a semester-long group project which required multi-cultural perspectives. Students were assigned to groups by the instructor who deliberately tried to incorporate diversity. The groups were also assigned based on results of an intercultural competence assessments tool, the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES) survey from the Kozai Group. The IES asks a series of 60 questions around: (1) continuous learning (consisting of self-awareness and exploration); (2) interpersonal engagement (made up of global mindset and relationship interest); and (3) hardiness (comprising positive regard and emotional resilience).² Based upon their individual results, students submitted reflective essays on what they learned from the IES self-assessment, and the instructor used the results to ensure additional diversity in the groups beyond demographic characteristics.

The groups were then randomly assigned one of five topics/population groups: immigrants; religious minorities; refugees, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer (LGBTQ) persons; and indigenous persons. The task of each group was to examine issues of privilege and marginalization for that population based on research with an explicit comparative perspective and using the techniques illustrated through the in-class CLAC activities. For example, one group studied the privileges and marginalization faced by the LGBTQ population in both the United States and Uganda. Another group analyzed marginalization faced by American Indians, Indigenous Peruvians, and Aboriginal Australians. The final product for each group was a research poster, and all posters were presented in the last class session. This group assignment provided students with an opportunity to examine a specific social equity issue through a comparative study approach. To research on different geographical populations, students realized the value of CLAC within the learning environment.

In general students had a very positive reaction and were very pleased with the CLAC activities, and reported that the CLAC experience contributed to internationalizing their experience. Specifically, on a 5-item Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) the mean score was greater than 4 in regards to the extent to which the CLAC approach contributed to their awareness of cultural and language barriers (4.52), enhanced their appreciation of diversity (4.33), encouraged them to engage in more critical reviews (4.29), increased their desire to explore other cultures (4.24), and revealed the limitations of their usual research strategies (4.14). The standard course evaluation generated similar feedback in which 75% of students highly agreed (and the remaining 25% indicated a moderate level of agreement) with the statement that the course had contributed to their appreciation of cultures and languages, and to their global/comparative perspective.

Case Number 3 – Intense CLAC application through a fully-integrated international collaboration

The final case example we report on uses CLAC to engage in an intense level of IaH. In this case, the course linked 23 first-semester MPA students in a course on “21st Century Governance” at Binghamton University, with 19 final-year undergraduate political science students at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogota, Colombia, enrolled in a public management concentration class on “Governmental Technologies and Processes.”³ The students gathered physically in their respective university, but met together virtually each week to have synchronous classes all based on a common syllabus, making it, in fact, a combined singular class of 42 students. In this course, we paired CLAC with the better-known IaH strategy of Collaborative Online International Learning (State University of New York Center for Collaborative Online International Learning) (Rubin and Guth, 2015). All classes were taught in English, but students were permitted to submit individual writing assignments and to communicate with any of the instructors in English or Spanish. Three main goals were set for the course: (1) to demonstrate the challenges and opportunities for public governance in the 21_st century derived from globalization, collaboration, diversity and technology; (2) to model competencies for students in each of these areas; and (3) to provide students with opportunities to practice and develop their own competencies in these areas concurrently (Capobianco et al., 2016). The idea behind the collaborative course was that students could experience first-hand the public governance challenges of working across international, intercultural, and language barriers, as well as using technology to facilitate information sharing and decision-making.

In terms of the teaching–learning process, the course purposefully applied recommendations around the importance of synchronous encounters (Doerry et al., 2004), the facilitation of actual interactions among participants to effectively develop cultural competencies (Rundstrom Williams, 2005), and giving students the chance to go beyond the mere intercultural contact to also reflect as individuals and as groups on their experiences (Otten, 2003; Ryan, 2010). With this is mind, and with the CLAC model as a framework, we incorporated a series of small assignments, an intercultural competence self-assessment, and a long-semester project to allow for cross-cultural/country comparisons and to discuss each other’s beliefs, experiences, and perceptions. A few examples of the small assignments consisted of conversations around perceptions on each other’s countries, students’ presentations on local government structures and powers in their respective countries, and sharing photographs and videos taken by students representing how globalization, diversity, and technology have impacted and challenged their communities. The IES Survey described as part of the previous case was also used in this course, although in this case it did not inform group assignments but rather was primarily used for self-reflection and development of a personalized intercultural competency development plan.

Finally, the semester-long team project was completed by 10 teams of 4–6 students each with representation from both universities. The teams were assigned topics related to diversity and technology. All teams were required to research and ultimately collaboratively present a comparison of US and Colombian communities dealing with their assigned issue, and to place their research in the context of the course material on public administration theories, governance challenges, and pressures of globalization. In anticipation of the usual problems that arise with online group projects (Roberts and McInnerney, 2007), we required each team to develop a virtual team contract before beginning their substantive project work,⁴ and incorporated mid-term and final peer evaluations into the final grading weight.

We also collected student feedback at mid-semester and again at the end of the term. Student evaluations at the middle of the semester provided very positive feedback with more than one-half of respondents saying there is nothing they would want to change about the course or nothing about either the content or format that was impeding their learning. In that case, students’ overall assessment of the course showed that 34 (81%) had strong positive or generally positive perceptions, while three (7%) were mixed, and five (12%) had generally critical or strongly negative perceptions about the experience. Only one student expressed complete dislike for and frustration with all aspects of the collaboration.

One student referred to the work in groups and the course readings as contributing to the ability “to evaluate myself and accept viewpoints from others with more understanding.” Another characterized the format of the class as “somewhat preparatory in regards to future international aspirations.” A more philosophical perception is reflected in the comment, “the open debate, reflection, exchange of ideas, and the need to overcome new challenges and experiences are transcendent topics that I think have been achieved through the collaboration” (translated from the original Spanish).

At the end of the semester, a common course evaluation was administered through SurveyMonkey to all students and we received a 100% response rate (n = 42). In this instance, the course elements which were most consistently identified as contributing to student learning were: the IES Survey; readings in general and particularly those dealing with collaborative leadership, globalization, the digital divide, and LGBTQI issues; Ted Talk videos shown in class; the reflection paper; the literature review; separate class time; making the group presentations; and watching other groups’ presentations. Each of these factors had an overall average score greater than 4.0 on a 5-point scale of contributing to learning, with no less than 75% of students rating these as contributing to their learning either greatly or somewhat. Only three components of the course earned average scores lower than 3.5 and all were in some way related to technology.

This version of CLAC required the extensive use of technology to carry out the synchronous class sessions and virtual team projects across the two hemispheres. To conduct the synchronous class sessions between Binghamton and Bogotá, the instructors used Cisco’s WebEx software for video conferencing. The instructors in Binghamton were able to use Binghamton University’s license to initiate and maintain the pre-arranged class sessions. It operates on a standard web-conference system where the respective classrooms were equipped with a camera to capture the students and instructor, and a projector to show the image from the other class. The main issue regarding this technology was the poor internet connectivity at times, which would hinder the ability to hear or see the other class. The instructors were generally able to fix the connection or restart a session to address the problem. Once the instructors received basic training on how to initiate sessions, there was little support needed from technical staff.

For the team projects completed by students, the instructors provided students with a list of free web-conference tools such as Skype, Google Hangouts, ooVoo, AnyMeeting, Meetings.io, Backchannel Chat, Zoom, and Wiggio to test each week. Once students had experimented with various tools and provided a written assessment of the strengths and limitations of each, they were allowed to select their preferred platform for team communication for the remainder of the semester. Because technology was so central to the experience, the course emphasized helping students develop their digital competencies in addition to the global, international and intercultural competencies that are the focus of this paper.

In terms of its ability to contribute to what are generally accepted goals of internationalization, this intensive application of the CLAC model generated the most obvious results including more than one-third of the students reporting that the experience increased their motivations and/or intentions to study abroad, or to acquire or improve second language skills. Additionally, more than one-quarter of the students indicated that they expected to maintain contact with their teammates in the other country even after the class.

Side-by-side comparisons

The three case examples provided above illustrate the potential for CLAC to be used to promote GII competencies in public administration curriculum and instruction. As measured by student feedback and instructor observations, each of the models we utilized – basic, advanced, and intense – contributed to improve students’ awareness about their own culture and the cultures of others, appreciation for cultural and language diversity, and some skills in expanding their personal and professional perspectives. While all three levels of CLAC resulted in some GII competency benefits, the cases represent distinct levels of pedagogical design elements, required institutional supports, and realized learning outcomes which are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comparison of three Cultures and Languages Across the Curriculum (CLAC) case examples.

	Basic	Advanced	Intense
Pedagogical design elements
CLAC identified in the course syllabus as a core philosophy or pedagogy	X	X	X
Use of short in-class activities to illustrate relevance of language and culture	X	X	X
Use of Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (IES) Survey		X	X
Individual project based on learning contract	X
Team project linked requiring application of CLAC methodologies and principles		X	X
Teams formed to emphasize diversity		X	X
Teams spanning international boundaries			X
Use of team contracts linked to IES		X	X
Use of technology to facilitate international collaboration (State University of New York Center for Collaborative Online International Learning)			X
Required institutional supports
Instructor at home institution	X	X	X
Co-instructor from an institution in another country			X
Support from language resource specialist	X
International partner with established trust			X
Adequate technology for synchronous international class meetings			X
Instructional design and technology support staff			X
Prior planning and coordination among co-instructors			X
Realized learning outcomes
Increased awareness of limitations of US-centric, English-only learning	X	X	X
Development of transferable CLAC skills for research	X	X	X
Practice and improvement of teamwork and collaboration skills for diversity		X	X
Practice and improvement of intercultural effectiveness skills across countries			X
Development of friendships across countries			X
Increased interest in language learning			X
Increased interest in study abroad			X
Improved digital fluency for global communication			X

Note: The elements listed in this table are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather reflective of the three levels of CLAC implementation applied by the authors.

Intercultural competencies represent complex and multi-faceted skill sets and they are not expected to be mastered in a single semester. The IES Survey which we used to provide a baseline assessment is not recommended for re-testing after such a short period of time. As such our assessment of progress in this area is based on student self-reflection about the CLAC experiences and on instructor observations considered in relation to students and classes without CLAC.

Another way to appreciate how we made adjustments in response to feedback is to consider the evolution of our methods. While the cases are presented in this paper in order based on level of intensity and integration of the CLAC pedagogy, this does not correspond to the chronological order in which they were utilized. The actual sequence, based on instructor observations and feedback from students, was to begin with the most basic, then to experiment with the most intense, and then finally to settle comfortably on the advanced model. From our perspective, all three models have value. The basic model is an ideal way for faculty to get initial exposure to CLAC or for experienced faculty to incorporate it into a course where neither internationalization nor intercultural competencies are directly related to the course objectives. The intense model is appropriate when the faculty at two institutions have an established level of trust, when the course learning objectives directly align with globalization and intercultural communication, when the support for technology exists at one or both campuses, when comparable courses are offered at both institutions, and when differences in languages, time zones, and semester schedules can be managed. We anticipate occasionally offering courses with the basic or intense models, and regularly utilizing the advanced model.

Table 1 and the case descriptions which precede it represent our particular applications of the CLAC model at different levels, but they are not intended to represent definitive or prescriptive approaches. In the subsequent section we transition from discussing the three specific cases to a more general use of CLAC at various levels.

Discussion

In this section we elaborate on the similarities and differences among the cases and provide recommendations for instructors interested in promoting GII competencies in their courses, and considering one of these three options. To structure this discussion, we continue to use the same three broad categories portrayed in Table 1, namely pedagogical considerations, institutional supports, and learning outcomes.

Pedagogical considerations

Faculty considering incorporating CLAC in their classes to a small or large degree are likely to factor in the extent of preparation and course changes required. A class incorporating a basic level of CLAC such as the one described earlier may simply incorporate a series of short in-class CLAC activities and/or an individual long-semester project. In most cases, the core elements of a course would not need to be altered to accommodate these basic elements of CLAC.

For those interested in the intermediate level of integration, what we labeled the advanced CLAC case, we recommend the use of some type of self-assessment of cultural competencies at the start of the semester as a means for giving students feedback on their GII competencies and stimulating a conversation about how to improve them. We selected the IES Survey and found it to be effective, but there are other options available, some of which may not involve a fee. In our example, the advanced case also included team projects and team contracts; to the extent that instructors already have such elements, adding a CLAC component to the teamwork is not too demanding.

Not surprisingly, the more intense level of CLAC demands more of the instructor in terms of preparation in advance of the semester and engagement during the course, while the basic level can be implemented within minimal prior planning. The level of intensity influences both the number of pedagogical activities incorporated into the course design, as well as the thoroughness of their integration. In our case, the intense level involved a common syllabus for students in both classes, and shared responsibility for grading among the instructors at both universities. Not all faculty will be ready for sharing their authority in this way.

The intense level of CLAC is appropriate for an instructor who is looking to completely revamp a course to position GII competencies and international collaboration at the center of the learning objectives. For most faculty, one of the less intense options will be a more appropriate starting point unless they already have established relationships with a colleague at an institution in another country, and they are experienced with technology-assisted communication across languages and time-zones.

Institutional supports

The basic and advanced levels of CLAC require minimal support at an institutional level. Although we had the benefit of LRSs for the basic case, it is possible for the instructor, a teaching assistant, or classmates proficient in other languages to provide this support for students. It is also possible to maintain the focus on Global English and emphasize differences across culture and nations which speak the same language, rather than to emphasize differences among languages.

In sharp contrast, the intense CLAC option includes an international collaboration which not only demands much of the instructor in terms of course design and delivery, but also requires considerably more in terms of institutional support. Specifically, it requires technology to facilitate interaction for the class and the student teamwork. The challenges to organize an international collaboration require much more time, preparation, and coordination. International partnerships must be built upon trust, which will generally only be established among scholars over time. It may also require a formal agreement between the institutions in the form of a memorandum of understanding. This means that a more intense experience requires much more time to establish and develop relationships, to set the legal framework to collaborate, to agree on the learning objective and specific pedagogical elements, and to facilitate the collaboration.

Our intense CLAC partnership had the advantage of pairing universities within the same time zone (with a minor adjustment when the United States transitioned to daylight saving time) and thus we were able to schedule the two classes to meet concurrently, allowing synchronous communication, common instruction, and real-time team work. When partnerships bring together east–west, rather than north–south, collaborations, the pedagogical design considerations may be more complicated, but the requisite institutional supports may actually decrease. In these cases, synchronous meetings may not be possible which would reduce the need for a communication technology to facilitate such meetings. The WebEx technology we used for synchronous class meetings frequently required technical support from staff in our Center for Teaching and Learning. Had course and team communication largely been asynchronous, the special technology needs and institutional assistance would have been less.

Realized learning objectives

As noted earlier, each of the levels of CLAC integration resulted in improved GII competencies from the perspective of the students and the instructors, however the range and depth of those competencies was correlated with the degree of CLAC intensity. As such, this is where the most difficult decisions will need to be made. While considerations of pedagogical design and institutional supports may encourage faculty to consider the basic or advanced options, it is notable that, as the complexity and degree of CLAC integration rises, learning outcomes linked to internationalization and GII competencies also increase.

A basic experience may only raise intercultural awareness, whereas a more intense experience can involve practice of intercultural competencies. A more intense experience will provide more tools, opportunities and material to reflect about than a more basic experience. The interpersonal relationships developed among students in different countries that was part of the more intense CLAC application generated stronger and more wide-ranging learning outcomes, such as increased interest in study abroad opportunities and language learning.

The intense CLAC collaboration has the potential to contribute to other competencies which are important for public affairs professionals in the 21st century beyond those specifically linked to their intercultural abilities. In our example, the technology-assisted real-time communication for team activities had the added benefit of helping students develop digital fluency competencies in addition to the GII competencies. Additionally, the collaboration required among the instructors in planning and delivering the course served as a role model for students in successful collaboration.

Conclusion and recommendations

There is widespread agreement that GII competencies are and will continue to be important for effective public administration. In that context, faculty and program administrators have a responsibility to explore options for instilling these competencies in students. Based on our assessment of three cases, the CLAC model has potential as a tool to advance that goal. Its strength lies not only in its effectiveness, but also in its flexibility to be implemented at various levels to meet the needs, interests, abilities and resources of the instructor, program and institution. Based on our assessment, CLAC represents an IaH tool which can be incorporated into a full range of existing MPA and MPP courses as a means of exposing future public administrators to diverse perspectives, fostering reflection, and practicing communication skills in order to tackle the complex issues that face our societies.

Our assertion is not that CLAC is the best approach to internationalization or that it should be applied in all classes, but rather that it deserves to be among the IaH strategies utilized by public administration educators. The cases presented here are just a few examples, but certainly courses around other traditional topics in public administration education such as human resource management, public budgeting and finance, information management and technology, intergovernmental relations, etc. would benefit from incorporating CLAC in their syllabus.

While the examples of CLAC usage documented in this paper are grounded in the context of a US university, albeit with a Colombian university partner for the intense model, the approach has great potential to work in other cultural and linguistic contexts. CLAC pedagogies are arguably most needed in the countries, such as the United States, where students may have minimal exposure to a second language, and less so in countries where students are multilingual from a young age. A CLAC approach, and the philosophy underpinning such an approach, is potentially most difficult to implement in contexts with strict limitations on academic freedom. Despite those differences, universities throughout the world are prioritizing internationalization and many are seeking to identify and implement new IaH strategies.

To get started with adopting a CLAC approach into the teaching of public administration, regardless of one’s context, we recommend that instructors of public administration examine their current curriculum to see which courses offer either case studies, group work, or individual research projects, in order to facilitate the connection with CLAC approaches. This will allow the instructor to locate specific areas for the inclusion of CLAC elements or assignments into a currently existing course. In these cases, instructors could use the basic version as we described above and, with some restructuring of the course, potentially the advanced version as well.

Our experience suggests that while the intense option offers the most thorough IaH experience for students and most closely simulates the study abroad experience without leaving one’s country, this option is probably not realistic in most situations. The level of prior planning, deep trust, institutional support, and on-going problem-solving required to implement CLAC in this way is almost as demanding as leading a study abroad program for the entire semester. Program directors interested in incorporating an intense CLAC model are encouraged to give thought to whether there are particular countries, regions, universities, cultures, or languages where a pairing is most relevant and important. Similarly, instructors considering the intense model may find it helpful to identify professional peers in those contexts with whom they already have strong and trusting relationships or the potential to build such relationships. We also acknowledge that while we managed to avoid most issues of time zone differences by pairing schools in the same longitude, this may not be an option for faculty with partners in other parts of the world. Instead, public administration faculty interested in developing GII competencies will likely be able to generate greater faculty interest, and buy-in in either the basic or advanced approaches as we have described them.

Overall, we recommend that instructors of public administration closely examine the cases as we have presented them and review their own courses and curricula as a whole to determine where the most appropriate place is for them to begin infusing CLAC elements. It is important to acknowledge the potential conflicts of adopting such approaches, but also identifying key areas for adaptation. It is possible to attempt any of the levels of CLAC integration in a public administration course, but instructors should use their judgement before selecting their pathway. At the end of the course, instructors will then be able to reflect upon and use an iterative process of evaluation and adaptation as we have done to improve for future semesters of teaching these valuable global, international, and intercultural competencies.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abrahamse

Johnson

Levinson

. (2015) A virtual educational exchange: A north–south virtually shared class on sustainable development. Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2): 140–159.

Alford

(2014) Interactive education in public administration (I): The role of teaching ‘objects.’ Teaching Public Administration 32(2): 144–157.

American Council on Education (2011) Strength through Global Leadership and Engagement: U.S. Higher Education in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Anderson

Boud

Sampson

(1996) Learning Contracts: A Practical Guide. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited.

Baldassar

Mckenzie

(2016) Beyond “just being there”: Teaching internationalization at home in two qualitative methods units. Teaching Sociology 44(2): 84–95.

Bettencourt

(2011) A response to internationalization in foreign language education. Multicultural Education 19(1): 55–58.

Binghamton University –OIP: Languages Across the Curriculum (n.d.) Available at: http://www.binghamton.edu/harpur/lxc/ (accessed 18 September 2016).

Brustein

(2009) It takes an entire institution: A blueprint for the global university. In: Lewin

(ed.) The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 249–265.

Carrizales

(2010) Exploring cultural competency within the public affairs curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education 16(4): 593–606.

10.

Capobianco

Rubaii

Líppez-De Castro

(2016) Illustrating challenges and practicing competencies for global technology-assisted collaboration: Lessons from a real-time north–south teaching collaboration. In: Jager

Kurek

O’Rourke

(eds) New Directions in Telecollaborative Research and Practice: Selected Papers from the Second Conference on Telecollaboration in Higher Education. Dublin, Ireland: Research-publishing.net, pp. 261–266.

11.

Clarke

Flaherty

Wright

. (2009) Student intercultural proficiency from study abroad programs. Journal of Marketing Education 31(2): 173–181.

12.

Deardorff

(2006) Identification and assessments of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education 10(3): 241–266.

13.

Delgado-Márquez

Escudero-Torres

MÁ

Hurtado-Torres

(2013) Being highly internationalised strengthens your reputation: An empirical investigation of top higher education institutions. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 66(5): 619–633.

14.

Doerry

Klempous

Nikodem

. (2004) Virtual student exchange: Lessons learned in virtual international teaming in interdisciplinary design education. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education, Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey, 31 May–2 June 2004. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp. 650–655.

15.

Doiz

Lasagabaster

Sierra

(2013) Globalisation, internationalisation, multilingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38(9): 1407–1421.

16.

Douglas

Jones-Rikkers

(2001) Study abroad programs and American student worldminded-ness: An empirical analysis. Journal of Teaching in International Business 13(1): 55–66.

17.

Fitzsimmons

Flanagan

Wang

(2013) Business students’ choice of short-term or long-term study abroad opportunities. Journal of Teaching in International Business 24(2): 125–137.

18.

Goodwin

Meek

(2016) The scholarly practitioner: Connections of research and practice in the classroom. Teaching Public Administration 34(1): 54–69.

19.

Institute of International Education (2015) Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Available at: http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors (accessed 5 October 2017).

20.

Kavanagh

Caspersz

Levak

. (2011). Virtual Team Contract. International Conference on Education and New learning Technologies, 4767–4676.

21.

Knight

(2004) Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education 8(5): 5–31.

22.

Knowles

(1986) Using Learning Contracts: Practical Approaches in Individualizing and Structuring Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

23.

Langley

Breese

(2005) Interacting sojourners: A study of students studying abroad. Social Science Journal 42(2): 313–321.

24.

Martinez

Ranjeet

Marx

(2009) Creating study abroad opportunities for first-generation college students. In: Lewin

(ed.) The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 527–542.

25.

NASPAA (2009) Accreditation Standards for Master’s Degree Programs. Available at: https://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/naspaa-accreditation-standards.pdf (accessed 26 May 2017).

26.

Otten

(2003) Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education 7(1): 12–26.

27.

Parkinson

(2007) Engineering study abroad programs: Formats, challenges, best practices. Online Journal for Global Engineering Education 2(2):1–15.

28.

Parsons

(2010) The effects of an internationalized university experience on domestic students in the United States and Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education 14(4): 313–334.

29.

Picard

Bernardino

Ehigiator

(2009) Global citizenship for all: Low minority student participation in study abroad – seeking strategies for success. In: Lewin

(ed.) The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 321–345.

30.

Rexeisen

Anderson

Lawton

. (2008) Study abroad and intercultural development: A longitudinal study. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 17(1): 1–20.

31.

Rice

(2007) Promoting cultural competency in public administration and public service delivery: Utilizing self-assessment tools and performance measures. Journal of Public Affairs Education 13(1): 41–57.

32.

Roberts

McInnerney

(2007) Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology & Society 10(4): 257–268.

33.

Rosenbaum

(2014) Putting first things first: Critical issues for public administration education. Teaching Public Administration 32(1): 80–94.

34.

Rubaii-Barrett

(2006) Teaching courses on managing diversity: Using learning contracts to address challenges and model behavior. Journal of Public Affairs Education 12(3): 361–384.

35.

Rubaii

(2016) Bringing the 21st century governance paradigm to public affairs education: Reimagining how we teach what we teach. Journal of Public Affairs Education 22(4): 467–482.

36.

Rubaii

Calarusse

(2014) Preparing public service professionals for a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry: Evaluating the progress of NASPAA programs in competency assessment. Journal of Public Affairs Education 20(3): 285–304.

37.

Rubaii

Appe

Stamp

(2015) Are we getting them out of the country? The state of study-abroad opportunities within NASPAA-Member Programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education 21(2): 179–198.

38.

Rubin

Guth

(2015) Collaborative online international learning: An emerging format for internationalizing curricula. In: Schultheis Moore

Simon

(eds) Globally Networked Teaching in the Humanities. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 15–27.

39.

Rubtcova

Kaisarova

(2016) Implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes in Public Administration: Russian students’ and matriculants’ opinion about their first CLIL experience. Teaching Public Administration 34(3): 229–246.

40.

Rundstrom Williams

(2005) Exploring the impact of study abroad on student’s intercultural communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education 9(4): 356–371.

41.

Ryan

(2010) Let’s get them out of the country! Reflecting on the value of international immersion experiences for MPA students. Journal of Public Affairs Education 16(2): 307–312.

42.

Sciame-Giesecke

Roden

Parkison

(2009) Infusing diversity into the curriculum: What are faculty members actually doing? Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2(3): 156–165.

43.

Soria

Troisi

(2014) Internationalization at home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education 18(3): 261–280.

44.

Straight

(1998) Languages Across the Curriculum. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.

45.

Sudermann

Cisar

(1992) Foreign language across the curriculum: A critical appraisal. The Modern Language Journal 76(3): 295–308.

46.

VanTyle

Kennedy

Vance

. (2011) Instructional design and assessment: A Spanish language and culture initiative for a doctor of pharmacy curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 75(1): 1–8.

47.

Ward

(2016) Internationalizing the Co-curriculum: Part 3 – Internationalization and Student Affairs. Internationalization in Action. American Council on Education. Available at: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Internationalization-in-Action.aspx (accessed 13 November 2016).

48.

Wlodkowski

Ginsberg

(1995) Diversity and Motivation: Culturally Responsive Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

49.

Wyatt-Nichol

Antwi-Boasiako

(2008) Diversity across the curriculum: Perceptions and practices. Symposium on Social Equity and Diversity. In memory of Philip J. Rutledge. Journal of Public Affairs Education 14(1): 79–90.