Cosmopolitan Adult Education and Global Citizenship: Perceptions From a European Itinerant Graduate Professional Study Abroad Program

Abstract

Today’s sociopolitical and economic conditions require adults to engage in informed, culturally sensitive coexistence. Correspondingly, adult educators need to design experiences that help prepare learners for cross-cultural collaboration and socially responsible careers in a global age. Framed through cosmopolitanism and situated learning theories, the purpose of this study was to investigate adult learners’ sense and development of global citizenship through engagement in an innovative itinerant master’s degree program. The investigation of the experiences and contexts of this program’s community of practice provides important insight into adult global citizenship development and cosmopolitan instruction.

Keywords

cosmopolitan adult education international adult education adult study abroad case study research graduate professional education

Today’s sociopolitical and economic conditions require adults to engage in informed, culturally sensitive coexistence. Accordingly, universities and professional learning organizations are identifying international learning outcomes in their mission statements and visions. Adult educators need to design experiences that prepare learners for cross-cultural collaboration and socially responsible careers in a global age. Educating for responsible intercultural competencies can be integrated into the concept of global citizenship (Tarrant, 2010).

At present, internationalizing the adult student experience, and developing global citizenship, are often measured institutionally by the numbers of students who study abroad (SA) (Coryell, Durodoye, Wright, Pate, & Nguyen, 2012) but not often by what learners do and learn while entrenched in these experiences. Although the field of adult education is not new to inquiry into adult SA experiences, we are still building our understanding about the types of learning activities, intercultural development, and personal transformations that occur—suggesting the need for further investigations into how educators can facilitate meaningful and transformative international adult education (Dirkx, Spohr, Tepper, & Tons, 2010; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Killick, 2012). With unprecedented growth in U.S. graduate education SA participation of more than 39% from 2000 to 2010 (Institute of International Education, 2012), research can provide a scholarly foundation about the characteristics of these experiences in the development of global citizenship in adulthood.

This research investigated how other countries approach adult international study programs. Framed by theories on situated cognition and cosmopolitanism, we investigated participants’ sense and development of global citizenship through engagement in an itinerant master’s degree program at the intersection of architecture, archeology, and museum design. The private graduate professional degree program is organized around a unique educational model that engages students of diverse nationalities, local professionals, multinational instructors, and tutors interacting in collaborative design workshops across multiple international locales. The program’s goal was to create “a bridge between culture and project and between culture and conversation” (program description). Respectively, our research question was, “What aspects of an itinerant graduate professional program do participants perceive informed their skills, understandings, attitudes, and dispositions vis-à-vis their worldviews, global citizenship, and professional development?”

Literature Review

Internationalization and Global Citizenship

“Internationalization” is increasingly indicated in mission statements and strategic plans across institutions of higher education (Langran, Langran, & Ozment, 2009). As such, “global citizenship” is being used to operationalize internationalization priorities and underpin learning outcomes (Killick, 2012; Ogden, 2010). Unfortunately, scholars do not agree about the definition of global citizenship (Schattle, 2009) or how to measure it (Parekh, 2003).

However, various dimensions of global citizenship have been identified in the literature. Ogden (2010) identified a global citizenship conceptual model that includes three dimensions: social responsibility, global competence, and global civic engagement. Social responsibility is the perceived level of interdependence with and social concern for others, society, and the environment (Andrzejewski & Alessio, 1999; Braskamp, Braskamp, & Merrill, 2009; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Global competence includes actively seeking to understand others’ cultural norms and expectations, and leveraging this knowledge to interact, communicate, and work effectively outside one’s environment (American Council on Education, 2008; Deardorff, 2006; Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). Developing global competences requires acknowledging one’s own limitations and abilities to engage in intercultural encounters. Finally, global civic engagement is the demonstration of action and/or predisposition toward recognizing local, national, and global community issues and responding through action (Andrzejewski & Alessio, 1999; Parekh, 2003; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Ogden (2010) suggests, “These interrelated dimensions align well with the prominent theoretical and philosophical perspectives described in the literature; reflect how governmental entities, associations, and educators have framed global citizenship” and convey the ideas and goals of education experiences abroad (p. 32). Although scholars agree that global citizenship is behavior that is both learned and nurtured, and requires that students engage with the real world, educators need to learn more about the ways and contexts in which global citizenship can be cultivated (Tarrant, 2010).

Internationalized Curricula and Educative Experiences

There are many opportunities for adult higher education learners to develop global perspectives both on campus and through international mobility experiences. Sanderson (2008) constructed a conceptual framework that acts as a foundation for individual teachers to internationalize their personal and professional outlooks. This framework combines Cranton’s (2000) authenticity in teaching in higher education with cosmopolitanism to provide a foundation for the internationalization of the academic Self. The extent to which global perspectives are entrenched in programmatic, departmental, and institutional practice largely depends on individuals’ interests and on their willingness to be globally well-informed (Lunn, 2008).

Research suggests that interacting with culturally and ethnically diverse peoples can involve conflict and be challenging, but these experiences can also be catalysts for positive learning and change (Gürüz, 2011; Montgomery, 2010). As such, studying in international locales can develop participants’ global perspectives, self-perceptions, and cross-cultural effectiveness (Herbers & Mullins Nelson, 2009) and international understanding and cultural awareness (Orndorff, 1998). Unsurprisingly, international mobility also helps identify one’s Self with others and to personalize places and distances (Killick, 2012). Killick explored the lived experiences of SA participants through a view of global citizenship as self-in-the-world identity and act-in-the-world agency and identified two particular types of encounters of intersubjectivity—with the significant other (unique individuals from inside or beyond the host culture) and with internationals (the international student community). His work suggested that mobility experiences not only enhanced knowledge and perspectives of the lifeworlds of others, they also affected learners’ sense of self-in-the-world, supported a feeling of comfort in difference, and fostered confidence in the risk of interactions in future foreign experiences.

Coryell’s (2011) research on adult short-term education programs in Italy suggests that “studying abroad transforms students’ global perspectives and cross-cultural effectiveness and can increase self-reliance and self-confidence” (p. 4). Likewise, Warner (2009) found that adults who study abroad can be transformed with regard to developing global awareness. However, Sejut’s (1996) dissertation research indicated that adult learners often have multifarious contexts and needs that can restrict their participation in SA experiences. Likewise, Tarrant (2010) argues that the design and application of SA experiences require extensive thought and preparation, should engage students with the real world in ways that support their thinking beyond personal needs, and help them in developing enhanced global values, beliefs, and meanings.

Study Abroad and Professional Education

Brux and Fry (2009) note it is imperative that SA programs “offer the greatest potential for experiential international education, which is relevant to the academic, cultural, personal, and career goals of all students” (p. 508). Research has shown that adult learners in SA programs describe their experiences as positively affecting their professional practices/competencies at home (Heely, 2005; Orndorff, 1998). However, Coryell (2011) asserts that engaging adults in authentic intercultural interactions requires real-world problem solving and develops global sensitivities in different ways from formal, didactic instruction. SA can “profoundly influence individuals’ pursuit of further graduate studies, career paths and global engagement” (Paige, Fry, Stallman, Josić, & Jon, 2009, p. 42).

As a result of globalization of markets, increased migration, and technological advancements, intercultural competence is considered a crucial business success factor (Clarke, Flaherty, Wright, & McMillen, 2009; Teichler & Janson, 2007). Therefore, one goal for SA in graduate professional settings is to develop intercultural proficiency, defined as the knowledge, skills, and attitudes/beliefs necessary to work well with and respond effectively to people in cross-cultural settings. Clarke et al. (2009) argued that you cannot teach “intercultural proficiency in a traditional classroom setting . . . students need more ‘concrete experiences’ with other cultures to actually prepare them for the complex, multicultural global marketplace” (p. 173).

The specific program under study focused on professional development in a master’s program for architects. Effective architectural design is inherently connected with cultural contexts and location, and SA experiences are common in architecture education programs. Through these experiences, students learn about the importance of designing within the context, history, personality, and aspirations of a society (Jarzombek & Hwangbo, 2011). As such, Culver (2011) researched how travel and SA shaped the educational experiences of architects. His work found that participants develop new perceptions or appreciation of foreign cultures, as well as increased understandings about their profession. “Exposure to varying modes and means of cultural expression forces a sense of openness to the possibilities that can further enhance one’s ability to become a creative thinker and designer” (Culver, 2011, p. 2). Likewise, Decker and Duvall Decker (2007) assert the professional architect must become receptive to the location’s geographical aesthetics, site conditions, and available materials while culture is examined for the economy, labor force abilities, and native forms. Many of these learning objectives correspond directly with those of international adult education in general and global citizenship development in particular.

Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks

Appiah (2006) suggests in this age of global interdependence that people need to engage in meaningful discourse employing a cosmopolitan stance. Cosmopolitanism has ancient origins, beginning in the discussions of Plato and Socrates, and later from the Socratically inspired Cynic Diogenes in the fourth century BCE (Kleingeld & Brown, 2013). Currently, cosmopolitanism is rooted in philosophy, ethics, and education and maintains that there are universal values across cultures and peoples, yet it also demands a respect for legitimate differences (Appiah, 2006). Langran (2011) further clarifies that cosmopolitanism is “most commonly associated with an ethical stance in which there is an emphasis on a shared global community” (p. 4). Although some critics debate that cosmopolitanism requires giving up national/local identity and affinity (Rao, 2012), we embrace Appiah’s (2006) definition in his text, Cosmopolitainsm: Ethics in a World of Strangers, which posits that cosmopolitanism requires individuals to assume obligations to all others regardless of nationality, kinship, and affection, while at the same time valuing specific people’s lives, not just human life in the abstract. He contends that the world’s peoples engage in a kaleidoscope of cultural interactions that continue to shift. Cultural intermingling, or “contamination,” ultimately requires people be equipped with ideas and institutions for living together in multicultural spaces as citizens of a “global tribe.” Meaningful conversation and mutual respect between people is Appiah’s recommended means for engaging across cultures, through storytelling about one’s own and others’ experiences. We also agree with Donald (2007) that cosmopolitanism joined with cross-cultural education may offer a way of thinking beyond the dichotomies of “local” and “global” and “particular” and “universal.”

Nussbaum (2002) provided reasons for choosing cosmopolitan citizenship as the basis for civic education. These include learning more about ourselves, the need to solve global problems through international cooperation, and the acknowledgement of moral obligations to a global society. Although there are critics of her liberal arts approach to university education, we subscribe to Nussbaum’s argument that higher education must foster learners’ three cosmopolitan abilities: the Socratic ability to criticize one’s own traditions, the cosmopolitan ability to think as citizen of the whole world, and the ability to imagine what it would be like to be in the position of someone very different from oneself. Cosmopolitanism therefore incorporates critical reflectiveness and supports self-transformation that begins at a personal level before moving through local, national, and global dimensions.

Situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) also frames this study. We understand that learning occurs in context within communities of practice (CoPs) and is a social, constructed phenomenon (Wenger, 1998). Situated learning considers learning as a function of the environment, actions, behaviors, and culture in which it occurs. As such, we understand learning to occur “in situations of authentic activity, in which actual cognitive processes are required, rather than in situations of simulated activities” (Merriam, 2004, p. 209). Scholars use situated learning to describe educative interactions in a community of practice (CoP) in which novices learn from more experienced masters (or experts) in daily work settings, for example, professional apprenticeships and mentoring programs (Hansman, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991). This theory is also used to explain that some people learn more comfortably in social relationships than alone (Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock, 1997) and to underpin educational settings that require immersion into particular contexts or cultures, as in foreign language learning (Jacobson, 1996). In this research, students, professors, tutors, local experts, and the local population are considered members of a community of learning practice that represents attitudes, behaviors, and values to be attained.

Context and Goals of the Program

The current research investigated a unique graduate professional program that includes multiple international learning experiences in the instructional design. The program’s description suggests learners will develop operative, analytical, design, and management relationships with improved awareness and utilization of cultural heritage. Learning objectives included the ability to engage in cross-cultural professional dialogue and to create a common language across international professionals. The 1-year master’s program comprises of an itinerant set of month-long workshops that require between 7 and 10 days on-site (student interaction was not a part of the program design while not on-site). These workshops were held at various locations in Italy, Athens, Sagunto, Seville, Romania, and New York City. Once together in the international locale, students learned from local experts about issues pertaining to architecture and archeology specific to the location, and international researchers, technical professionals, and institutional managers in related fields critiqued group design presentations. The program aimed to create a “bridge between culture and project and between culture and conversation—a place for disciplinary contamination . . . to promote an interdisciplinary professional development activity concentrated on museum design” (program description). Throughout the program, learners were expected to acquire “cultural and operative tools” (program description), which include the ability to engage in the exchange of data and dialogue of cultural, material, and design knowledge, such as to permit the creation of a common language among professionals in a variety of cultural contexts.

Instructional challenges certainly exist. Local professors and universities, the instructional design, projects, and content of each workshop are selected by those native to the setting. This means that the permanent program administration and faculty must give up much of the control over the learning contexts in each workshop. Furthermore, political circumstances occur periodically, affecting the program extensively. For example, the events of the Arab Spring cancelled a scheduled workshop in Egypt. Finally, because many of the students’ native languages were not English or Italian, learning was a “double effort” (program participant) for some. And, with only 7 to 10 days in-country, there were time constraints placed on the program and on learning.

Method

The study was a qualitative design anchored in the “case” of the itinerant master’s program. Case studies are bounded investigations used to reveal rich situational understandings by highlighting the features of social life through studying a set of behavior patterns, interactions, or specific contextual structures (Hamel, Dufour, & Fortin, 1993). These investigations are often undertaken when researchers want to understand a particular case because of its uniqueness. Mertens (1998, p. 145) suggests that case study research is appealing and effective in the field of education when used to investigate a “specific instructional strategy.” The master’s program was chosen because its model could offer inimitable insight into an educational approach in graduate professional study abroad. This approach provides a utility of opening the way for discoveries and of emphasizing insights that may be pursued in subsequent research (Yin, 1994). As researchers, we were not involved in the design or instruction of the program. Our investigation commenced at the program’s final workshop.

Data Collection

The program’s final workshop was based in New York City. Its focus was to engage in culturally sensitive design surrounding a hospital from the early 1900s. This workshop hosted 41 students and four tutors, three of whom were program graduates.

Yin (1994) noted that no single data source has a complete advantage over the others; “the various sources are highly complementary, and a good case study will therefore want to use as many sources as possible” (p. 80). Data included program documents (the program website, workshop syllabi, and other informational documents) and semistructured individual and group interviews from a sample of convenience. In line with an ethics approved protocol, after receiving an information sheet regarding the study and an invitation to participate 12 students, 3 tutors, and 1 of the professors who was also the director of the program agreed to participate. Volunteers (n = 16) received a gift card for their participation. These young adult students were assured their participation would not influence any part of their grading. Table 1 offers demographic information about the participants.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Focus group or interview/pseudonym	Gender	Age	Nationality
SFG1
Chiara	Female	26	Italian
Davide	Male	28	Italian
Greta	Female	24	Polish
Silvia	Female	25	Italian
SFG2
Tara	Female	26	Romanian
Lycus	Male	25	Greek
Daphne	Female	25	Greek
Nicolae	Male	26	Romanian
SFG3
Gianni	Male	24	Italian
Sofia	Female	23	Italian
Taddeo	Male	24	Italian
Giada	Female	25	Italian
TFG
Mario	Male	30	Italian
Enzo	Male	26	Italian
Eva	Female	29	Italian
Professor/director interview
Vincenzo	Male	61	Italian/USA

Note. SFG = student focus group; TFG = tutor focus group.

The student sample consisted of primarily young adults with an age range from 23 to 28 years. Of the participants, six students and the three tutors were concurrently working in their professions while participating in the program. Of the six nonworking students, three (Giada, Taddeo, and Sofia) won a design competition the year before which awarded them full program tuition.

Since proficiency in English was required for enrollment in the program, we conducted four semistructured focus groups—three groups with four students in each (SFGs) and one with the three tutors (TFG) in English. The professor was interviewed individually. Initial questions requested demographic information; we then asked about the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program and their descriptions of meaningful learning experiences. Finally, we invited respondents to provide us with insight into their perceptions of their development of global citizenship through the program. Specifically, we asked if they believed their experiences in the program (either as students or instructional staff) were helpful in developing their sense of the world and its peoples/societies; what experiences from this program helped inform their skills, understandings, and/or attitudes needed in their global professional work; if they believed they could live and thrive in other cultures and countries now that they were completing the program (or had taught in the program); and what they believed it meant to develop global citizenship. The interviews took approximately an hour and a half each. They were recorded through audio and audio-video capture.

Analysis

To get an overall sense of the data, the research team began the analyses by engaging in repeated listening to the recordings. Then, each session was transcribed to comprise 125 pages of transcript data. Using constant-comparative and thematic methods (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003), responses were broken into a list of data bits, or codes, which led to a compilation of categories and eventually larger, overarching themes. Through devising rules that described each category, we consistently compared the codes and subsequently refined the categories and themes. We examined the participants’ responses individually and then used cross-case analysis of the student, tutor, and professor interviews (Yin, 1994). We categorized responses to specific questions in order to examine various perspectives on specific topics. Finding these patterns was essential in discovering what was prominent and meaningful across the data set. We employed member checks to clarify and support the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Findings

New insight emerged from the perceptual data about the nature of adult study abroad and cosmopolitan approaches to the development of global citizenship. Vincenzo, the professor/program director, explained the instructional approach and definition of global citizenship in the workshops,

[Although] we don’t have a specific focus on the issues that students would say ‘oh, that is about global citizenship’, [they learn about] the idea of understanding the dimensions of bureaucracy in different places. You know those kinds of layers that one needs to go through for the same tasks . . . [that] are extremely helpful in understanding that I, as a professional, belong to a world where I might be working in that context . . . over there [that] requires that I know certain things. So, [the program], at least, sets the sort of groundwork for that, and, then you would become an architect not only of your place, but an architect that can also practice in the other places. And that’s, I think, part of the understanding of the meaning, of the definition, of [global] citizenship. And, it might also be tied to a professional competence in different places. So, you know, I belong by being able to practice my profession in that place—wherever.

Global citizenship was generally understood for participants in this academic CoP as a global professional competence, one that developed understandings of various professional systems and “cultural and operative tools” (program description) for cross-cultural interactions inherent in the diverse settings of the workshops and projects.

Cosmopolitan education was found to be located in relational and physical experiences; professional cross-cultural learning occurred through dialogue in relationships with coparticipants and in the physical/cultural experience of the foreign setting. Learners and instructors, alike, were subsequently able to identify aspects of their own global citizenship development as a result of their experiences in the program. We offer a summary of the findings first, with rich data examples of participants’ perceptions of professional and personal global citizenship development to follow.

Reciprocal Cross-Cultural Professional Development: Cosmopolitan Education as Situated and Problem-Based

Learners chose to return to education to expand their knowledge of the profession. This program’s cosmopolitan approach designed cross-cultural professional development through problem-based, situated, and reciprocal learning experiences. The design of the workshops reflected the purpose of international professional work settings—students applied interdisciplinary collaboration in problem-solving tasks. As such, Nicolae (SFG2) offered, “We are learning to respond to the subject, the problem that we were given very quickly, very efficient.” The relatively short timeframe on-site, and for project completion, taught learners to complete their work efficiently.

The situated cultural diversity of the projects in workshops across different international settings helped participants understand that each place was created differently, that a professional cannot practice in a particular country without knowledge of its cultural practices and history. Vincenzo, the professor, explained, “The learning is not only about the traditions between the past and the future but also about that particular culture and its history.” Correspondingly in SFG3, Giada offered, “I think about the culture, for me . . . you have to adapt yourself in seven days [to] the way of life [of] the country that you are going to stay.” Living and working in a foreign space required participants to consider their professional skills and knowledge in new ways. Chiara (SFG1) explained, “Because obviously, in Italy, and in Europe, [people] work in a different way from [the ways] Americans do, so, it is interesting to see . . . how people work on architecture.” Gianni (SFG3) affirmed, “It’s a really different mind, and you learn this.” Finally, working on projects with different cultural requirements stimulated new problem-solving solutions. In SFG1, Silvia proposed,

I think that [learning in] different cultures is a good thing for working altogether because the different ways to work are things that can stimulate my way to work. And also is [beneficial] for another person to work with me.

Participants also spoke of the intensity of the problems and required solutions. Greta (SFG1) clarified, “We just have to decide what are the most important things to do . . . [it] helps us figure out our priorities.” Through a diversity of complex, context-rich problems, participants indicated an increased awareness and appreciation of different communities’ lifestyles and mores, of understanding the culture of place, and of the complexity of cross-cultural practice.

The cosmopolitan approach was also found in the situated cultural diversity of the physical environment. In respondents’ descriptions of their learning during the workshops, they discussed “built” experiences (professor), daily living, and the meeting points of landscapes, culture, and history. Living, designing, and collaborating in a foreign city developed learners’ professional sensibilities regarding the embedded culture of the physical place, the purpose of the archeological space, and the interdisciplinarity of their work. For example, Chiara (SFG1) explained, “Living with Greek people for one week in Greece, you feel the house you live [in], and so maybe you can think and understand some of the culture.” Davide responded, “The best architect, I think, is the architect who works with the material that the earth gives him . . . because everyone has particular resources of his earth.” Learners perceived that the physically grounded experiences provided profound opportunities to understand the influence that culture and nature had on their profession.

We also found that professional learning in this program occurred through dialogue in relationships with coparticipants. There was an exchange of knowledge between and among participants. As such, learning was located in what we designate as cross-cultural reciprocal learning. Analyses indicate that this learning develops a mutual sharing of knowledge and respectful appreciation of cultural difference. The workshops demanded “24 hours [of] sleeping together, eating together, working together . . . trying to cooperate with people you don’t know” (Chiara, SFG1). Participants developed cross-cultural cooperative skills as team-based projects promoted a unique dialogic space.

We found that learning to interact and communicate within a team of people from different cultures was paramount for learners who hailed from different cultural backgrounds, living styles, and ways of thinking. Greta (SFG1) offered, “The interactions . . . they are very important. I learn from them.” By interacting with various members of the workshop communities, students identified similarities and differences among their peers and the professionals from the workshop’s local culture. These learning interactions occurred in dialogue helping participants develop relational skills across different national cultures through discovering how international professionals think, communicate, collaborate, and engage in problem-solving. The SFGs indicated that participants learned how to react in confrontation and be tolerant of different points of views. In SFG1, for example, Davide clarified, “I learn from the other students that I have the possibility to confront, with the different approaches with[in] the same work.” Greta continued, “You have to overcome the small difficulties to do the work. . . . [I had to learn] to communicate my idea or the solution in a new verbal way.” Enzo, in the TFG, explained, “Maybe there’s another point of view. Maybe I’m correct, but maybe not! So try to start to reckon . . . if it could work even in another way. And this helps you, enriches you, makes you feel better. Definitely.” In SFG3, Taddeo observed, “Language is very important . . . you have to learn how to communicate,” then Gianni clarified, “[in order] to solve a big problem and . . . try to reach the goal.”

Participants also perceived that problem-solving interactions across multiple workshops helped develop essential professional skills. Across SFGs, our respondents offered insights such as, “If you want to know . . . if you want to discover [these skills] you have to stay with them [group members]” (Taddeo, SFG3). A culturally rich confrontation-collaboration dynamic required relationship skill-building and introspection, which Greta (SFG1) explicated as follows:

It’s like we have those stereotypes and sometimes they are completely wrong. But sometimes they are completely true. The thing that you see when you confront other people is their limitations and your own limitations. And the thing is, you have to decide: can you live with this person’s limitations? Or can this person live with my limits? And if you say “yes” then you have to accept and move on. It’s [made us] a little bit more flexible.

Cross-cultural group projects helped improve participants’ sense of self-efficacy and increased professional skills of quick, creative, and culturally responsive problem solving. Importantly, respondents believed these skills were essential in their professional development: “It’s important to do this kind of experience” to “see the different methods, the different approaches to this work” (Davide, SFG1); “The cosmopolitan education is the real strength” (Nicolae, SFG2); and “Every student needs to have an experience like this” (Silvia, SFG1). The instructional approach provided learning experiences that incorporated both what learners already knew as well as incorporated new ways steeped in different cultural practices. Enzo (tutor) asserted that this approach “doesn’t happen often in the university.” Participants valued the “opportunity to live the education in a different way” (Chiara, SFG1). Through professional interactions, dialogue, and collaborative projects, the program reflected what participants believed real-life, authentic experiences of the international profession were. As a result, they learned to feel confident in themselves as effective cross-cultural problem solvers in their professional practice.

Global Citizenship Development: Professional and Personal

I think you can’t establish global citizenship if you don’t go. I mean you can read all the literature from all the world . . . you can eat all the food—the Chinese food, the Italian food, see all the movies. But you will never be a citizen of the world if you just don’t move your . . . and go abroad. (Greta, SFG1)

Participants identified a sense of professional global citizenship characterized by what they believed to be an improved cognitive flexibility and professional skill, working with different resources and cultural contexts, and interacting with people from different countries. Flexibility pertained to becoming more professional by being introduced to the “world of works” (Eva, TFG)—working with diverse peoples, with other disciplines, and with the influences of culture and environment on their professional practices. Analyses indicated that participants integrated their professional work into their understandings of global citizenship. Participants were investigating the meaning of their profession: “the meaning of architecture by investigating its past” (Vincenzo). Participants suggested that mutual respect and learning reciprocity with professionals around the world were essential to their development of professional global citizenship.

This professional global citizenship identity is connected with an enhanced act-in-the-world agency (Killick, 2012)—in this case, ways of acting in one’s profession internationally. Learning diverse ways of practicing their profession was common in their new-found cognitive and interaction flexibilities and was manifest in states of seeing professional practice in a new light:

An architect must have a very open mind, must have a different way of seeing, and must have different ways of doing. It’s never true that you can make a thing in one type of way. And, this [program] can help, has helped me to see a lot of things that I didn’t know it was possible to do in the project. (Silvia, SFG1)

Participants also suggested the importance of thinking in new, expanded ways, as is evidenced through the use of the word mind here, “[The program] opens your mind, yeah, and helps to take you different ways to say, ‘okay, I think in this specific way, but there are also very different ways . . . to project, to build something, to think’” (Eva, TFG). Respondents learned to be more flexible in their perceptions and thought processes in their work,

[In] our job, it is important to see different cultures, different countries . . . different minds, so I think this program is a good opportunity to learn this and to provide creative [solutions] with different minds. . . . Flexibility means that . . . I cannot give an answer, the same answer to every question. (Taddeo, SFG3)

A tutor, Mario, explained, “When you have discovered these kind[s] of ideas, you grow. Your idea of architecture [grows].” Through new ways of seeing and thinking, participants believed they had acquired new abilities necessary for enacting global professional citizenship. Sofia, in SFG3 offered, “[We have learned] to try to manage together old things with new things and with new technology, new materials, new textures, new colors.” Mario, who was also a graduate of the program, expressed, “When you finish the Master, and you try to work, you have the methodology [and] also I think a better system . . . in the same program you get better.” Finally Chiara (SFG1) summarized, “We have to learn how to not think about our personal needs, but how to settle in the environment and adapt yourself and respect the other needs.” Participants also committed to continued work and life in foreign settings. As Mario (TFG) explained, “I went in another state, I worked in another city. For me, it is not a problem. I think I am ready, and I am able to do this. I think I’m a good architect. I can.” The respondents reflected on their experiences and indicated they developed skills and value systems necessary for sensitive and effective cross-cultural practice and engagement.

This professional identity and competency in international practice was buttressed by a personal sense of global citizenship, as well. When asked about global citizenship development, Silvia (SFG1) expressed,

I think that traveling the world could be the most important because when you say you have the world in your pocket, you have a vision of the world in 360 degrees, and when you stay in towns in your own country, you don’t have this. [Now we] are so open to know how is life in other worlds, or how is the way to see things in other worlds.

Respondents provided rich descriptions of what we term a cosmopolitan self-efficacy. We define this as an enriched sense of self in the world, the ability to “read” important sociocultural “signs” in different cities, the feeling of being at home in the world, and being committed to searching continually for authentic culture in new places. First, participants suggested that by comparing oneself with other people and by reflecting on one’s own behavior in different places, they learned to know themselves better. Learners across the SFGs indicated that this was an enhanced sense of self. Nicolae (SFG2) suggested, “You got to know yourself, if you are capable or not . . . I got to define my identity, my cultural identity . . . [by] going out into other cultures.” Participants explained that this heightened sense of self was borne out of multiple immersion opportunities in different cultural settings. Lycus (SFG2) offered, “It helps you, more than everything, to compare to everything you have lived until now and everything you have seen.” Participants reflected on their strengths, capabilities, and identities as they compared themselves with other members of the professional and cultural CoP. Some participants also realized that although “it is useful to know others’ culture . . . it is also important to remain Italian, American, or Spanish” (Giada, SFG3). The Romanian student (Tara, SFG2) added,

I ask my friends and they are not so proud that they are Transylvanians. But I stay [in other countries for] like a week in a year, and I think I am proud of being from there [Transylvania]. You get to define yourself.

A new sense of self included the cosmopolitan acknowledgement and appreciation of one’s own origin and personal culture (Appiah, 2006).

Respondents indicated they were able to read sociocultural signs and express a certainty that “home is the world” (Chiara). They identified with a nontourist positionality and felt competent in interactions in foreign locales through making friends and trusting others. Learners believed that they could quickly ascertain different ways to live in a new place by knowing how to find essential goods and services, recognizing the underlying structure of the city, and how to “trust” foreign citizens. Chiara and Greta’s (SFG1) exchange helps to elucidate this finding,

If you learn how to live in the world, read the world, how to look for the world and other people, you can learn so much, so much of everything. I think it’s great because you continue to grow up, you continue to optimize yourself, to become another person. (Chiara)

Greta continued, “At some point we discovered that people are people everywhere . . . you just have to try to read their sign.” Participants realized that through working and living in multiple cultures, they developed not only personally expanded worldviews but also abilities to live in the world by adapting to new surroundings, behaviors, values, and practices. Chiara (SFG1) suggested, “Once you learn how to adapt yourself in a different environment, then you’re able to do it everywhere.” Members of the SFG2 also explained that they learned to acknowledge the universality of human rights, regardless of city, nation, or nationality: “We arrive in a city, in a place, in a different country, but we already ask for our rights . . . rights are international” (Nicolae). A part of knowing one’s rights also requires trust that these rights will be granted, as Lycus clarified, “I think it’s about trust for something.” Students confirmed they learned to trust themselves in an international setting, as well as to trust foreign peoples. They felt they were no longer fearful of the new, the strange, and the different. Chiara (SFG1) explains this new confidence,

What is important for me, in a social matter of this program, are when, you know the others, so you are no more afraid, you are not scared about what is different, you are not scared of going around alone, you are not scared of taking a plane alone . . . Home is the world.

Lycus (SFG2) posited, “The concept of something new doesn’t exist anymore. It’s not so present.” Correspondingly, students learned why and how to learn about other peoples and cultures. When discussing global citizenship, Giada (SFG1) suggested, “Maybe to be a real [global citizen], you have to talk, and you have to go out, and you have to work with Americans or with some Spanish or other citizens so you can see other points of views.” Consistently across the focus groups, participants confirmed they would continue to learn and value others’ lives, cultures, and experiences.

Discussion and Implications for Practice

The investigation of perceptions, experiences, and contexts of this graduate professional program provides unique understandings about adult global citizenship development through a cosmopolitan educational model. Those who read the results of case studies can discern what may be transferred into other comparable situations (Erickson, 1986). As such, the findings offer important instructional and learning insights for those interested in fostering adult cosmopolitan educative experiences. Here we offer pedagogic and program tenets, as well as theoretical insights into adult study abroad and global citizenship learning foundations that may be conveyed to other instructional settings.

Through authentic, cross-cultural problem-solving experiences and skill development in international locales, learners in this study identified new dispositions often connected with global citizenship development regarding global competence and sensitive engagement with others (American Council on Education, 2008; Deardorff, 2006; Hunter et al., 2006; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), and social responsibility required in coexistence (Andrzejewski & Alessio, 1999; Braskamp et al., 2009). This study adds to these dimensions by identifying participants’ continued commitment to cross-cultural learning with peoples/cultures across the world, as well as their newly enhanced cognitive flexibilities and abilities to engage in educative reciprocity in cross-cultural professional interactions.

What is different in this instructional model is the fostering of a cosmopolitan ideology and global citizenship through the amalgamation of both personal and professional development in multiple international locations. As such, the findings challenge the current debate about virtual approaches in adult education programs by suggesting a strong argument for face-to-face delivery of adult learning in a global context. Although certainly embedded ecological and access costs exist in this model, we contend that international, cross-cultural adult learning is highly effective when grounded in physical, cultural problem-solving experiences within a collaborative community of learning practice. Cosmopolitan learning approaches require instructors to integrate opportunities for learners to build dialogic, multicultural relationships that value the physical-cultural-emotional experiences of learning on-location. Learning necessarily includes international cultural histories, practices, and peoples in the development of collaborative professional skills. Finally, learning goals should be underpinned by concepts such as those of Killick (2012) that deepen perceptions of personal cultural identity, as self-in-the-world, and enhance self-knowledge of workplace problem-solving and collaborative skills as participants act in the world of work. Participant recruitment includes assembling individuals who hail from diverse cultural and training backgrounds (learners, instructors, and practicing professionals).

Instructors also need to be aware of the learning relationships with “others” in the foreign community who can “open the lifeworld to new ways of being” (Killick, 2012, p. 383). Our study reiterates Killick’s argument that SA experiences offer learners the opportunity for intersubjective encounters with both significant “others” (professionals and local members of the foreign culture while on-site at workshops) and with internationals (culturally diverse students). Participants suggested that the various encounters across cultural communities in foreign locales resulted in enhancements in self-knowledge, self-confidence, and self-efficacy and were situated at the intersection of their professional and personal development. As such, graduate professional programs that integrate cross-cultural encounters in their approaches to professional development education can result in working toward global citizenship identification in adulthood for which Killick advocates. Likewise, we recommend integrating personal reflection activities that link the learning that occurs both inside and outside of the formal academic setting into any cosmopolitan educative program. As the program under study did not result in fostering Ogden’s (2010) third dimension of global citizenship, global civic engagement, we believe that adult SA should also include service-learning opportunities for program participants where possible.

The expense of travel to several international communities impedes many adult learners (and instructors) from engaging in international mobility experiences. To keep the program as affordable as possible, professors and tutors were not paid a salary for their work, although travel and workshop expenses were reimbursed. Finding new instructors/tutors who would agree to work under such conditions was difficult. However, the expense of travel to the various workshop locations for learners was still a consideration. Although three of the participants received full tuition scholarships, the majority of the student respondents had to self-finance this costly form of education—whether through working full-time while enrolled or through support of family or financial loans. Since the sample did not include midcareer or older participants, who may not be able to engage in such programs for a variety of financial, time, or familial reasons, the study’s findings are limited to the perceptions of young professional adults.

Whether younger or older, in the United States the vast majority of graduate professional students do not engage in SA experiences (Institute of International Education, 2012). Therefore, universities and professional development organizations must consider ways in which to provide engagement in global perspectives/citizenship development for the adult professional at home. As our local communities become increasingly diverse, the tenets of cosmopolitan educative approaches outlined here can be implemented locally with real-world, professional problem-solving collaborations across cultures. Programs can ground graduate professional learning in diverse cultural, historical, and physical contexts, design formal and informal curricula, and encourage relationship-building through culturally situated learning contexts. Finally, we need to rethink academic/professional spaces to engage a more diverse CoP (Coryell et al., 2012; Deardorff, 2006; Killick, 2012). Integrating international participants more fully into university internationalization-at-home practices, and encompassing local diverse communities including those of sexuality, disability, ethnicity, spirituality, and so on, can operationalize these initiatives.

Our study’s data are perceptual in nature. Much of the literature on adult SA focuses on insights discerned from those directing these programs rather than being data-driven. As such, we hope future research will continue to investigate the individual outcomes of global citizenship development through adult SA and at-home methods. Further research should include comparisons about global citizenship learning across the adult life-span taking into account generations, differences in age, and life-span phases. Researchers also need to continue to investigate the specific activities and contexts that learners feel were meaningful in their development of global perspectives and citizenship. Moreover, research should continue to identify particular cosmopolitan instructional strategies that data indicate nurture global perspectives in novel and effective ways.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Previous conference presentation on components of this study: Coryell, J.E. (2012). Combining specialized professional skills with personal global citizenship development: The case of an itinerant graduate study abroad program. Proceedings of the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults (pp. 63-72). Leicester, UK: University of Leicester.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Texas State University, College of Education Faculty Research Grant (internal funding).

Author Biographies

Joellen E. Coryell is an assistant professor of adult, professional, and community education at Texas State University. Her research focuses on international cross-cultural adult and higher education and the investment in the professional development of adult educators and educational leaders. Her work includes investigating adult study abroad, capacity building in international education aid programs, adult second and foreign language acquisition, higher education internationalization, and graduate student research development.

B. J. Spencer, AIA, is a senior lecturer of architectural design in the Department of Engineering Technology at Texas State University, where she is also pursuing a PhD in education with an emphasis on professional education. A registered architect in the State of Texas, in 2007 she received a master of architecture degree from Texas A&M University, where she participated in a study abroad semester at the Universita della Svizzera italiana, Accademia di architettura in Mendrisio, Switzerland, following 23 years of industry experience in architecture and construction. Her research interests include architectural professional education, study abroad, international education of architects, education in online and virtual environments, building information modeling, technology in construction education, internships, and sustainable construction practices.

Oleksandra Sehin is an instructional assistant and doctoral student in adult, professional, and community education at Texas State University. Her research interests include international and multicultural education, graduate students’ international mobility, cross-cultural experiences, and international community networking.

References

American Council on Education. (2008). Global learning for all. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu

Andrzejewski

Alessio

(1999, Spring). Education for global citizenship and social responsibility. Progressive Perspectives: 1998-99 Monograph Series, 1(2).

Appiah

K. A.

(2006). Cosmopolitanism. Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Belenky

M. F.

Bond

L. A.

Weinstock

J. S.

(1997). A tradition that has no name: Nurturing the development of people, gender, and communities. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bogdan

Biklen

(2003). Data analysis and interpretation of qualitative research for education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Braskamp

L. A.

Braskamp

D. C.

Merrill

K. C.

(2009). Global perspective inventory. Retrieved from http://gpi.central.edu/supportDocs/manual.pdf

Brux

J. M.

Fry

(2009). Multicultural students in study abroad: Their interests, their issues, and their constraints. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 508-527.

Clarke

III Flaherty

T. B.

Wright

N. D.

McMillen

R. M.

(2009). Student intercultural proficiency from study abroad programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 173-181.

Coryell

J. E.

(2011). The foreign city as classroom: Adult learning in study abroad. Adult Learning, 22, 4-11. doi:10.1177/104515951102200301.

10.

Coryell

J. E.

Durodoye

Wright

R. R.

Pate

Nguyen

(2012). Case studies of internationalization in adult and higher education: Inside the processes of four universities in the US and UK. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 75-98. doi:10.1177/1028315310388945.

11.

Cranton

(2000). Becoming an authentic teacher in higher education. Melbourne, FL: Krieger.

12.

Culver

L. D.

(2011). The influence of study and travel abroad on the personal and professional development of students in architecture design programs. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/dissertations/AAI3472026/

13.

Deardorff

D. K.

(2006). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266.

14.

Decker

R. T.

Duvall Decker

A. M.

(2007). Inquiry in practice and experience. Journal of Architectural Education, 61(1), 93-100.

15.

Dirkx

Spohr

Tepper

Tons

(2010, June). Adult learners and short-term study abroad: Formation or transformation? Paper presented at the proceedings of the Adult Education Research Conference, California State University, Sacramento.

16.

Donald

(2007). Internationalization, diversity and the humanities curriculum: Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism revisited. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41, 289-308.

17.

Dwyer

M. M.

Peters

C. K.

(2004). The benefits of study abroad. Transitions Abroad Magazine, 27(5), 1-35.

18.

Erickson

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.

19.

Gürüz

(2011). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy (2nd ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.

20.

Hamel

Dufour

Fortin

(1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

21.

Hansman

C. A.

(1997, July). Examining borders and boundaries: Mentors and situated learning in academic culture. Paper presented to the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults, University of London, Birbeck College, London, England. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000244.htm

22.

Heely

M. E.

(2005). The contribution of international work and study experience to the professional life and practice of adult and higher education faculty (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (UMI No. 3175694)

23.

Herbers

M. S.

Mullins Nelson

(2009). Using the disorienting dilemma to promote transformative learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20(1), 5-34.

24.

Hunter

White

Godbey

(2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 267-285.

25.

Institute of International Education. (2012). Open doors. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors

26.

Jacobson

(1996). Learning, culture, and learning culture. Adult Education Quarterly, 47, 15-28.

27.

Jarzombek

Hwangbo

A. B.

(2011). Global in a not-so-global world. Journal of Architectural Education, 64(2), 59-65.

28.

Killick

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

29.

Kleingeld

Brown

(2013). Cosmopolitanism. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/cosmopolitanism/

30.

Langran

(2011, November). Global citizenship, governance, and identity in the post-Westphalian age. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association in Philadelphia, PA.

31.

Langran

Ozment

(2009). Transforming today’s students into tomorrow’s global citizens: Challenges for U.S. educators. New Global Studies, 3(1), 1-20.

32.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

34.

Lunn

(2008). Global perspectives in higher education: Taking the agenda forward in the United Kingdom. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 231-254.

35.

Merriam

S. B.

(2004). The changing landscape of adult learning theory. In Comings

Garner

Smith

(Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy (pp. 199-220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36.

Mertens

D. M.

(1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. London, England: Sage.

37.

Montgomery

(2010). Understanding the international student experience. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Nussbaum

(2002). Education for citizenship in an era of global connection. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(4-5), 289-303.

39.

Ogden

A. C.

(2010). Education abroad and the making of global citizens: Assessing learning outcomes of course-embedded, faculty-led international programming (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, State College.

40.

Orndorff

E. B.

(1998). The short-term study travel experience for adult professionals: A phenomenological study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (UMI No. 9957920)

41.

Paige

R. M.

Fry

G. W.

Stallman

E. M.

Josić

Jon

(2009). Study abroad for global engagement: The long-term impact of mobility experiences. Intercultural Education, 20(S1-2), 29-44.

42.

Parekh

(2003). Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship. Review of International Studies, 29, 3-17.

43.

Rao

(2012). Postcolonial cosmopolitanism: Making place for nationalism. In Tripathy

Padmanabhan

(Eds.), The democratic predicament: Cultural diversity in Europe and India (pp. 165-187). New Delhi, India: Routledge India.

44.

Sanderson

(2008). A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 276-307. doi:10.1177/1028315307299420

45.

Schattle

(2009). Global citizenship in theory and practice. In Lewin

(Ed.) The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Sejut

M. P.

(1996). Study abroad: An opportunity for adult and continuing education students to study in the Hispanic world (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (UMI No. 9710013)

47.

Tarrant

M. A.

(2010). A conceptual framework for exploring the role of studies abroad in nurturing global citizenship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 433-451.

48.

Teichler

Janson

(2007). The professional value of temporary study in another European country: Employment and work of former ERASMUS students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 486-495.

49.

Warner

C. A. A.

(2009). A phenomenological approach to understanding the transformative experience of adult learners in short term study abroad programs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (UMI No. 3353744)

50.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Westheimer

Kahne

(2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 237-269.

52.

Yin

(1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.