draft of 23 November, 2001)

Download 384.55 Kb.
Date conversion15.05.2016
Size384.55 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

Stewart (1972) noted that the New Education Fellowship while producing very few reports of some success did argue that the movementÕs contribution to international education may rest in Òthe FellowshipÕs undeviating attention to international understanding, to the role of the school and the teacher and the pupil in building a positive world outlook and teaching a balanced conception of history, ...Ó (pp 374-375)
At the 1972 General Session of UNESCO consideration was given to the development of the term Òeducation for international understandingÓ and a brief history was developed in the official report of the General SessionÕs study of the topic: ÒIn 1950, the expression Ôeducation for world citizenshipÕ occurred in UnescoÕs basic programme, and was retained by the General Conference in the programme which it adopted in 1952 for the following biennium. But the emergence of this concept, no less political and legal than it was social and educational, Ômight be taken to imply direct... allegiance to some sovereign power other than that of the existing StatesÕ, whereas the aim was Ôto help train people who, faithful to the international obligations undertaken by that country, [would] for that very reason be faithful to the international obligations undertaken by that country.Õ Various reactions demonstrated the reality of this risk and prompted the Director-General to propose in 1952, the title ÔEducation for living in a World CommunityÕ, but only the English version of this expression was used in the programme for 1953-1954. In 1954, the expert committee to study the principles and methods of education for living in a world community strongly urged that this title be replaced by ÔEducation for International Understanding and Co-operationÕ which is to be found in the programme adopted by the General Conference at its eight session.Ó (UNESCO, 1974, p 9 -17C/19 Annex II-page 9)
Maurice Harari presents a clear three-part framework for defining international education: ÒInternational education is an all-inclusive term encompassing three major strands: (a) international content of curriculum, (b) international movement of scholars and students concerned with training and research, and (c) arrangements engaging U.S. education abroad in technical assistance and educational cooperation programs.Ó (Harari 1972, p 3, cited in Arum 1987, p 8)
One of the most globally significant definitions of international education came at the UNESCO General Conference of November 1974 in Paris. After over two decades of detailed consideration of the meaning and implications of international education the UNESCO was finally in a position to provide a framework for defining international education and expressing its aims and objectives as well. In the 1974 document the General Conference first set about to provide a working definition of the term Ôinternational educationÕ: ÒThe terms international understanding, co-operation and peace are to be considered as an indivisible whole based on the principle of friendly relations between peoples and States having different social and political systems and on the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the text of this recommendation, the different connotations of these terms are sometimes gathered together in a concise expression, Ôinternational education.Õ (UNESCO 1974, p 1) The General Conference then set out to establish the aims of international education in the context of the charter documents of that world body: ÒEducation should be infused with the aims and purposes set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitution of Unesco and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly Article 26, paragraph 2, of the last-named, which states ÔEducation shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.Ó (UNESCO 1974, p 2) The world body then set out to outline the educational objectives of international education in a context similar to that set out by Hanvey (1982) almost a decade later: ÒIn order to enable every person to contribute actively to the fulfilment of the aims referred to..... and promote international solidarity and co-operation, which are necessary in solving the world problems affecting the individualÕs and communitiesÕ life and exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, the following objectives should be regarded as major guiding principles of educational policy, (a) an international dimension and a global perspective in education at all levels and in all its forms; (b) understanding and respect for all peoples, their cultures, civilizations, values and ways of life, including domestic ethnic cultures and cultures of other nations; (c) awareness of the increasing global interdependence between peoples and nations; (d) abilities to communicate with others; (e) awareness not only of the rights but also of the duties incumbent upon individuals, social groups and nations towards each other; (f) understanding of the necessity for international solidarity and co-operation; (g) readiness on the part of the individual to participate in solving the problems of his community, his country and the world at large.Ó (Unesco 1974, p 2) The General Conference of Unesco then provides a very detailed analysis of the mission of international education: ÒCombining learning, training, information and action, international education [emphasis added] should further the appropriate intellectual and emotional development of the individual. It should develop a sense of social responsibility and of solidarity with less privileged groups and should lead to observance of the principles of equality in everyday conduct. It should also help to develop qualities, aptitudes and abilities which enable the individual to acquire a critical understanding of problems at the national and the international level; to understand and explain facts, opinions and ideas; to work in a group; to accept and participate in free discussions; to observe the elementary rules of procedure applicable to any discussion; and to base value-judgements and decisions on a rational analysis of relevant facts and factors.Ó (Unesco 1974, p 2)
ÒMore than any other Indian, he [Rabindranath Tagore] has helped bring into harmony the ideals of the East and the West, and broadened the bases of Indian nationalism. He has been IndiaÕs internationalist par excellence, believing and working for international co-operation, taking IndiaÕs messages to other countries. Nationalism for Tagore, was a narrowing creed and nationalism in conflict with a dominating imperialism produced all manner of frustrations and complexes. It was TagoreÕs immense service to India, as it has been GhandiÕs in a different plane, that he forced people in some measure out of their narrow grooves of thought and made them think of broader issues affecting humanity. Tagore was the great humanist of India.Ó (Nehru cited in Periaswamy 1976, p 206)
Lee Anderson of Northwestern University and James Becker of Indiana University provided a rare critical analysis of the prevailing conceptions of the term Ôinternational educationÕ when they presented a working paper (Anderson and Becker 1976) at a 1976 Unesco-sponsored Ômeeting of expertsÕ held at Michigan State University. They begin their analysis by reflecting on the then existing conceptions of international education: ÒA survey of curriculum guidelines, teaching materials, and approaches used in many schools indicates that much of world affairs education is grounded in one of two operational definitions of international education. One conception equates international education with the study of foreign peoples and cultures. The other conception equates international education with the study of foreign policies and international relations of national governments.Ó (Anderson and Becker 1976, p 2) In critically analyzing these prevailing conceptions of international education Anderson and Becker note: ÒNeither conception provides the kind of conceptual foundation that is required for developing educational programs and policies capable of realizing the objectives set forth in the Recommendation concerning education for international understanding, cooperation and peace and education relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its eighteenth session in 1974,... The first conception -- international education as the study of foreign societies and cultures -- suffers from at least three deficiencies as judged against these goals and objectives [of the 1974 UNESCO Recommendation cited above]:: In the first place, this conception of international education builds a Ôwe-theyÕ or Ôus-themÕ dichotomy into the heart of the educational enterprise...... Secondly, this view of international education obscures the degree to which the study of oneÕs own community and nation have important international dimensions... Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the concept of international education as education about foreign peoples and cultures obscures the global character of human experience in the contemporary world.Ó (Anderson and Becker 1976, pp 3-4) Anderson and Becker also were critical of the defining of international education as that which is involved in the study of Ôforeign societiesÕ exclusively: ÒThe emergence of a world system makes this matter of the parts and the whole [of a global systems approach] a critical approach in thinking about international education... the conception of international education as education about foreign societies and cultures is inadequate for the task, for it obscures the fact that all of humanity is part of a planet-wide system... this conception of international education also suffers from a serious defect because it obscures the actual and potential involvement of individual citizens in world affairs. By focusing almost exclusive attention on the international behavior of national government officials, this conception fails to illuminate many facts about international life that it is important for future citizens to understand... More importantly, it obscures the fact that countless non-governmental groups are deeply involved in international affairs... By obscuring these aspects of international life in the modern world, the concept of international education as education about foreign policies and the international relations of national governments fails to provide individuals with an awareness and understanding of the many ways they are and can be involved in transnational processes, institutions, and problems.Ó (Anderson and Becker 1976, pp 5-7) Following this detailed deconstruction of the prevailing conceptions of international education Anderson and Becker then offer a simple solution: ÒIt seems to us that we might usefully view international education as education for responsible citizen involvement and effective participation in global society.Ó (p 8)
The term Ôinternational educationÕ was defined in the 1977 International Dictionary of Education (Kogan Page) as:Ó1) Study of the educational, social, political and economic forces in international relations. 2) Education involving the international exchange of students/staff or educational materials. 3) Synonymous with comparative education. (Page and Thomas 1977, p 184)
Robert Leestma, who a decade earlier had provided a detailed definition of international education, in 1979 revised his several elements of Ôglobal educationÕ as applied to international studies: Ò1. Unity and diversity of humankind: a concern with the commonalities of people, with the fact that certain basic human concerns and needs are shared by all men and women; at the same time, there is a concern with the differences within the family of man. 2. International human rights: basics to human dignity and the achievement of the individualÕs potential. 3. Global interdependence: perception of the world as a planetary ecosystem - an interconnected web of interacting physical, biological, and social subsystems. 4. Intergenerational responsibility: human use of the earth viewed as a special kind of living trust, each person having obligations for the maintenance of the health of the planet during his or her lifetime. 5. International cooperation: recognition that many of the planetÕs major problems can be solved or alleviated only through transnational cooperation of some sort - bilateral, regional, or worldwide.Ó (Leestma 1979, cited in Vestal 1994, p 14)
In an extensive inventory of US government programs of international education compiled by Helen Wiprud of the International Education Task Force Federal Interagency Committee on Education in 1980 the first step in the compiling of the programs was to define Ôinternational educationÕ in the opening verses of the introductory paragraphs: ÒA program is considered an Ôinternational educationÕ program in this inventory if it fosters understanding and/or cooperation between the United States and another country or other countries through education, which is broadly defined to include training. Note that the definition of international education brings within its scope programs that have a variety of central aims but that nevertheless clearly foster such understanding and/or cooperation as a byproduct. Thus the inventory lists programs that have an international education dimension but are not as a whole Ôinternational education programs.Õ (Wiprud 1980, p1)
Barbara Burns of the University of Massachusetts writing in 1980 of international education programs in universities reflected upon a history of international education that since the Second World War Òinternational education has tended to react to shifting currents in international relations.Ó (Burns 1980, p1) Burns also focuses on the aspects of perspective and parochialism in the American ÔbrandÕ of international education: ÒA new thrust in international education is to instill a Ôglobal perspectiveÕ in all aspects of education. But persuasive as it may be, the new jargon of interdependence, global perspective, and Ôspaceship earthÕ threatens to obscure urgent and needs of international education. [#] Global perspective can mean simply that all issues and disciplines have an international context. However, it can also imply that education should aspire to a Ôwhole-worldÕ outlook. This may cause some people to forget that the perspectives of other nations may be considerably less ÔglobalÕ than that of the United States. This fact - with its deep roots in values, traditions, and situations that differ profoundly from our own - should be kept in mind when considering trends in international education. Otherwise the notion of a global perspective could serve to legitimate a new brand of American parochialism. [#] The word interdependence can also be misleading. Its use can mask the fact that U.S. dependence on other nations, while it may have increased in some respects, is still minor compared with the dependence of other nations on the United States...... All of this argues against neglecting traditional approaches to international education in the rush to grapple with global problems and discover universal truths.Ó (Burns 1980,, pp 2-3) Burns then provides a stipulated definition of international education: Òinternational education is defined extremely broadly. In order to prepare Americans to live in an increasingly interrelated world, international education must involve, Ôa major transformation of the entire educational systemÕ; where higher education is concerned, ... International studies, thus including international relations and area studies, is only one part of international education, however. International education also includes comparative, transnational, and so-called global studies, which focus more on issues and problems than on specific areas. Although international and global studies should be complementary, all too often they are viewed as competitive in terms of objectives, institutional priorities, and funding. Foreign-language study is regarded as a route to Ôglobal understandingÕ but is not essential to the concept of global studies. [#] International education addresses both approach and content. In terms of content, it assumes that a subject or discipline can no longer be understood if it focuses only on the U.S. experience..... In terms of approach, international education calls for presenting a subject in an international framework so that students are aware of the inter relatedness of all nations and of the commonality of such problems as poverty and discrimination..... [#] For international education to be effective, however, not only should more courses be offered on other countries (especially non-Western countries and on international topics but the entire curriculum should be permeated by an international outlook.Ó (Burns 1980, pp 4-5)
Lee Anderson (1981) in a paper presented to a conference of the National Council on Education Research (US) provided an augmented definition of international education for the purposes of Ôresearching international education in schools.Õ Anderson provides a stipulated definition in the following manner: ÒInternational education can be fruitfully defined as education about the nature of the planet Earth, education about the nature of the human species, and education about the nature of the social structure of the world as a whole. Or to put the definition less formally: [for the purposes of undertaking research in schools] When do we see international education going on in schools? We see international education when we seen (sic) individuals engaged in the task of teaching and learning about the planet, about humankind, and about the social structure of the world as a whole.Ó (Anderson 1981, p 3)
Spaulding et al (1982) indicate that international education can not be considered Òa clearly defined professional or disciplinary termÕ These researcher, however, indicate that is Òis a useful term to label a wide range of activities and research interests.Ó (p 948) These researchers also outlined two major ÔstrandsÕ or models in international education: ÒHistorically, the field has consisted of, perhaps, two major strands of interest: the idealistic, which has stressed education and exchange experiences for the purposes of encouraging international understanding and peace, and the pragmatic, which has stressed the need for this nation [United States] to prepare internationally sophisticated manpower who can more effectively serve the political, economic, and social needs of the country and the world.Ó (p 954)
Robert Hanvey in a re-publication of an essay first presented in 1976 presented a detailed conceptual model of what he termed Ôeducation for a global perspectiveÕ which could serve as a valuable benchmark in the history of defining international education. HanveyÕs (1982) monograph is one the most cited pieces of research in the entire field of international education. He defined his field in the following manner: ÒEducation for a global perspective is that learning which enhances the individualÕs ability to understand his or her condition in the community and the world and improve the ability to make effective judgements. It includes the study of nations, cultures and civilizations, including our own pluralistic society and the societies of other peoples, with a focus on understanding how these are all interconnected and how they change, and on the individualÕs responsibility in this process. It provides the individual with a realistic perspective on world issues, problems and prospects, and an awareness of the relationships between an individualÕs enlightened self-interest and the concerns of people elsewhere in the world.Ó (Hanvey 1982, p1)
An indication of the widespread conception of international education as a menu-driven collection of various sub-disciplines was reinforced in a handbook prepared for school personnel (Rosengren, Wiley and Wiley, 1983) where the definition of international education was presented as: ÒInternational education is a term which encompasses diverse educational goals and strategies at different levels of the school system, colleges and universities. Based on differing goals, there are different definitions of international education with six broadly recognized subdivisions: Area studies and foreign language, Multicultural and intercultural education, International Relations, International development studies, Global issues education, Education with a global perspective.Ó (Rosengren, Wiley and Wiley, 1983, p 3)
In an unpublished doctoral thesis, Gault (1984) used the theme of ÔinterdependenceÕ to clarify an operational definition of international education: ÒA process which prepares students to transcend parochial perspectives in order to acquire the knowledge, perception and skills required to function effectively in an increasingly interdependent world.Ó (Gault 1984, p 20)
The editors of a special issue of the Harvard Educational Review in 1985 on the theme of ÒInternational Education: Perspectives, Experiences, and Visions in an Interdependent WorldÓ provide an insight into the prevailing conception of the meaning of international education in the Preface to the special issue: ÒEducation across national boundaries has always been a contentious concept. The recent withdrawal of the United States from UNESCO and the threatened withdrawal of several other nations shows the fragility of such undertakings. Yet without international cooperation, there seems little hope of increased understanding of global problems affecting the survival and well-being of the human race... National borders may be more clearly delineated and jealously guarded than ever before, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to divorce changes and innovations at the national level - be they economic, technological, political, or educational - from changes and innovations at the international level.... Education both affects and is affected by these trends. International, global, cross-cultural, and comparative education are different terms used to describe education which attempts - in greater or lesser degree - to come to grips with the increasing interdependence that we face and to consider its relationship to learning. In too many instances formal education has been an unquestioning servant and willing subordinate to other activities in society, bowing to narrow economic, political, and military interests. [#] For some, international education is an effective means of perpetuating the dominating relationships that currently exist among groups and nations. For others, it provides an opportunity to enrich learning experiences and modify values and attitudes. For still others, international education has the potential of effectively addressing some of the most threatening problems facing the world today.Ó (Harvard Educational Review, vol 55, no 1, 1985, v-vi)
Torsten Husen (1985) of the University of Stockholm provided a scholarly framework for the defining of international education in the 1985 edition of The International Encyclopedia of Education, Research and Studies: ÒInternational education as a scholarly pursuit is a cross-disciplinary study of international and intercultural educational problems in their social context. It therefore overlaps to some extent with comparative education but goes beyond it in its international orientation. International education is, however, not limited to purely academic pursuits, since it includes all educative efforts that aim at fostering an international orientation in knowledge and attitudes. In the same encyclopedia Derek Heater (1985) offers a somewhat different view of the meaning of international education: ÒInternational education or studies is a convenient generalized term to embrace a number of titles that denote an approach to the subject matter from a particular perspective. Other terms that have been in use at different times or in different countries include: education for world citizenship; education for international understanding; global studies; world studies; and peace studies.Ó (Heater 1985, p 2666)
Judith Torney-Purta (1985) framed the major research questions about international education in terms of the common assumptions which are made regarding the field: ÒThe most common approach to international education and views of other nations seems to be based on several assumptions that are not usually examined: first, that the nation-state is the most appropriate unit of analysis in understanding the world situation (an assumption that some would question); second, that it is valuable to stimulate childrenÕs interest in other nations, even if it means studying countries whose values and lifestyles contrast with those in the United States (rather than those with similar values) or pointing to exotic details of other cultures that may not characterize everyday life; third, that it is more important to ascertain whether young people have a positive view of other nations as independent units (with the exception of those that are defined as enemies) that it is to ascertain whether young people have a realistic view of relations among nations. These assumptions need to be scrutinized more carefully. [#] Ambivalence about research in this area seems to appear when concepts and attitudes relating to other nations are connected with issues of national security or economic competitiveness. Should programs teach young people to make maximum differentiation between their own country, other friendly countries, and countries perceived as unfriendly? Is it more appropriate to foster images of developing nations as poverty stricken and very much unlike affluent Americans or as sharing a common humanity and aspirations for a better life? How can one stimulate interest in finding out more about how citizens of other countries view the world and avoid presenting stereotypic images? These important questions are deeply involved with value assumptions.Ó (Torney-Purta 1985, p 22)
Willard Kniep in 1985 distinguished the field of Ôglobal educationÕ from Ôinternational education in his survey history of global education: ÒGlobal education appears to be the primary descriptive term for the field and it is taken to include education with a global perspective, global studies, world centered education, and global awareness, but not necessarily international education.Ó (Kniep 1985, p 13)
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page