global citizens are made, not born: multi-class role
TRANSCRIPT
1
Global Citizens Are Made, Not Born: Multi-Class Role-Playing Simulation of Global Decision-
Making
Ekaterina Levintova, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Department of Public and Environmental Affairs 2420 Nicolet Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311 (920) 465-2045
Terri Johnson, Ph.D. Director of Instructional Technology
Academic Affairs Carroll University
100 N. East Avenue Waukesha, WI 53186
262.951.3026 [email protected]
Denise Scheberle, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Department of Public and Environmental Affairs
2420 Nicolet Drive Green Bay, WI 54311
Kevin Vonck, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Department of Public and Environmental Affairs
2420 Nicolet Drive Green Bay, WI 54311
Word Count: 6,267 (including footnotes)
Abstract: Globalization, global citizenship, political engagement have become such buzzwords and clichés,
that we often lose the sense of their meaning. Global citizenship in particular is an elusive concept to
operationalize. This article proposes to look at three dimensions of global citizenship: legal (rights and
obligations), psychological identification with the global community, and political ones. Heeding the calls to
wed traditional liberal education with the experiential learning in pursuit of developing students‟ global values
and competencies, we devised and implemented a simulation called the Global Summit on Sustainability, an
active learning assignment we run in large, general education survey classes (Global Politics and Introduction
to American Government & Politics) populated by mostly non-political science majors. The total number of
students involved in the Summit range from 225 to 360 each semester. But how does having a Global
Summit influence the development of global citizenship and its three dimensions in large general education
undergraduate political science classes? By using (1) instructor observations at the Summit; (2) statistical
analyses of pre- and post-Summit surveys; and (3) a qualitative review of students‟ written assignments, we
find that the Global Summit influences the development of global citizenship skills.
Keywords: global citizenship, political engagement, role-playing simulation, active learning
2
Global Citizens Are Made, Not Born: Multi-Class Role-Playing Simulation of Global
Decision-Making1
Introduction
In a recent article, Larry Braskamp laments that liberal education is being attacked by a more
experiential approach to education, but concludes that the two need not be perceived or practiced as
mutually exclusive (Braskamp 2008). Indeed, experiential learning – which may include service-
learning, internships, community research, study abroad, journaling, blogging, wikis, fieldwork,
experiments and active learning in class – can, according to Braskamp (2008), create students who
are “„global citizens‟ and useful neighbors to everyone, including those in our own communities.”
But being a global citizen also requires a liberal education. “Leaders and citizens of tomorrow need
an understanding of the world‟s cultures, languages, religion, economics, science and technology,
and a sensitivity and respect for all cultural traditions” (Braskamp 2008). And this understanding is
most likely to emerge from the synthesis of experiential and traditional academic education. Not
only are students likely to understand the content, but also develop into conscientious, sensitive,
compassionate human beings with the strong sense of self and relationship to others. Braskamp,
Trautvetter & Ward (2008) continue to praise the synergy between experiential and liberal arts
education in which curricular and co-curricular activities are firmly rooted in the community, infused
with rich cultural meaning, and informed by normatively important social issues. For the discipline
of political scientists, of course, one of the most essential societal obligations is the formation of
responsible (and engaged) citizens, including global citizens.
Global citizenship, however, has become an obligatory buzzword in the ubiquitous (if not
universal) proclamations of the “need to create global citizens” found in university mission
statements. This article proposes to look at three dimensions of global citizenship: legal (rights and
1Thank you to our teaching assistants: Dana Breske, Aaron Frailing, Will Johnson, Jessica Krejcarek, Corey Livieri, Ryan Mach, Emily Scholz, Andy Teale, and Christy Tesch for helping run the Summit during three semesters and entering survey data. We also would like to thank UW Lesson Study Project and UWGB Teaching Scholars program for financial support of this project and useful suggestions on earlier drafts of this article.
3
obligations), psychological identification with the global community, and political ones. Students
who are global citizens should be able to (1) relate their everyday actions to the lives of others in a
global context and understand their global citizenship duties to protect the rights of others; (2)
distinguish the meaning of citizenship on multiple levels, including membership not only in a
national but also a global community; and (3) demonstrate a basic comprehension of international
political organizations, including the United Nations, the role of their own state in these
organizations, and understand the concept of global “democratic deficit” in contemporary
international institutions (Langran, Langran & Ozment 2009).
Scholarship on Teaching about Global Citizenship
Learning about global citizenship and acquiring citizenship-supporting skills of civic engagement,
political efficacy, cultural empathy, respect for diversity, and the ability to reconcile conflict and
reach consensus through peaceful means – including debates, deliberations, and negotiations – are
currently recognized as essential liberal education goals (Langran, Langran & Ozment 2009;
Braskamp 2008; Farrah & O‟Connor 2008; Colby et al. 2007; Colby et al. 2003; Erhlich 2000;
Roades 2000; Mendel-Reyes 1998). Beyond the imperatives of effective participation in a national
democratic polity and, increasingly, a global society, fostering citizenship and related skills also
contributes to the development of what Fink (2003, 75) calls “significant learning goals,” including
“practical thinking in which students solve problems and make decisions,” “creative thinking, in
which students imagine and create,” and empathy, caring, and the human dimension of learning
(“what can or should students learn about understanding and interacting with others”). Other
studies (Broadbear 2003; Howard 1999) also emphasized team work, collaboration, motivation and
critical thinking as essential learning outcomes for success in a global society and a global labor
market. And students themselves list “international politics,” “recognizing and analyzing
connections in the world,” knowledge about “how to make a world a better place,” “environmental
responsibility,” “social skills,” “teamwork,” “negotiation skills,” ability to “cooperate,” “interact with
4
people from different areas,” “appreciation for diversity,” and “tolerance” as essential learning
outcomes (Walker 2008, 51-52). Even though these skills are not directly billed as supportive of
global citizenship, intuitively, they are indispensable for effective political participation on a global
level.
But what kind of learning needs to happen for global citizenship skills to flourish and
“significant learning goals” to materialize? Colby et al. (2007, 37), citing Schlozman, Verba and
Brady (1995), identified “taking part in decision-making” and other “high-level organizational and
communications skills” as the “key activities that support the development of politically important
skills.” Logically, proposed pedagogical strategies include student volunteering, community
involvement, and service learning. This civic (and often deliberately apolitical) engagement on a
community level does not necessarily translate into meaningful political participation which extends
beyond simply voting (Colby 2007; Colby et al. 2007). Even more significantly for this article, such
an approach still leaves out the mechanisms for the development of global political skills.
Research on political engagement and participation as well as scholarship on educational
outcomes of general education courses converge on one point: active learning exercises, real-world
problem solving exercises, and simulations.2 Active learning can help students care about subject
matter, develop deeper learning and other essential skills, and provide them with a meaningful
equivalent of political participation (Fuentes & Yedloutschnig, 2005; Alessio 2004; Habron & Dann
2003; DeCapratiis, Barman & Magee 2001; Lantis, Kuzma & Boehrer 2000; Kern 2000).3 While role
playing presupposes improvisation according to a role, simulations themselves are predicated on set
rules, guidelines and structured relationships (Bonwell & Eison 1991, 47 as cited in Kern, 2000, 9;
Bean 1996; Southerland & Bonwell 1996; McKeachie 1994, 167; Meyer & Jones 1993). In large and
elaborate role-playing simulations, students are usually assigned “unique roles within a group as the
2 DeCaprariis, Barman & Magee (2001), citing Vygotsky (1962), Pioget (1977), and Gallager & Reid (1981), insist on importance of peer instruction as an educational benefit. Indeed we too can see significant effects of peer instruction on citizenship, since the processes of peer instruction and democratic deliberations look very similar and require the same basic skills of listening, explanation, and persuasion. 3 See http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/files/elibrary/educating_for_democracy/docs/index.html#IV, “Research/Action Projects and Simulations” for existing examples of democratic governance simulations and other active learning projects.
5
group address a series of issues” (Kern 2000, 9). In our case, the unique role is played out in a
country delegation, addressing the issue of global sustainability. Among the outcomes of role-playing
simulations are increased students‟ interest for a particular issue, the ability to apply material learned
in the class to outside situations, the ability to work as a member of a team in solving real world
problems, and the development of leadership skills (Kern 2000, 9; DeNeve & Heppner 1997, 234).
We test these assumptions, albeit indirectly, in our analyses described later in the paper.
Heeding the calls to wed the traditional liberal education with the experiential learning in
pursuit of developing students‟ global values and competencies, we devised and implemented an
active learning exercise we called the Global Summit on Sustainability, or “Global Summit.” The
Global Summit is a role-playing simulation that conforms to the definition of an “ill-structured
problem” which has proven to be an effective approach in promoting critical thinking and creativity
because each country‟s position on sustainable development “cannot be described with a high
degree of completeness; cannot be solved with a high degree of certainty; experts often disagree
about the best solution, even when the problem can be considered solved” (King & Kutchner 1994,
11 as cited in Broadbear 2003, 3). Even more importantly, the Global Summit simulation should, by
its very design, teach students cultural empathy, global environmental stewardship, the art of
negotiation, and instill in them the sense of global empowerment. By all accounts, it is a suitable
pedagogical strategy to enhance student levels of understanding regarding global political
engagement and efficacy. And although there are numerous reports on and descriptions of the use
of the role-playing simulations in the burgeoning active learning scholarship in the sub-field of
international relations,4 to date there is a relative dearth of studies systematically assessing
effectiveness of simulations in the political science classroom, especially their assumed ability to
4 Among impressive examples of transforming traditional political science classroom into more innovative, action-driven learning environment are
Model UN and Model Arab League exercises adopted for regular classes (Chasek 2005; Shaw 2004; Dunn 2002; McIntosh 2001); simulations of the European Union functioning (Switky 2004; Zeff 2003; Van Dyke, Declair & Loedel 2000); Bosnian War Crimes Tribunal (Jefferson 1999); coalition-building before and after mock German elections (Shellman 2001); General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Lowry 1999); Global Problems Summits dealing with security, human rights, or economic development issues (Boyer 2000; Lantis, Kozma & Boehrer 2000; Lantis 1998; 1996); simulations of global policy-making to prevent international drug-trafficking (Flynn 2000); negotiations of new international human rights treaty (Kille 2002); and international communication and negotiation simulation in general (ICONS) (Boyer et al. 2007).
6
foster a sense of global citizenship and other higher learning skills and competencies associated with
it.
Only a handful of recent studies systematically assessed the actual effectiveness of active
learning to improve political science knowledge and change political attitudes of the participants.
Krain and Lantis (2006), using experimental and control groups during two semesters and
administering pre- and post-Summit diagnostic quizzes to both Global Problems Summit-bound
and traditional lecture-exposed classes, found that there were statistically significant improvements
in scores of both experimental and control groups, but that the experimental (i.e., participating in the
Summit) group acquired more contextualized knowledge of the subject topic and had higher self-
perceived knowledge of countries‟ international positions and issues. Shellman and Turan (2006),
using student evaluations, discovered that IR simulations improved student knowledge of abstract
IR theories and otherwise difficult to grasp notions of terrorism and international negotiations.
Brown et al. (2002a and 2002b), studying participants in GlobalEd (a problem-based web simulation
designed to draft and negotiate an international treaty with other countries), uncovered a rise in self-
efficacy scores as well as increased likelihood of subsequent use of technology for learning among
high school students in Massachusetts and Connecticut. And Powner and Allendoerfer (2008), using
results of regression analysis, found that their role-playing IR simulation precipitated significantly
better performance on a multiple-choice post-simulation assessment instrument, than compared to
the results of a control group exposed only to traditional lecture. Perhaps the closest to our own
study, Boyer et al. (2007) examined the changes in foreign policy attitudes among middle school and
high school students who participated in the equivalent of a Model UN simulation. Significantly,
researchers reported that after taking part in the ICONS simulation of the real-life international
negotiations and communications, student responses to questions measuring attitudes toward global
governance structures changed in expected direction (i.e., students became more favorable towards
the UN and less supportive of isolationism).
7
In this article, we expand the empirical investigations of the effectiveness of role-playing
simulations in political science, a task already started by several previous researchers. We not only
describe the logistics of running the Global Summit, but provide quantitative and qualitative data to
answer the following research questions: How does having an active learning experience, the Global Summit,
influence the development of global citizenship and its three dimensions in large general education undergraduate
political science classes? Moreover, to what extent do students feel more politically or civically engaged?
Hypothesis, Data and Methods
We hypothesized that having a Global Summit increases students‟ understanding of global
citizenship (along all three dimensions) and improves skills supportive of effective citizenship. The
change was measured through a survey instrument where we asked students to rate 12 statements
dealing with global citizenship by using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree. Since we collected some demographic data, we did a cursory investigation of
differences in gender. Research has suggested that learning can be different between male and
female students (Belenky et al. 1997; Busch 1995; McGlenn & Sarkees 1993; Fite, Genest & Wilcox
1990). To test the three dimensions of global citizenship, we created indices that grouped variables
together by substantive areas (e.g., empathy, knowledge, democracy) roughly corresponding to the
three dimensions.5 Below are the main 12 questions used for much of the following analyses:
1. I consider myself informed about global politics.
2. Global politics plays only a small part in everyday life.
3. Democracy requires citizens to regularly participate in government.
4. Democracy requires citizens to be knowledgeable about their government.
5. Global sustainability requires involvement of all nations.
6. I feel confident discussing foreign policy.
7. It is important for nations to reconcile differences.
8. I enjoy having discussions with people whose ideas and values are different from my own.
9. Learning about people from different cultures is an important part of my college education.
10. I am confident I can communicate with people of a different culture or ethnicity.
11. I feel that I can influence my own government.
5 Some of the questions on the Global Summit survey questionnaire originally came from Texas A&M University‟s survey of students completing study abroad programs.
8
12. I feel that I can contribute to the global community.
Lastly, as a control, we test whether the modifications we made to subsequent Global Summits after
our pilot semester impacted our student survey results.
Our data consist of pre- and post-Summit survey responses (1,242 total) from three
semesters of having Global Summit in five sections of Introduction to American Government &
Politics and three sections of Global Politics classes (see Appendix A for survey details and
descriptives). We also conducted instructor observations during the Summit experience, and
required students to provide written reflections on their experience during the Summit.6 These
quantitative and qualitative results should make a compelling case for or against the Summit‟s
effects. However, we are also well aware of the limitations of this study. While the Summit is a
constant in all three semesters, its format7 and the format of the classes themselves8 have been
modified during the research period in response to suggestions by students and by instructors. In
addition, we did not match pre-Summit surveys and post-Summit surveys to the same students. Still,
even with those caveats, we were optimistic (not without reason, as subsequent sections will
demonstrate) that this active learning simulation would provide evidence that a Global Summit
makes a difference in large intro-level classes. If the Global Summit makes a difference, we should
see the difference in means between the pre-Summit and post-Summit surveys change in the
expected direction in response to Global Summit participation.
Description of Global Summit
6 Unlike several other researchers, we eschew control groups in our research design, given that we each teach just one section of American Government and Global Politics classes a semester and often there are no additional sections to serve as controls. Given that we teach predominantly non-political science majors (and very apolitical students in general), the changes in global citizenship attitudes, if at all, can likely be attributed to the content of the classes, and especially to a comprehensive and time-consuming assignment like the Global Summit that students take very seriously. 7 We had fewer students in Fall 08, and beginning that semester all members of the delegation came from one class, not three classes, as before (Spring
08). Delegations were smaller, we required the resolution be posted on D2L before negotiations could even start, and we were successful in involving
everyone during the Summit itself by holding concurrent activities and adding extra responsibilities to previously tangential members of the country
delegations. These suggested improvements came from both student participants and instructor observers. 8 For example, the Global Politics class was modified after the instructor added more group discussions, quiz bowls, and in-class demonstrations in the Fall 09. American Politics class had different instructors in Spring 08 and Fall 08/Spring 09.
9
The Global Summit on Sustainability connects American Government and Global Politics classes.
Each class is large: enrolling about 120 students. Students are placed in teams of 6 (between 30 and
40 teams). Student teams role-play representatives of a country in a summit designed to adopt a
global resolution on sustainability. The assignment is book-ended by two large gatherings of
students. At the first session, a pre-Summit “convention,” students meet as teams for the first time
to select their roles, receive instructions, and agree upon a schedule for assignment completion.
Over the next several weeks, students research their assigned country‟s environmental, social,
economic, and political problems that pertain to sustainable development. They also learn about the
role their country plays in international sustainable development efforts and international affairs in
general.
Each country delegation has to create a United Nations-like resolution on sustainable
development, addressing both national needs and international priorities. The resolution had to have
a reasonable chance of being the framework for a global policy on sustainability. Preliminary
negotiations and press coverage start as soon as a resolution is approved by the delegation and
posted on a course management website (in this case, D2L). Students have one or two summit work
days in class, but their work mostly takes place outside the class as they work in teams (face-to-face
and virtually). During the Global Summit, a global resolution is adopted as a result of compromises
and negotiations among and within the country delegations. The learning objective is for students to
come away from the Global Summit empowered as citizens, with an increased understanding of and
appreciation for global citizenship, domestic and global negotiations and policy-making,
knowledgeable about their own country and the complexities of the world.9
9 For instructions and handouts on how to run the simulation, please see electronic Appendix at __________
10
In the course of running the Global Summit over three10 semesters, we made several
modifications to the original exercise format, aiming to enhance student engagement, produce
higher quality resolutions and negotiations, and encourage a more enthusiastic support for the
project on the part of the students. Among the changes introduced after the pilot run were a
reduction in the number of country delegates (to ensure more equitable distribution of duties and
prevent possible free riding), limiting assigned country teams to a particular class (to facilitate better
communication among team members), having uninterrupted preparatory time between the
“convention” and the Summit, running two concurrent negotiations during the Summit (one by the
countries‟ “executive leadership” and another one by the “global scientific community”), selection of
the winning teams through a “global community” vote, fund-raising activities to alleviate pressing
global problems (Haiti‟s earthquake, for example), international currency bookkeeping spreadsheets,
World Bank-like financial assistance to less developed countries, and follow-up debriefing sessions
in respective classes. Students, who participated in several summits, indicated their strong approval
of the modified format. Making the Global Summit ever more interactive, we reasoned, will result in
improvements of the global citizenship skills and competencies, including our three dimensions.
Indeed the Global Summit pilot (Spring 2008) and the subsequently revised Global Summits
(Fall 2008, Spring 2009) increased students‟ appreciation for global citizenship, a finding that
emerged through statistical analysis of student surveys. The change was measured through a survey
instrument developed specifically for the Global Summit as well as instructor observations of face-
to-face and virtual (D2L) behavior and dialogues before and during the Summit. Most significantly,
we detected the difference in means between the pre-Summit and post-Summit surveys. Qualitative
student responses, too, indicated improved negotiation skills and revealed increased sophistication in
global thinking and negotiations skills.
10 Even though our research data comes from the first three semesters of running the Global Summit, we continued to improve this exercise, based in part of students’ suggestions. To date, the Global Summit has been run in 5 consecutive semesters.
11
Discussion of Findings
Quantitative Analysis
This section highlights our findings on the Global Summit related to: 1) the overall
differences in means scores pre- and post-Summit; 2) gender differences; and 3) the differences in
the three dimensions of global citizenship.
Our first line of inquiry is whether students were impacted in some way after participating in
the Global Summit. Using the responses to our pre-Summit and post-Summit survey responses
(from all three semesters) and generating the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test, we find significant
differences in mean scores between pre- and post-Summit surveys in several key areas (Table 1).
[Table 1]
Students demonstrated increased levels of knowledge about global politics and indicated they
felt more comfortable discussing foreign policy after the Global Summit. When asked whether they
felt informed about global politics, the pre-Summit survey responses had a mean of 2.87 and the
post-Summit survey responses had a mean of 3.37. This was a statistically significant finding (Table
1). Similarly, when asked whether they felt comfortable discussing foreign policy, students had
statistically significant higher mean scores post-Summit (M = 3.12) than pre-Summit (M = 2.97).
Students more strongly agreed that “Global sustainability requires involvement of all
nations” (M = 4.25) post-Summit than pre-Summit (M = 4.11). While some of these scores suggest
that students had relatively neutral feelings in responding to this answer (i.e., 3=neutral in our
Likert-scaled response options), the significant positive direction post-Summit suggests an increase
in gained knowledge.
Students had lower mean scores post-Summit for the statement: “Global politics plays only a
small part in everyday life” (M=2.50). But in this case, the lower mean score makes sense. Before the
Summit, the mean score was 2.70. This suggests that before the Summit, students were more
12
“neutral” towards global politics being part of everyday life than after the Summit, where their
scores indicated they more strongly disagreed with the statement.
When we look at the responses to our democracy questions, students more strongly agreed
post-Summit that “Democracy requires citizens to regularly participate in government” (Mean Pre =
3.75; Mean Post = 3.89) and “Democracy requires citizens to be knowledgeable about their
government” (Mean Pre= 3.84; Mean Post = 3.96).
Students were also asked efficacy questions about being able to influence their own
government and their contributions to the global community. We found two statistically significant
relationships. Students had higher mean scores post-Summit (3.34) than pre-Summit (2.93) when
responding to the statement: “I feel that I can influence my own government.” Less pronounced but
still significant were the findings that students felt they could contribute to the global community
(pre-Summit M = 3.23; post-Summit M = 3.34).
The weakest findings (i.e., not statically significant) were found in our empathy and
relationship variables (Table 1). But in this analysis, we can interpret this to mean that no significant
differences were found after the Summit. Most of the scores are in the predicted directions. For
example, for the statement: “I enjoy having discussions with people whose ideas and values are
different from my own”, the mean score pre-Summit was 3.72 and post-Summit was 3.75. We
would predict this higher agreement post-Summit; however, we did not reach statistical certainty.
Our second inquiry looked at gender differences (see Table 2) based on the findings of some
scholars (Belenky et al. 1997; Busch 1995; McGlenn & Sarkees 1993; Fite, Genest & Wilcox 1990).
Indeed, we found significant differences between our male and female students. Our male students
more strongly agreed that they considered themselves more informed about global politics (M =
3.27) and were more comfortable discussing global politics (M = 3.31) than our female students (M
= 2.94; M = 2.79, respectively). Alternatively, one might interpret this as males having more
“neutral” feelings towards these statements and females have more disagreement. That is, females
13
were more likely to disagree that they felt informed about global politics, or felt comfortable
discussing foreign policy.
[Table 2]
Female students were also more likely to disagree with the statement: “Global politics plays
only a small part in every day life” (M = 2.52) than their male counterparts (M = 2.71). Without
further analysis we cannot state why female students would disagree more so than male students to
this statement. However, we can say that there is statistically significant difference and that female
student responses suggest that after the Summit they recognize the significance of global politics in
every day life more so than their male counterparts.
We also find female students with statistically significant larger mean scores in two additional
areas. First, female students more strongly agreed that it is “important for nations to reconcile
differences” (M = 4.14) than male students (M = 4.03). Second, female students more strongly
agreed that “learning about people from different cultures is a very important part of my college
education” (M = 3.97) than males students (M = 3.61).
The statistically significant gender differences we find in our analysis suggest that additional
research should be conducted to further understand why, on one hand, female students tend to have
lower efficacy levels (compared to male students) when it comes to global politics and discussing
foreign affairs, yet, on the other hand, have stronger attitudes about the importance of good
relationships among nations and understanding others‟ cultures. As the focus of this research was to
determine the Global Summit as a pedagogically useful exercise in enhancing student learning and
developing global citizenship skills, further investigation of gender differences will be pursued at a
later time.
The last inquiry involved creating indices to roughly approximate our three dimensions of
global citizenship. We then looked at the mean scores before and after the Global Summit and again
tested these differences using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for independent samples.
14
The first index we created was a Global Empathy Index (this roughly approximates our
“psychological” dimension). This index combined four (4) survey questions: 1) I enjoy having
discussions with people whose ideas and values are different from my own; 2) Learning about
people from different cultures is an important part of my college education; 3) I am confident I can
communicate with people of a different culture or ethnicity; 4) I feel that I can contribute to the
global community. The Cronbach‟s alpha reliability was .699, which tells us these questions are
reliable when we “merge” them together. (See Table 3)
[Table 3]
The second index created was a Global Democracy Index (“political” dimension). Here, two
questions were combined (with Cronbach's alpha reliability = .813): 1) Democracy requires citizens
to regularly participate in government; 2) Democracy requires citizens to be knowledgeable about
their government. (See Table 4)
[Table 4]
Lastly, a Global Knowledge Index (“legal” dimension) was created using two survey
questions (with Cronbach's alpha reliability = .704): 1) I consider myself informed about global
politics; 2) I feel comfortable discussing foreign policy. (See Table 5)
[Table 5]
Table 6 provides the results of our means tests between pre-Summit and post-Summit
surveys and our three indices: Global Empathy, Global Democracy, and Global Knowledge. With all
of our indices, we find statistically significant results in the predicted directions at p<.10.
[Table 6]
After participating in the Global Summit, students had higher mean indexed scores – that is,
they had stronger agreement – where they enjoyed “discussions with others whose ideas and values
are different” from their own and believed that “learning about people from other cultures was an
important part” of their college education. In addition, they were confident they could
15
“communicate with people from different culture[s] or ethnicit[ies]”, as well as “contribute to the
global community” (post-Summit M = 3.57; pre-Summit M = 3.49). In sum, analyzing our Global
Empathy Index, we found students indeed were more “empathetic” after participating in the Global
Summit.
In our Global Democracy Index, students more strongly agreed that “democracy requires
citizens to participate” and “be knowledgeable of their government” after participating in Global
Summit. Prior to the Summit, the indexed mean score was 3.63. After the Summit the score was
3.78, a statistically significant difference.
Lastly, our Global Knowledge demonstrates the same pattern. Prior to the Summit, students‟
mean indexed score was 2.70. After participating in the Summit, the indexed mean score increased
to 3.00. While these scores again suggest relatively “neutral” feelings (a score of 3=neutral), the
positive direction and statically significant result tell us students felt more “informed about global
politics” and felt more “comfortable discussing foreign policy” after participating in the Global
Summit.
In sum, we feel that the indices analyses, underscored by the statistically significant
differences in means scores, all support our claim that an active learning assignment such as Global
Summit increased students‟ global citizenship understanding and improved skills supportive of
effective citizenship.
To further strengthen these findings, we tested whether the modifications made to the
Global Summit over three semesters changed our student survey results. Again, comparing means
using the Kruskal-Wallis Test, we find several significant differences from Spring 2008 to Fall 2008
(Table 7) and then again from Fall 2008 to Spring 2009 (Table 8). In Table 9 we show the mean
scores and rank mean sums for each semester, along with the test statistics.
The findings at first glance may appear unintuitive. For example, between Spring 2008 and
Spring 2009, the mean score was higher in Spring 2008 (pilot semester) for the question “I
16
considered myself informed about global politics” (M= 3.22) than in the Fall 2008 semester
(M=3.05) and the Spring 2009 semester (M=3.01). In general, a score of 3 on our Likert-scaled
responses suggest students are relatively neutral. But the statistical significance of change over the
three semesters suggests that students were more neutral about how informed they were regarding
global politics in Spring 2009 than in Spring 2008. Or, put another way, they were “more” unsure.
This could be from outside influences, such as students‟ exposure to the media and stories about
wars and other international issues, or from the modifications we made to the Global Summit.
Overall, four of our twelve variables showed significant change from our pilot semester to
our final semester of Global Summit (Table 9). However, the differences in effect are very minimal.
In all significant cases, the mean scores do not change a complete level (i.e., go from a mean score of
2 to a mean score of 3). This suggests that our modifications to Global Summit likely made little
difference to students‟ learning. Alternatively, we can say that the modifications made to the Global
Summit did not affect the results between the pre-Summit and post-Summit survey results, as
presented above.
[Tables 7, 8, 9]
Qualitative Support
During the pilot pre-event and Summit in Spring 2008, instructors observed that most of the 300+
students were engaged, interactive, and stimulated by the possibility of developing a resolution on
global sustainability. Many students (most notably those with major responsibilities, such as those
role-playing ambassadors, negotiators and press secretaries) were quite engaged and seemed to “stay
in character” throughout the session. Students applauded the popular resolutions of other countries,
the news announcing that additional countries had signed on to a resolution, or that a compromise
had been reached. The Summit in Spring 2008 was crowded, as over 300 students were in one room,
sometimes making it difficult to hear. Still, students were enthusiastic in their support of continuing
this learning experience. The anonymous reaction statements submitted by students immediately
17
after the Summit, were encouraging. When asked to “vote” (on paper ballots) whether to keep or
eliminate the Summit, 95% of students in the Global Politics class (67 out of 72 and 90 out of 95
during Fall 08 and Spring 09 semesters respectively) opted to keep this assignment, while 90% of
American Government students did (80 out of 89 in Spring 09). That is not to say that the Global
Summit worked for every student. A small number of students (ranging from 5 to 8 percent in each
class) preferred a “traditional” assignment rather than what they saw to be a “make-work” or
“confusing” activity. Some students in this category expressed a strong preference for individual
rather than group work. Global citizenship is an easier concept for students in the Global Politics
class (compared to American Government), and a few students in American Government classes
felt that this was too far off-topic for the course.
Several students who did not have significant roles in negotiations during the first Summit in
Spring 2008 were less enthused, an observation that instructors used to improve the format during
subsequent semesters.11 In Fall 2008 and Spring 2009, almost all participants were engaged in a
meaningful way. Additionally, the number of students was reduced to just over 200, as one
American Government and one Global Studies class participated. Many delegations created
impressive poster displays with key facts about the political, cultural, economic, natural resource, and
environmental features of their country. Some delegations even brought food and dressed in
traditional clothing of their nation. Nearly all country posters created by teams were noteworthy, and
table conversations with student teams conducted by third parties (another faculty member and the
dean) illustrated that students had learned something about the country they represented.
The mood in the large meeting facility was positive; there was a lot of chatter among
students. The noise and energy level was high, and sometimes the process was chaotic (even with
the reduced number). By spring 2009, over 95 percent of students agreed that the Summit
experience should continue.
11 It should be noted that none of the improvements made would have been possible without anonymous reactions from students, reflection papers, and in-class debriefings. We believe these “qualitative” sources greatly enhanced the effectiveness of the Global Summit.
18
The reflection papers that were required of all students in each class suggest that most
students have a heightened understanding of global citizenship and an appreciation for international
negotiation and compromise. To return to the research questions, student papers clearly indicate an
understanding of the legal, political and psychological dimensions of global citizenship. We have
several samples in the Appendix B to demonstrate the student understanding of global citizenship.12
Here is one example:
“I for one learned what it means to be a global citizen. You have to consider the repercussions and
impacts of your choices on other countries and societies. This forced us to have a more global mind.
What is convenient and ideal for one nation isn‟t necessarily what is convenient and ideal for
another nation. The summit showed the importance of negotiations and compromise to achieve
sustainability. I found the alliances that were made by some countries illustrated the concept of
global interconnectedness quite well, because although you might not have necessarily considered
some countries to be your allies, there were similar resolutions and goals to be found among very
different nations.”
In sum, we believe that this quote, and the samples listed in Appendix B, illustrates the
increased student sophistication that comes from the Global Summit. This enhanced student
understanding would have been difficult to achieve through “normal” class assignments that do not
put students in the position to role-play diplomats of other countries. This real-life situation of
intense bargaining, above and below-board negotiations, and interactions put students in unique
positions to appreciate the complexities of global struggles and international relationships. Like the
quantitative data, these student reflections indicate that many students did recognize global
interdependence and interconnectedness, acquired global empathy and global knowledge, became
more skilled at negotiations; and learned how to work in groups (both small and large) to produce
collective result. Most important, the reflective statements, much like survey results, show that
students did make progress towards acquiring or even mastering all three dimensions of the global
citizenship.
12 While not produced here, content analysis is being conducted and will be presented in the future.
19
Overall, students expressed very positive attitudes to this project, many reporting that it was
the highlight of their entire semester and several expressing willingness to participate in it again as
voluntary teaching assistants. The four instructors who participated in the Global Summit strongly
believe that this assignment helps students understand the process of politics and citizenship, and is a
valuable addition to the learning experiences of students.
Conclusion
Quantitative and qualitative analyses demonstrate that the Summit on Global Sustainability
simulation positively influenced student perceptions about their role as global citizens as well as their
appreciation for the process of negotiation and compromise. In viewing the three dimensions of
global citizenship, it appears that students gain understanding of the political components by
writing, rewriting and collaborating on resolutions. Most visible to the instructors were the politics
among the various delegations creating a joint resolution on sustainability. Less visible, though
important, were the internal group politics where students had to delegate authority and make
decisions before engaging with others. They also understood the disparate environmental positions
of countries. As students negotiated with other countries, and understood the political and
economic constraints of lesser developed countries, they had an opportunity to experience the legal
dimension of global citizenship. Students also acquired deeper understanding of what is culturally
appropriate in other nations and the importance of building alliances through bargaining and
negotiation and thus were transformed along the psychological dimension.
It is also noteworthy that the strengthening of legal and political components of global
citizenship (in our analysis, the efficacy and democracy indices of survey questions) was easier than
achieving improvement in the psychological category (efficacy and relationship variables). This
finding suggests that students might have difficulty changing their entire identity through the role-
play, but might nonetheless still start to care deeply about the economic, environmental, and human
20
rights problems of others, and understand the institutional framework needed to facilitate global
change.
Our data likewise supports copious literature on the benefits (assumed and already proven)
of the active learning pedagogical techniques. The learning objectives of fostering global citizenship
are indeed achieved through student participation in the Global Summit. And rather than a mere
wishful thinking on the part of the instructors, there is concrete empirical evidence that this
assignment and, perhaps, role-playing simulations in general, are valuable and significant learning
experiences for the vast majority of students.
21
Table 1: Mean Scores and Differences by Pre-and Post-Summit Surveys (a, b)
I consider
myself
informed about
global politics.
Global politics
plays only a
small part in
every day life.
Democracy
requires
citizens to
regularly
participate in
government.
Democracy
requires
citizens to be
knowledgeable
about their
government.
Global
sustainability
requires
involvement of
all nations.
I feel
comfortable
discussing
foreign policy.
Mean Pre 2.87 2.70 3.75 3.84 4.11 2.97
Mean Post 3.37 2.50 3.89 3.96 4.25 3.12
Mean Rank Pre 536.20 651.49 597.30 604.03 594.41 593.69
Mean Rank Post 710.69 587.68 646.90 637.51 646.97 644.66
Chi-Square 81.133 10.562 6.592 2.993 7.736 6.779
df 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.084 0.005 0.009
22
It is important
for nations to
reconcile
differences.
I enjoy having
discussions
with people
whose ideas
and values are
different from
my own.
Learning about
people from
different
cultures is a
very important
part of my
college
education.
I am confident
that I can
communicate
with people of a
different
culture or
ethnicity.
I feel that I can
influence my
own
government.
I feel that I can
contribute to
the global
community.
Mean Pre 4.10 3.72 3.80 3.70 2.93 3.23
Mean Post 4.06 3.75 3.83 3.72 3.15 3.34
Mean Rank Pre 629.66 615.39 616.44 619.77 586.38 601.82
Mean Rank Post 605.21 625.06 622.85 619.21 656.87 639.93
Chi-Square 1.677 0.250 0.110 0.001 13.112 3.890
df 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.195 0.617 0.741 0.977 0.000 0.049
(a) Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for multiple independent samples. Bold are
statistically significant p<.10.
(b) Mean score based on 5-point Likert scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strong
Agree
23
Table 2: Mean Scores and Differences by Gender (a, b)
I consider
myself
informed about
global politics.
Global politics
plays only a
small part in
every day life.
Democracy
requires
citizens to
regularly
participate in
government.
Democracy
requires
citizens to be
knowledgeable
about their
government.
Global
sustainability
requires
involvement of
all nations.
I feel
comfortable
discussing
foreign policy.
Mean Male 3.27 2.71 3.84 3.87 4.14 3.31
Mean Female 2.94 2.52 3.81 3.93 4.25 2.79
Mean Rank Male 643.23 616.51 593.34 581.93 570.15 666.70
Mean Rank Female 532.08 557.14 576.28 584.80 593.65 511.57
Chi-Square 34.787 9.662 0.823 0.023 1.642 66.345
df 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.000 0.002 0.364 0.879 0.200 0.000
24
It is important
for nations to
reconcile
differences.
I enjoy having
discussions
with people
whose ideas
and values are
different from
my own.
Learning about
people from
different
cultures is a
very important
part of my
college
education.
I am confident
that I can
communicate
with people of a
different
culture or
ethnicity.
I feel that I can
influence my
own
government.
I feel that I can
contribute to
the global
community.
Mean Male 4.03 3.72 3.61 3.70 3.01 3.21
Mean Female 4.14 3.74 3.97 3.71 3.06 3.35
Mean Rank Male 564.24 579.09 520.84 581.11 578.70 564.76
Mean Rank Female 595.82 587.13 634.34 584.56 587.46 598.96
Chi-Square 2.969 0.183 36.195 0.033 0.214 3.311
df 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.085 0.669 0.000 0.855 0.643 0.069
(a) Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for multiple independent samples. Bold are
statistically significant at p<.10.
(b) Mean score based on 5-point Likert scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strong
Agree
25
Table 3: Global Empathy Index (a)
Frequenc
y Percent
Strongly Disagree 10 0.8
Disagree 88 7.1
Neutral 488 39.3
Agree 541 43.6
Strongly Agree 110 8.9
Sub-total 1237 99.6
Missing 5 0.4
Total 1242 100
(a) Global Empathy: Combination of four questions
(Cronbach's alpha reliability = .699): 1) I enjoy
having discussions with people whose ideas and values
are different from my own; 2) Learning about people
from different cultures is an important part of my
college education; 3) I am confident I can
communicate with people of a different culture or
ethnicity; 4) I feel that I can contribute to the global
community.
Table 4: Global Democracy Index (b)
Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 25 2.0
Disagree 114 9.2
Neutral 333 26.8
Agree 497 40.0
Strongly Agree 269 21.7
Sub-total 1238 99.7
Missing 4 0.3
Total 1242 100.0
26
(b) Global Democracy: Combination of two questions
(Cronbach's alpha reliability = .813): 1) Democracy
requires citizens to regularly participate in
government; 2) Democracy requires citizens to be
knowledgeable about their government.
Table 5: Global Knowledge Index (c)
Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 92 7.4
Disagree 338 27.2
Neutral 509 41.0
Agree 250 20.1
Strongly Agree 42 3.4
Sub-total 1231 99.1
Missing 11 0.9
Total 1242 100.0
(c) Global Knowledge: Combination of two questions
(Cronbach's alpha reliability = .704): 1) I consider
myself informed about global politics; 2) I feel
comfortable discussing foreign policy.
27
Table 6: Mean Scores and Differences of Empathy, Democracy and
Knowledge Indices (a, b)
Global
Empathy
Index (c)
Global
Democracy
Index (d)
Global
Knowledge
Index (e)
Mean Pre 3.49 3.63 2.70
Mean Post 3.57 3.78 3.00
Mean Rank Pre 604.27 593.63 564.04
Mean Rank Post 635.15 647.82 673.00
Chi-Square 2.701 7.841 32.061
df 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.100 0.005 0.000
(a) Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for multiple independent samples. Bold are statistically
significant at p<.10.
(b) Mean score based on 5-point Likert scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strong
Agree
(c) Global Empathy: Combination of four questions (Cronbach's alpha reliability = .699):
1) I enjoy having discussions with people whose ideas and values are different from my own; 2)
Learning about people from different cultures is an important part of my college education; 3)
I am confident I can communicate with people of a different culture or ethnicity; 4) I feel that I
can contribute to the global community.
(d) Global Democracy: Combination of two questions (Cronbach's alpha reliability = .813):
1) Democracy requires citizens to regularly participate in government; 2) Democracy requires
citizens to be knowledgeable about their government.
(e) Global Knowledge: Combination of two questions (Cronbach's alpha reliability = .704):
1) I consider myself informed about global politics; 2) I feel comfortable discussing foreign
policy.
28
Table 7: Mean Scores and Differences by Term - Spring 2008 to Fall 2008 (a, b)
I consider
myself
informed about
global politics.
Global politics
plays only a
small part in
every day life.
Democracy
requires
citizens to
regularly
participate in
government.
Democracy
requires
citizens to be
knowledgeable
about their
government.
Global
sustainability
requires
involvement of
all nations.
I feel
comfortable
discussing
foreign policy.
Mean Spr08 3.22 2.65 3.80 3.91 4.22 3.06
Mean Fall08 3.05 2.64 3.87 3.91 4.12 3.07
Mean Spr09 3.01 2.50 3.79 3.86 4.18 2.96
Mean Rank Spr08 463.37 449.50 436.09 441.95 457.11 445.96
Mean Rank Fall08 424.89 444.95 462.04 453.42 432.97 448.32
Chi-Square 5.387 0.073 2.465 0.482 2.233 0.020
df 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.020 0.787 0.116 0.488 0.135 0.888
29
It is important
for nations to
reconcile
differences.
I enjoy having
discussions
with people
whose ideas
and values are
different from
my own.
Learning about
people from
different
cultures is a
very important
part of my
college
education.
I am confident
that I can
communicate
with people of a
different
culture or
ethnicity.
I feel that I can
influence my
own
government.
I feel that I can
contribute to
the global
community.
Mean Spr08 4.10 3.75 3.87 3.70 3.11 3.36
Mean Fall08 4.07 3.69 3.67 3.68 2.97 3.26
Mean Spr09 4.06 3.77 3.89 3.75 3.00 3.21
Mean Rank Spr08 448.91 454.31 467.82 449.45 459.84 456.55
Mean Rank Fall08 442.96 437.65 420.40 443.86 430.59 434.80
Chi-Square 0.171 1.018 8.144 0.113 3.080 1.730
df 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.679 0.313 0.004 0.737 0.079 0.188
(a) Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for multiple independent samples. Bold are statistically
significant p<.10.
(b) Mean score based on 5-point Likert scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strong
Agree
30
Table 8: Mean Scores and Differences by Term - Fall 2008 to Spring 2009 (a, b)
I consider
myself
informed about
global politics.
Global politics
plays only a
small part in
every day life.
Democracy
requires
citizens to
regularly
participate in
government.
Democracy
requires
citizens to be
knowledgeable
about their
government.
Global
sustainability
requires
involvement of
all nations.
I feel
comfortable
discussing
foreign policy.
Mean Spr08 3.22 2.65 3.80 3.91 4.22 3.06
Mean Fall08 3.05 2.64 3.87 3.91 4.12 3.07
Mean Spr09 3.01 2.50 3.79 3.86 4.18 2.96
Mean Rank Fall08 373.52 383.23 381.52 379.72 367.93 376.91
Mean Rank Spr09 363.90 356.09 358.01 358.96 371.28 357.76
Chi-Square 0.412 3.249 2.474 1.921 0.053 1.612
df 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.521 0.071 0.116 0.166 0.818 0.204
31
It is important
for nations to
reconcile
differences.
I enjoy having
discussions
with people
whose ideas
and values are
different from
my own.
Learning about
people from
different
cultures is a
very important
part of my
college
education.
I am confident
that I can
communicate
with people of a
different
culture or
ethnicity.
I feel that I can
influence my
own
government.
I feel that I can
contribute to
the global
community.
Mean Spr08 4.10 3.75 3.87 3.70 3.11 3.36
Mean Fall08 4.07 3.69 3.67 3.68 2.97 3.26
Mean Spr09 4.06 3.77 3.89 3.75 3.00 3.21
Mean Rank Fall08 370.02 364.42 350.05 360.67 366.90 377.24
Mean Rank Spr09 364.65 375.25 390.54 378.47 372.44 360.73
Chi-Square 0.135 0.527 7.283 1.406 0.135 1.225
df 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.713 0.468 0.007 0.236 0.714 0.268
(a) Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for multiple independent samples. Bold are
statistically significant p<.10.
(b) Mean score based on 5-point Likert scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strong
Agree
32
Table 9: Mean Scores and Differences by Term - Spring 2008, Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 (a, b)
I consider
myself
informed about
global politics.
Global politics
plays only a
small part in
every day life.
Democracy
requires
citizens to
regularly
participate in
government.
Democracy
requires
citizens to be
knowledgeable
about their
government.
Global
sustainability
requires
involvement of
all nations.
I feel
comfortable
discussing
foreign policy.
Mean Spr08 3.22 2.65 3.80 3.91 4.22 3.06
Mean Fall08 3.05 2.64 3.87 3.91 4.12 3.07
Mean Spr09 3.01 2.50 3.79 3.86 4.18 2.96
Mean Rank Spr08 656.62 637.06 610.48 620.62 638.20 625.09
Mean Rank Fall08 602.40 631.17 646.56 636.15 604.40 628.23
Mean Rank Spr09 585.08 586.29 607.23 600.76 609.58 595.88
Chi-Square 10.479 4.926 3.271 1.994 2.706 1.978
df 2 2 2 2 2 2
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.005 0.085 0.195 0.369 0.258 0.372
33
It is important
for nations to
reconcile
differences.
I enjoy having
discussions
with people
whose ideas
and values are
different from
my own.
Learning about
people from
different
cultures is a
very important
part of my
college
education.
I am confident
that I can
communicate
with people of a
different
culture or
ethnicity.
I feel that I can
influence my
own
government.
I feel that I can
contribute to
the global
community.
Mean Spr08 4.10 3.75 3.87 3.70 3.11 3.36
Mean Fall08 4.07 3.69 3.67 3.68 2.97 3.26
Mean Spr09 4.06 3.77 3.89 3.75 3.00 3.21
Mean Rank Spr08 625.89 628.63 640.23 615.93 641.64 645.83
Mean Rank Fall08 616.78 605.57 573.94 608.03 600.99 615.54
Mean Rank Spr09 607.89 623.85 641.16 637.71 610.20 587.65
Chi-Square 0.610 1.073 10.253 1.476 3.497 6.104
df 2 2 2 2 2 2
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) 0.737 0.585 0.006 0.478 0.174 0.047
(a) Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for multiple independent samples. Bold are
statistically significant p<.10.
(b) Mean score based on 5-point Likert scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strong
Agree
34
References
Alessio, H. 2004. Student perceptions about and performance in problem-based learning. Journal of Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning 4:1, 25-36
Bean, J. C. 1996. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in
the Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J.M. 1997. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The
Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York, NY: BasicBooks.
Boyer, M. A. 2000. Coalitions, motives, and playoffs: A simulation of mixed-motive negotiations. In J.S.
Lantis, L. Kuzma & J. Boehrer (eds.) The new international studies classroom: Active learning, Boulder, CO: Lynn
Reiner, 95-110.
Boyer, M. A., Brown, S. W., Butler, M. J., Niv-Solomon, A., Urlacher, B., Hudson, N. F., Johnson, P. R. &
Lima, C. O. 2007. Experimenting with global governance: understanding the potential for generational
change. Globalization, Societies and Education 5:2, 153-80
Braskamp, L. A. 2008. Developing global citizens. Journal of College and Character 10:1
Braskamp, L.A, Trautvetter, L. C. & Ward, K. 2008. Putting students first: Promoting lives of purpose and
meaning. About Campus 13:1, 26-32
Broadbear, J. T. 2003. Essential elements of lessons designed to promote critical thinking. The Journal of
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) 3:3, 1-8
Brown, S. W., Boyer, M. A., Mayall, H. J., Johnson, P. R., Meng, L., Butler, M. J., Weir, K., Florea, N. & Reis,
S. 2002a. Global education via the Web: The GlobalEd Project. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Computers in Education (ICCE’02)
Brown, S. W., Meng, L., Johnson, P. R., Mayall, H. J., Boyer M. A., Butler, M. J., Florea, N., Hernandez M., &
Reis, S. 2002b. The GlobalEd Project: An experimental study of negotiation and decision-making. Paper
presented at the NERA Conference, Kerhonkson, NY.
Busch, T. 1995. Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes towards computers. Journal of Educational
Computing Research 12:2, 147-58
Chasek, P. S. 2005. Power politics, diplomacy and role playing: Simulating the UN Security Council‟s
response to terrorism. International Studies Perspectives 6:1, 1-19
Colby, A. 2007. Educating for democracy. Carnegie Perspectives (August 2007),
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/sub.asp?key=245&subkey=2433 assessed November 30,
2008
Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Elrich, T., & Corngold, J. 2007. Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for
responsible political engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. 2003. Educating citizens: Preparing America's undergraduates for
lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
35
DeCaprariis, P., Barman, D. & Magee, P. 2001. Monitoring the benefits of active learning exercises in
introductory survey courses in science: An attempt to improve the education of prospective public school
teachers. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) 1:2, 13-23
DeNeve, K. M. & Heppner, M. J. 1997. Role play simulations: The assessment of an active learning technique
and comarisons with traditional lectures. Innovative Higher Education (Spring): 231-246
Dunn, J. P. 2002. Teaching Islamic and Middle East politics: The Model Arab League as a learning venue.
Journal of Political Science 30, 121-9
Farrah, J. & O‟Connor, P. 2008. Promoting political engagement through American government classes. Peer
Review (Spring/Summer): 31-34
Fink, L. D. 2003. Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Fite, D., Genest, M. & Wilcox, C. 1990. Gender differences in foreign policy attitudes. American Political
Quarterly 18 (October), 492-513
Flynn, S. 2000. Drug trafficking, the international system, and decision-making constraints: A policy-making
simulation. International Studies Perspectives 1:1, 45-55
Fuentes, M. A. & Yedloutschnig, R. 2005. Preparing college students for active citizenship through the use of
action projects. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 16:2
Gallager, J. M. & Reid, D. K. 1981. The learning theory of Piaget and Inhelder. Monterey, CA: Brookes/Cole.
Jefferson, K. W. 1999. The Bosnian war crime simulation: Teaching students about the fuzziness of world
politics and international law. PS: Political Science and Politics 32 (September), 588-92
Habron, G. & Dann, S. 2003. Breathing life into the case study approach: active learning in an introductory
natural resource management class. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 13:2/3, 41-58
Howard, S. A. 1999. Guiding collaborative teamwork in the classroom. The Journal of Effective Teaching 4:2,
www.uncw.edu/cte/et/ARTICLES/Howard/index.htm, accessed November 30, 2008
Kern, B. S. 2000. Using role play simulation and hands-on models to enhance students‟ learning fundamental
accounting concepts. The Journal of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) 1:1, 8-24
Kille, K. J. 2002. Simulating the creation of a new international human rights treaty. International Studies
Perspective 3:3, 271-90
Krain, M. & Lantis, J. S. 2006. Building Knowledge? Evaluating the effectiveness of the Global Problems
Summit simulation. International Studies Perspectives 7:4, 395-407
Langran, I. V., Langran, E. & Ozment, K. 2009. Transforming today‟s students into tomorrow‟s global
citizens: Challenges for US educators. New Global Studies 1:3
Lantis, J. S. 1998. Simulations and experiential learning in the international relations classroom. International
Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice 3:1, 39-57
36
Lantis, J. S. 1996. Simulations as teaching tools: Designing the global problems Summit. International Studies
Notes 21:1, 30-8
Lantis, J. S., Kille, K. J. & Krain, M. n.d. The state of active teaching and learning literature. The International
Studies Association Compendium Project,
http://www.isacompss.com/info/samples/thestateoftheactiveteachingandlearningliterature_sample.pdf
assessed 28 May, 2010
Lantis, J. S., Kuzma, L. M. & Boehrer, J. 2000. The new international studies classroom: Active learning. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner
McGlen, N. E. & Sarkees, M. R. 1993. Women in foreign policy: The insiders. New York, NY: Routledge
McIntosh, D. 2001. The uses and limits of the Model United Nations in an international relations classroom.
International Studies Perspectives 2:3, 269-80
McKeachie, J., Turner, J. & Williams, D. 1986. Teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and university
teachers (9th edition). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company
Mendel-Reyes, M. 1998. A pedagogy for citizenship: Service learning and democratic education. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning 73, 31-38
Meyers, C. & Jones T. B. 1993. Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass
Piaget, J. 1977. The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press
Powner, L. C. & Allendoerfer, M. G. 2008. Evaluating hypotheses about active learning. International Studies
Perspectives 9:1, 75-89
Shaw, C. M. 2004. Pedagogy in international studies using role-play scenarios in the IR classroom. International
Studies Perspectives 5:1, 1-22
Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. 1995. Participation's not a paradox: The view from American
activists. British Journal of Political Science 25 (January): 1-36
Southerland, T. E. & Bonwell, C. C., eds. 1996. Using active learning in college classes: A Range of options for faculty.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Shellman, S. M. 2001. Active learning in comparative politics: A mock German election and coalition-
formation simulation. PS: Political Science & Politics 34 (December): 827-834
Shellman, S. M. & Turan, K. 2006. Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an
IR simulation. Journal of Political Science Education 2:1, 19-32
Switky, B. 2004. The importance of voting in international organizations: Simulating the case of the
European Union. International Studies Perspectives 5:1, 40-9
Van Dyke, G. J., Declair, E. G. & Loedel, P. H. 2000. Stimulating simulations: making the European Union a
classroom reality. International Studies Perspectives 1:2, 145-59
Vygotsky, L. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
37
Walker, P. 2008. What do students think they (should) learn at college? Student perceptions of essential
learning outcomes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8:1, 45-6
Zeff, E. E. 2003. Negotiating in the European Council: A Model European Union format for individual
classes. International Studies Perspectives 4:3, 264-74
38
Appendix A
Global Summit Survey
Please rate each of the statements 5 through 1 indicating that you strongly agree, agree, are neutral,
disagree, or strongly disagree with each statement.
Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 Neutral = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1
Statement Rating
1 I consider myself informed about global politics.
2 Global politics plays only a small part in every day life.
3 Democracy requires citizens to regularly participate in government.
4 Democracy requires citizens to be knowledgeable about their government.
5 Global sustainability requires involvement of all nations.
6 I feel comfortable discussing foreign policy.
7 It is important for nations to reconcile differences.
8 I enjoy having discussions with people whose ideas and values are different from my own.
9 Learning about people from different cultures is a very important part of my college education.
10 I am confident that I can communicate with people of a different culture or ethnicity.
11 I feel that I can influence my own government.
12 I feel that I can contribute to the global community.
Please tell us a little about you (circle the best response):
Gender: Male Female
Age: 18-20 21-25 26-33 33-40 40+
Class Standing: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Have you ever traveled outside U.S.? Yes No
Have you served/are serving in the U.S. military? Yes No
Frequencies of Key Variables
Term
Freq %
Spring 2008 501 40.3
Fall 2008 393 31.6
Spring 2009 348 28.0
Total 1242 100.0
Pre-summit or Post-Summit
Freq %
Pre-Summit 649 52.3
Post-Summit 593 47.7
Total 1242 100.0
Gender
Freq %
Male 529 42.6
Female 639 51.4
Sub-total 1168 94.0
Missing 74 6.0
Total 1242 100.0
Age
Freq %
18-20 965 77.7
21-25 211 17.0
Sub-total 48 3.9
33-40 7 0.6
40+ 5 0.4
Sub-total 1236 99.5
Missing 6 0.5
Total 1242 100.0
Have you ever traveled outside
the U.S.?
Freq %
Yes 698 56.2
No 522 42.0
Sub-total 1220 98.2
Missing 22 1.8
Total 1242 100.0
Have you served / are serving
in the U.S. military?
Freq %
Yes 54 4.3
No 1163 93.6
Sub-total 1217 98.0
Missing 25 2.0
Total 1242 100.0
Faculty Distribution
Frequency
Johnson Spr08 146
Levintova Spr08 188
Scheberle Spr08 167
Vonck 1, MW Fall08 117
Levintova Fall08 162
Vonck 2, TR Fall08 114
Levintova Spr09 189
Vonck Spr09 159
Total 1242
General Descriptives
Gender Age
Have you ever
traveled
outside the
U.S.?
Have you
served / are
serving in the
U.S. military?
I consider
myself
informed about
global politics.
Global politics
plays only a
small part in
every day life.
Democracy
requires citizens
to regularly
participate in
government.
Democracy
requires citizens
to be
knowledgeable
about their
government.
Valid 1168 1236 1220 1217 1238 1241 1241 1239
Missing 74 6 22 25 4 1 1 3
Mean 1.55 1.28 1.43 1.96 3.11 2.61 3.82 3.9
Std. Error of
Mean 0.015 0.017 0.014 0.006 0.028 0.031 0.028 0.029
Median 2 1 1 2 3 2 4 4
Mode 2 1 1 2 3 2 4 4
Std. Deviation 0.498 0.602 0.495 0.206 0.970 1.099 0.974 1.038
Variance 0.248 0.363 0.245 0.042 0.941 1.208 0.949 1.077
Range 1 4 1 1 4 4 4 4
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 2 5 2 2 5 5 5 5
Global
sustainabili
ty requires
involvemen
t of all
nations.
I feel
comfortabl
e
discussing
foreign
policy.
It is important
for nations to
reconcile
differences.
I enjoy having
discussions
with people
whose ideas
and values are
different from
my own.
Learning about
people from
different
cultures is a
very important
part of my
college
education.
I am confident
that I can
communicate
with people of
a different
culture or
ethnicity.
I feel that I can
influence my
own
government.
I feel that I can
contribute to the
global
community.
Valid 1238 1235 1235 1239 1238 1238 1239 1239
Missing 4 7 7 3 4 4 3 3
Mean 4.18 3.04 4.08 3.74 3.81 3.71 3.03 3.28
Std. Error of
Mean 0.025 0.032 0.023 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.03 0.029
Median 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3
Mode 5 3 4 4 4 4 3 3
Std. Deviation 0.879 1.108 0.821 0.968 0.988 0.986 1.046 1.008
Variance 0.773 1.229 0.674 0.937 0.976 0.973 1.093 1.016
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Appendix B
Sample quotes from student reflection papers written after participating in the Global
Summit:
“Global citizenship means being aware of what's going on in all countries of the world. It also
means recognizing situations/problems in other parts of the world that we may be able to help with
and then actually helping if necessary.”
“We all inhabit this earth and we are all responsible for what's happening in it. I think that America
should be one of the leaders in promoting global citizenship given that it is the current superpower
and if other countries see us getting involved they'll feel more compelled to do the same.”
“We need to look at things as a whole. Our economy isn‟t just our problem; I‟m sure other
countries‟ economies are down because we are having troubles. Since all countries are so connected
we all should be aware of the global situations.”
“The way that I take this word [global citizenship] is not lightly. I believe that this implies that all
countries and all people are supposed to be actively involved with the bettering and support of other
countries and people.”
“I‟ve never participated in anything like the Global Summit before, so it was interesting to see that
the countries we were delegates for acted similar to how they would at a real UN global summit. It
was also interesting to see how countries acted towards each other based on global news that we all
hear about. For instance, we decided very early on who not to side with based on their position on
nuclear energy.”
“There are a lot more issues that go on around the world than I really thought had been going on. I
also feel that to be more of a global citizen now countries have to be aware of the world as a global
community, by both recognizing and fulfilling its global legal and political obligations, and
recognizing the rights of others.”
“In my opinion, Brazil fared very well for a developing country. We were able to side with an
extremely powerful country, but still were able to keep the most part of our resolution. We made
sure that deforestation, our main concern, was written into the main resolution. Brazil is still a
developing country and because we don‟t have very much money, siding with the UK along with
France was for our benefit. They will be able to fund us if we are in need.”
“The Global Summit helped me understand some of the complexities of dealing with other
countries. When you have that many people from all over the world it‟s a wonder that anything gets
done. Negotiations must go smoothly for any resolution to be made, so compromises must be
reached. For compromises to be met countries have to get together and get along, which we all
know doesn‟t always happen. This mock UN meeting really opened my eyes as to how much foreign
matters affect our country. I hope that this activity is available to students in the future, and that it
helps them as much as it has helped me.”
“…Now that I have participated in the global summit, I actually find myself thinking about …what
some countries may have to offer compared to other countries, and things as little as the
geographical features of some countries, such as Australia‟s coral reefs.”
“Other than learning about global citizenship, I also learned how countries negotiate with each
other. I never really realized how much work goes into forming an alliance. There are many aspects
to be negotiated, and even if most needs are met, it still might not be enough. Negotiating is a huge
part of making alliances. Overall I think I learned some very valuable things from the global
summit.”
“This activity has taught me a good deal about international relations. The drama of the negotiations
showed me just how much people can manage to argue about matters of little importance, especially
considering that no one in the global summit had anything to gain or lose from the negotiations.
This demonstrated why there are so many tensions between different nations that never get
resolved, even when many countries make robust attempts to solve their disputes.”
“My belief that being a good global citizen includes staying informed about what is occurring in the
rest of the world and being knowledgeable about conditions in other countries was validated by this
exercise. I exercised this belief by advocating the inclusion of a provision to ensure clean water in
our resolution, both out of concern for people without dependable water supplies and to get the
support of delegations from countries where water is an important issue. The information provided
by other countries showed me just how much we need to work to achieve sustainability; the amount
of oil consumed by the west and the lack of food and access to clean water in the rest of the world
are the most appalling examples. The extent of global inequalities was dramatically displayed by the
differing amounts of money that different countries were given to use in their negotiations;
Germany had many times as much as several other countries. This was a great way to learn just how
inter connected the world is.”