Dr. Alina Slapac & Dr. Virginia Navarro

Department of Early Childhood, Elementary, TESOL, and Special Education (ECETS),
University of Missouri – St. Louis, USA

Email: slapaca@umsl.edu; virginia.navarro@umsl.edu

Abstract

International experiences for preservice teachers increase intercultural competence, global-mindfulness, autonomy and personal development (Cushner, 2007; Cushner & Mahon, 2002). This basic qualitative research study investigates how intercultural experiences and teaching transformed 25 preservice teachers’ ideas about pedagogy, English language learners, and identities as both national and global citizens. Analysis of focus group interviews, blogs, journals and coursework assignments from US and South Korean student teachers yielded five emergent themes: (1) Personal positive interest in sociocultural understanding of intercultural experiences, (2) Global outreach (with a commitment to bringing excitement of larger world into classrooms), (3) Transformed perspectives on teaching and learning processes, including both critical and affirming assessments of home country’s ways of schooling, (4) Contextual supports and challenges adapting to the target culture and negotiating student teaching/foreign school culture, and lastly, (5) Personal and professional growth resulting in increased self-efficacy and persistence. Unfortunately, despite the transformative nature of intercultural experiences on teachers, finding structures and resources to sustain international collaboration in teacher preparation remains an elusive goal for higher education institutions.

Key words: student teaching abroad, preservice teachers, intercultural experiences, global self-awareness, cultural perspectives

Introduction

Intercultural learning experiences impact the cultural, interpersonal and personal knowledge of teachers (Walters, Garii & Walters, 2009; Willard-Holt, 2001). Other documented benefits include global mindedness, intercultural sensitivity, increased autonomy, and openness to cultural diversity (Cushner, 2007; Cushner & Mahon, 2002). Growth, independence, self-reliance and a progressive ability to make decisions are also attributes developed by many students and/or teachers who participate in such global exchanges (Barkhuizen & Feryok, 2006; Cushner, 2007). Despite such positive evidence, only a small number of preparing teachers experience educational and cultural systems outside the US; resources for international programs are diminishing despite increased globalization and decreased US teaching positions (Lien, 2007; Paige, 2003; Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2011).

Another obstacle to international education involves the lack of teacher preparation to work with diverse learners in international settings. Currently, in the US, preservice/inservice teachers have to face the challenge of working with culturally and linguistically diverse students in PK-12 classrooms (Gay, 2010; Morrey, 2000); therefore, one of the goals of colleges of education is to prepare future teachers to be interculturally competent by providing diverse opportunities (Deardoff, 2009) and by hiring and using international faculty as resources towards global awareness and cultural responsiveness (Slapac & Kim, 2014). Although student teaching abroad does qualify as a “capstone” experience (Alfaro, 2008; Merryfield, 1991), some potential participants are worried that they will not get a good US job. Teacher educators historically have been white, middle class, and monolingual (Gay, 2010) with minimal exposure to educational systems in other countries, despite the ways technology is shrinking the world and allowing communication and collaboration across time and space (Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2011). How will tomorrow’s teachers learn about other systems and pedagogies without intercultural instructors and opportunities?

Two faculty members at a Midwestern university, committed to international education and intercultural engagement, conducted this qualitative inquiry to explore the following research questions: “How do short intercultural teaching experiences in South Korea and China shape US preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching/learning processes (e.g. curriculum, pedagogy), English language learners, and the development of global self-awareness?” A second question examined the experiences and insights of a few South Korean undergraduates taking education courses and spending time in US schools for two months. By documenting shifting ideas, perspectives, and challenges, we map student pathways to persistence and increased global self-awareness.

Literature Review

Learning Cultural Competence through Intercultural Exchanges

The need for culturally competent US teachers continues to increase (Banks & Banks, 2009; Cochran-Smith, 2003; Moll & Amanti, 2005), but to effectively prepare teachers for working in culturally and linguistically diverse US classrooms, new strategies are required to support the acquisition of targeted knowledge, skills and dispositions. International student teaching experiences provide one venue for preservice teachers’ personal and professional growth through interactions with other cultures (Clement & Outlaw, 2002; Mahon & Cushner, 2002; Mahon & Cushner, 2007; Stachowski, Richardson, & Henderson, 2003). Previous research documents that future teachers benefit from the challenge of living and working in a foreign land (Sahin, 2008; Yagci, Ekinci, Burgaz, Kelecioglu & Ergene, 2007) because the experience provokes self-awareness of one’s own cultural assumptions. Students recognize that differences in educational systems and worldviews exist and should be part of educational discourse in the US (Brindley, Quinn, & Morton, 2009; Kizilaslan, 2010; Pence & Macgillivray, 2008; Willard-Holt, 2001). Acknowledging that we have things to both teach and learn about education across cultures is a giant step for many preservice teachers.

Intercultural exchanges can interrupt stereotypes and assumptions, provide the experience of actually being ‘other’, confront us with our own limitations and insecurities, make us appreciate the generosity of strangers, and provide us with unique problems to solve (Barkhuizen & Feryok, 2006; Jiang, Coffey, DeVillar & Bryan, 2008; Sahin, 2008; Walters, Garii & Walters, 2009). However, without preparation, stereotypes and negative images can be reified and colonialist tendencies can be magnified if students focus only on material comparisons with US lifestyles or are not open to legitimate critiques of American culture. The authors believe opportunities to experience another culture directly will enrich future teachers’ practice in important ways, but we also recognize that international opportunities are resource-intensive for both faculty and universities.

South Korea Program: Context

Preservice teachers at Midwestern University can choose to student teach in South Korea during fall or in China during spring semester as part of a cultural exchange program to Asian countries which began in 2005. Since international academic calendars vary, students can also spend several weeks teaching in a US setting. Many student teachers, however, prefer working only in US schools, believing that getting known in a district will increase employment success in competitive times. The exchange program between Midwestern University and a South Korean university was established in fall 2006. The initial contact was made between the Dean of a South Korean School of Education and a South Korean-born faculty member at Midwestern University. Midwestern University’s student teachers worked in Seoul public school classes, sponsored partially by Seoul Ministry Office of Education (SMOE). SMOE provides funds for accommodation, travel and a monthly stipend; the South Korean University provides supervisors and activities for the US student teachers, such as cross-cultural academic club/seminars and traveling to South Korean cultural sites. The US student teachers are expected to teach actual academic subjects rather than conversational English. For most US preservice teachers, this was their first time teaching subject areas in a classroom setting.

The designated Midwestern University faculty supervisor required specific assignments, such as culturally responsive reflections through weekly blogs, culturally relevant lessons plans and classroom management plan, and videos of their teaching for feedback. The faculty supervisor would also meet students for 4-5 weeks prior to departure for seminars to discuss administrative details such as visas, passports, and health insurance as well as teaching expectations.

Since travel and accommodation costs are covered by the South Korean host institution, US students only pay US tuition and fees for student teaching. South Korean students coming to the US also received partial scholarships from the South Korean government to participate in this selective exchange program. Midwestern University provides tuition and fees for visiting South Korean students who must complete a school practicum/internship, plus take two courses to accommodate US Visa requirements. Because the costs are quite high for both institutions, no more than four US students can do the South Korean program.

China Program: Context

Student teaching in China began as a partnership between Midwestern University, a University in Beijing, and a middle school in Fuxin in 2005. Initial contact with the partner-school was made by a university faculty member in Beijing and a Chinese–born faculty at the Midwestern University. The Chinese school administrators were interested in a partnership with a teacher preparation program that could send native speaking English teachers to teach in China. Fuxin offered to employ US student teachers to teach Chinese students about English history, culture, and language integrated across the curriculum. Up to ten US students can participate in the China program. The US student teachers teach approximately 14 classes per week of English to Chinese-speaking students. The students in the China program, which is not an exchange program, receive free housing and meal plan, a small stipend per month, and are responsible for travel and tuition costs and fees. The assignments are very similar to the ones required for the South Korea program, as the faculty supervisors of the programs have been collaborating. In addition, all students have to upload artifacts and submit their final portfolios for evaluation and certification. Both faculty supervisors invite Asian faculty or previous students who did the program as guest speakers in the seminars prior to departure. Initially US faculty supervisors accompanied students for approximately ten days in South Korea/China for the orientation weeks to insure a smooth transition; later this was cut back.

The overarching goals of these two student teaching abroad programs include the following:

1. Expand student teachers’ opportunities for a global perspective in education by immersing themselves in host country’s culture and educational system.
2. Provide opportunities for developing flexibility, problem solving, adapting to unfamiliar cultures.
3. Contribute to global understanding by teaching about US culture, education, and population.
4. Develop lessons, units, and teaching materials appropriate to their teaching situation, as well as the developmental level and learning needs of their culturally and linguistically diverse students (Certification content areas and conversational English)..
5. Reflect on their work and the work of their colleagues as a means of improving practice and communicating ideas about best practice in dialogue with others.

Both programs require students to cover visa, passport, health insurance, and international ID card costs although airfare, housing, and stipends are covered differently for each program. In the South Korea program, student teachers are reimbursed for airfare (up to $1300), housing is covered by the South Korean university, and they also receive a monthly stipend of $200-300 to cover daily expenses. Cultural activities and few meals are provided also by the South Korean university. In the China program, the student teachers have to pay for their plane ticket, but they also receive free housing and cafeteria meal plans, along with a monthly stipend ($200-300). All students in the programs are responsible for the tuition (for 12 credit hours of student teaching), Visa (around $150-180), passport ($100), and student health insurance (approximately $40/month). Daily expenses are lower in China than in South Korea.

The Office of International Affairs and/or the Center for International Studies at the respective institutions administer the programs with a faculty member coordinator. The lead author coordinated the US-South Korea partnership and academic advisors are also provided for the students at the host institution. Besides their teaching experiences in K-12 schools, both US and South Korean preservice teachers participate in social and cultural events in host countries.

The site schools in China and South Korea where the US preservice teachers are assigned are diverse in terms of expectations, teachers’ experiences and curriculum. Some require preservice teachers to attend the school on Saturdays to prepare the lessons for the week or help out the teacher with the material. K-12 students in the host country are at the beginner-intermediate level of English and this created some problems in terms of individualized instruction for large groups (50-60 students in China). None of the host schools have a school-wide management plan but schools have set textbooks and curriculum that US student teachers are required to follow. Grading is usually done by the classroom teacher.

Research Methods

This basic qualitative research study examines the impact of intercultural experiences on US preservice teachers who spent a semester taking classes and working in K-12 schools at their host schools from 2009 to 2011. Our focus was on analyzing shifting perspectives on teaching and learning processes based on abroad experiences as well as documenting broader beliefs about educational systems and global awareness. Some aspects of the data could be considered phenomenological, as we were trying to understand “the essence” of the participants’ lived experiences abroad through focused group interviews and their weekly blogs (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Moustakas, 1994). Our inquiry was to understand the reflected meaning on teaching, learning and pedagogical comparisons by the participants through triangulated data including focus group interviews, blogs, journals and coursework assignments. Additionally, group interviews and blogs were collected from a group of four South Korean preservice teachers in fall semesters of 2010 and 2011; these South Korean preservice teachers took courses and spent time in US urban middle and elementary buildings. We wanted to see if their journey into US school culture followed similar trajectories to the US students who taught in China and South Korea.

The lead author, born and raised in Romania, was the liaison for the South Korea partnership and visited students in Seoul while collecting the data during the two programs in China and South Korea; the second author participated in the US campus focus group interviews and informal meetings and recently taught at universities in both China and South Korea; she also co-directs a doctoral student exchange with a university in Thailand.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data triangulation involved multiple sources of data from each cohort group, including reflective online blogs, assignments on observed cultural issues, e-mail exchanges, and focus group interviews with each group at the end of the intercultural experience in China, South Korea or the US. Researcher memos, notes, and feedback comments also offered insight into students’ ongoing development. To ensure data accuracy, the group interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed by a graduate assistant interested in TESOL research. The goal was to capture perceptions of personal and professional transformation tied to abroad teaching and learning.

The fall 2009 data with two US student teachers in South Korea (one male, one female with no previous international experiences), was collected by the first author and functioned as a pilot study to formulate questions about how abroad experiences shape beliefs and attitudes about teaching/learning processes. The study was then expanded to include (a) US students doing student teaching in China and (b) South Korean participants. The participants in the programs had little to no experience traveling abroad. One male and nine females (including two African-Americans) participated in the South Korea program (2009-2011). Among them, five were elementary education majors, one was an early childhood major, and three were secondary social studies majors.

A total of nine student teachers traveled to China, five females (all White, one born in India) and four males. Among them, 7 were Secondary Studies (English, Spanish), 1 was in Elementary Education, and 1 was in the Early Childhood program. Some of the students who went to China had travelled more extensively but none spoke Chinese or Korean although a few had Spanish, Hindi or Japanese language skills; Table 1 provides a descriptive overview of research participants over three years (2009-2011):

Table 1: Preservice teacher participants in Asian/US intercultural exchange, 2009-2011

As is required at US universities, IRB approval was secured and informed consents signed by participants. The focus group interviews at Midwestern University were conducted at the end of the students’ international program and lasted approximately 90 minutes; they were digitally audio-recorded (for data accuracy) and transcribed. To establish an audit trail, we used member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to solicit feedback from the participants regarding the accuracy of the transcripts and the themes; this is especially important with second language use. The 2010 data included one completed South Korean blog in translation. All other online blogs, written cultural assignments and group interviews were completed by students in English.

Data analysis included open and axial coding of transcribed interviews from focus groups and journals/blogs to identify conceptual categories and emergent themes using elements of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2003; Creswell, 2011; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Narrative analysis elements (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994) were included to capture distinctive voices in more holistic ways. Some key quotes beyond the themes are included to capture the transformational nature of the broader intercultural experience. The interview data and the artifact data (assignments, blogs) were read and re-read by the researchers during the coding process. No formal inter-coder reliability was established but a high level of collaboration resulted in a negotiated set of descriptive codes. We used advanced memos to refine the conceptual themes and reduce data after initial constant comparative coding to capture similarities and differences in perceptions about teaching/learning processes among the various groups.

Findings/Interpretations

Reflection on our findings prompted revisiting the literature to identify how are data aligned with or challenged other research findings (Cushner, 2007; Jiang, Coffey, DeVillar, & Bryan, 2010; Walters, Garii, & Walters, 2009). Overall, both US and South Korean undergraduate program participants articulated that the value and rewards in negotiating intercultural challenges involved in teaching and learning abroad were worth the effort vested. Generative ideas emerged around how they learned about themselves and their own culture, as well as learning about the host culture and different educational systems, which is consistent with Cushner’s (2007) and Walters’ et al. (2009) results. Based on two years of data, we found that US students who do choose student teaching in South Korea or China, report a growth in self-confidence, global awareness and perceived marketability. Since the intercultural programs are selective with limited placement spots in the host countries, such outcomes undoubtedly reflect, in part, this group’s positive motivation and willingness to venture beyond one’s comfort zone. With increasing English language learners (ELLs) in US classrooms, along with an upturn in isolationist anti-immigration rhetoric, we believe that equipping US teachers with a broader view of the world is more critical than ever.

With only four South Korean participants, meaningful international comparisons were limited but the patterns across these data echoed the following perspectives: (1) Personal positive interest in sociocultural understanding of intercultural experiences; (2) Global outreach (with a commitment to bringing excitement of larger world into classrooms); (3) Transformed perspectives on teaching and learning processes, including both critical and affirming assessments of home country’s ways of schooling; (4) Contextual supports and challenges adapting to the target culture and negotiating student teaching/foreign school culture; and, lastly, (5) Personal and professional growth resulting in increased self-efficacy and persistence.

The paper will elaborate each of these five themes with a brief introduction and appropriate quotes from participants to illuminate the concept. Individual profiles were not developed as case studies nor were years listed in order to better protect individual identities since the groups were small for each year and country. The quotes from student include a pseudonym, source and program in parentheses at end.

Personal Positive Interest in Sociocultural Understanding of Intercultural Experiences

Overall, the main motive to student teach abroad was the educational opportunity to learn about a different culture through participation in teaching/learning processes, so participants articulated thankfulness for the experience of being immersed in a foreign culture through exposure to food, traditions, people, and classroom practices:

• The lunches are superb! Delicious, different, a real experience. I am pleasantly surprised every day. I even ate tofu (fried and covered in deliciously sweet sauce) the other day which I NEVER do. I usually hate tofu. But, it was so good! I am still very self- conscious about eating with chopsticks in front of the South Korean teachers. But, one did complement me the other day, so I guess my practicing paid off. (Claire, blog, South Korea)
• Even after a month in China, the “honeymoon” period is still here. Each day I am here, I find myself loving China more and more. I would also say that I am adjusted to the way of life here. Surprisingly, there was not a shock adjustment and, while I am missing my family and friends, there was no feeling of homesick for me. I feel that talking with a variety of people back home before I left prepared me for the different lifestyle here in China. I believe it was that preparation which eliminated any kind of true ‘culture shock’ that so many people feel when getting adjusted to a new environment. (Leonard, blog, China)
• The beginning week of orientation was really great; you felt like the whole country was giving you a hug. Like, everybody was welcoming and open. (Brenda, focus group, South Korea).

Open and inquisitive dispositions are revealed in the quotes above. The student teachers felt welcomed and excited for the experiences ahead although preparing to student teach abroad by getting information, and talking to families and friends at home, also revealed at times mitigated feelings of aloneness and isolation.

Recognizing the global effect of education, the preservice teachers also reported various personal reasons that prompted them to choose the international experience as part of their student teaching, including having a better understanding of a different culture, the opportunity to travel, and a more open disposition to intercultural adventures that they could then share with future students.

I grew up in a really small town in the middle of nowhere with three thousand people and I always wanted to leave, and I always wanted to see the world and luckily, I’ve gotten to do that. I hope that I can show kids, you know, even if I am in the city…some kid that is in the city and has never left St. Louis or some kid in the country who has never left their little town that you can go places. And, like, there is no reason why you can’t go somewhere as far away as South Korea or somewhere as close as Mexico. And there is no excuse not to know, even if you can go somewhere, there’s no excuse not to know more things than we do. (Brenda, Focus Group, South Korea)

Expanding the value for global consciousness is clearly a priority for Brenda. Our experiences supporting intercultural experiences confirms that persons with small town rural backgrounds express more fearfulness about travel abroad than more urban oriented students who may have encountered more diversity in their K-20 classrooms.

Often noted in transcripts and blogs was the incredible Chinese and South Korean hospitality and gift-giving which was overwhelming for the US preservice teachers. Such insights brought new perspectives about what it means to be a warm, caring teacher. Comments reflect a growing appreciation for global consciousness and an open but critical mind:

My life is more enriched having gone to Korea and I honestly believe that exposing my students to Korean culture or exposing them to Indian culture, African culture or South American culture [will make them] happier as people and make your life have more meaning. So, I think… ‘Yeah, the purpose is not just to prepare people for the business world or to help them learn now to interact with people from different cultures. It’s to make them more enriched.’ (Rhonda, Focus Group, South Korea)

For us this concept of ‘enrichment’ echoes the arguments for a liberal arts foundation to higher education. Vocational training is necessary but not sufficient for reaching Maslow’s (1943) notion of self-actualization meaning achieving an integrated self that relates to ‘other’. Learning through travel brings layers of enrichment to who we are and shapes identity and worldview in complex ways. Global outreach reflects this transformation.

Global Outreach (with a Commitment to Bringing Excitement of Larger World into Classrooms)

Although the US preservice teachers found themselves in two Asian cultures that are slowly and recently moving towards implementing student-centered approaches in the classrooms, they quickly learned that, to connect with students, they had to adapt lessons and use students’ prior and present cultural knowledge as part of instruction. Some participants purposefully included student-centered approaches in order to engage students through strategies such as collaborative projects, incorporating technology, using performance-based assessments, student journals, discussions, and games. They also noted the importance of continuous collaboration with the cooperating teacher to understand the ability levels and developmental needs of the students. This self-growth through contextual decision-making practices during “reflection -on and in- action” (Schön, 1987) was significant in some cases:

I began to loosen up in the classroom. For the most part, I have been following my lesson plans, but I have started creating lessons that allow for a great deal of flexibility. Flexibility was a must this week because I experienced a major setback during one class. I was teaching about English language music. It was a fun lesson, but my iPod decided to crash after only one song. I had to think on my feet and improvise a lesson on music without the use of a music player. So, instead of listening to songs, we sang them. I also had students use their hands and feet to pound out some killer beats. We ended up having a lot of fun, and I think we were still able to meet our objectives. Best of all, several students volunteered to sing their favorite English language songs to the class. Earlier in the month, I would not have been comfortable improvising in this way. (Ken, blog, China)

Active, meaningful learning was promoted, especially by those preservice teachers assigned at the elementary level. In some instances, the Asian K-12 students would become the teachers, taking pride in their language and culture:

I had them teach me Korean colors and as they were teaching me how to write in Korean and then how to say the colors, I talked with them about the English equivalent of the words. So it was sort of this shared experience of them teaching me while I was teaching them. And then through their teaching me I think they were also learning. Then, we did some of the food groups and they would draw a picture of the food and then write the word in Korean and how to say it in English. And even the kids in that class who were not going to tutoring and who were not learning English outside of the school were learning a little bit of English through teaching me Korean. (Rhonda, focus group, South Korea)

Experiencing firsthand how “we are all teachers; we are all learners” should carry Rhonda through to making learning playful and mutual in her US classroom as well. Intercultural experiences highlighted a respect for cultural and educational values. Maintaining high expectations, knowing how to implement cultural events and welcome diverse cultural perspectives taught US students in their words “to have a bigger idea of a globalized context,” and to be “welcoming and open”.

Asked to compare educational systems based on their new cultural experiences and conversations with administrators, teachers, students and locals in the host culture, the preservice teachers articulated that they had a better understanding of the complexity of education and a greater respect for the profession:

Teaching in Korea has definitely shown me some of the strengths of the American system and some of the weaknesses. First of all, I greatly appreciate the respect that Korean students give to their teachers. I wish American teachers could work in an environment where they felt that their colleagues and students appreciated what they did every day. Often teachers in America are not well respected by society; it is much different in Korea. I hope that I can try to maintain my self-respect in my position as a teacher in the U.S. regardless of the way others may view me or my job. (Brenda, blog, South Korea)

Being prompted to reflect upon the differences and similarities between the Chinese/Korean and the American educational systems, some preservice teachers depicted practices in the host country that would benefit US students. For example, the focus on physical education with several breaks during the school day was commented upon by Ken and Andrew while in China:

The most important thing I think Americans could learn from the Chinese when it comes to education is the critical importance of physical activity during the school day. At my school, all students must run at least twice a day during scheduled exercise periods. In addition, all students have physical education classes. Most importantly, students are given long lunch and dinner breaks so that they can play sports and hang out with friends. Physical activity allows students to work off some of their energy and helps keep them healthy. (Ken, blog, China)

In one of his blogs, Ken also described some downfalls of the Chinese system because it is “dominated by exams, and students are constantly talking about previous results and upcoming challenges. I sincerely hope the United States is not heading in this direction, but I’m not all that optimistic.” (Ken, Blog, China)

Other preservice teachers in China and South Korea also noticed the intense schedules, the focus on rote memorization, and drill-practices which “hinders creativity and critical thinking” (Andrew, blog, China). These comparing-contrasting statements are normal and sometimes could bring concerns or enlightenments regarding teaching as a profession, while positively affecting the cultural awareness of the participants in these types of programs as noted in other studies (Black & Cutler, 1997; Clement & Outlaw, 2002).

Transformed Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Processes

Due to their newness as classroom teachers, the US preservice teachers were prompted by their cooperating teachers to reflect upon their work and make changes and necessary accommodations during the process of preparing the lessons prior to teaching. Most of them were used to being evaluated during teaching or had to reflect on their teaching afterwards. Realizing how important the preparation process is, Rhonda writes in her blog:

In the past, I’ve been a reactive teacher. Whenever I’ve done lesson plans, I’ve reflected on it afterward. I’ve asked myself what I liked or didn’t like about the lesson, and then worked to fix it for giving it again in the future. This time, instead of being a reactive teacher, I tried to be a prepared teacher. My classroom teacher is soft spoken and perpetually smiling, but it still felt pretty brutal to me to have her look over the lessons and tell me all the changes that I would have to make before it was presentable to be given in a classroom. It was a lot harder to prepare for mistakes than to fix them afterward! Going through the lesson piece by piece to make them more unified with each other, to work on a central theme, to write in more spaces for modeling, and to think of appropriate questions was difficult. However, in the end, my lesson was a lot more fun and engaging to give to the students, and I learned more about how to write lessons from this single unit plan than I have for any lesson I’ve written before. (Rhonda, Blog, South Korea)

The practice of lesson study is more prevalent in Asian schools although interest in this originally Japanese approach to reflective practice for teachers is gaining ground in the US. The level of class preparation is more intense than US practices. Students generally stay in one place and content teachers come in to present a well-crafted 40 minute lesson. Such attention a priori to details of curriculum and pedagogy result in stronger teaching. A lesson Rhonda illustrates in her comment above.

For some, even the process of being observed and evaluated during teaching brought both excitement and anxiety. Additionally, the student teachers in South Korea were asked to videotape themselves while teaching and then self-reflect upon their teaching, identifying the changes they would have made, what worked and what did not work as planned as well as the decision-making processes regarding the adaptations of their curricular goals, strategies and activities to meet the diverse needs of their students.

This week was difficult because I was being evaluated on my performance. I’ve taught lots of lessons in the past, during my student teaching internship, and at an inner-city urban tutoring internship I did for two summers, but I’ve never had someone else watching me, taking notes, and telling me how I could improve my lesson like I did this week. I still make a lot of mistakes in pacing, and closure, and assessment, and asking meaningful questions, and checking for clarity. (Rhonda, blog, South Korea)

The South Korean preservice teachers were also asked to reflect upon the teaching and schooling practices in the US compared to their own educational system. They stated that since the educational systems were so different, they would take away only some specific strategies that could be implemented in a South Korean classroom. Some of the specific classroom practices that were appreciated by the South Korean students were the emphasis on promoting social skills, team-work and student engagement through student-centered activities. However, they also expressed a stronger appreciation for the rigor and orderliness of South Korean classrooms after spending time in US classrooms.

Contextual Supports and Challenges

The student teachers in South Korea found communication was a challenge, in part due to language barriers, administrative issues, and/or cultural differences. For example, a big issue for US preservice teachers was the fact that the school placements were done a week to three weeks after their arrival in South Korea, which made the transition more stressful.

In regards to cultural differences, the students expected smoother communication between them and the host country supervisor. Graduate students from the host institution in South Korea were very helpful in assisting the US students to navigate through the city and have a better understanding of the customs, yet sometimes it was hard to get in contact with the faculty in charge or to explain their needs easily. Towards the end of their student teaching, getting homesick and exhausted, one group was hoping to celebrate Thanksgiving with a traditional US meal. Although the supervisor was very generous and provided an amazing dinner, in the end, the students felt that it took a while to have their voices heard:

I know I was feeling like, ‘I don’t want to be here because you’re mad that we asked for turkey on our holiday and we offered to pay for it and it didn’t have to become this whole big thing.’ And, I mean, I don’t know if that was a petty thing that by the end I was feeling tired and wanted to go home and homesick and stuff but I feel like that was an important thing to us. The whole time we were there I feel like each and every one of us did everything we could to be respectful of all Korean traditions, holidays, food, everything and then it came down to this one meal where it was, like, back and forth, ‘You really want that?’ Like, ‘Yep.’ And we didn’t ask for a lot of these other things that they offered us, so it was kind of like this was the one thing that we really said that would like. (Cynthia, Focus Group, South Korea)

Like many travelers abroad, the students recognized that cultural holidays can be a bit nostalgic and bring to one’s consciousness that you are indeed a ‘stranger in a strange land.” Traditions seem to take on special import as a bond with family and friends far away.

Although not necessarily a major challenge for most, some US students recognized how it feels as a foreigner to be ‘othered’ by locals.

When I first got to Korea I didn’t know what to expect. I never thought about how it felt to be a foreigner until I got here. The first time someone called me a foreigner I was a little surprised. I had to really think because here, I really am a foreigner! I never saw myself so different until I got here. Everyone around me looks the same, and I stand out. Being an American has given me the opportunity to meet and know so many different people, because America is full of different cultures. But being in Korea it is so different; the students are not exposed to different cultures. All of their friends and family look just like them. (Nicole, Blog, South Korea)

For some student teachers, personal space was a challenge in China and South Korea. Living in crowded places or having to take public transportation rather than driving was, at times, overwhelming. Not surprisingly, a few students were very homesick, especially the ones who had not traveled much before. On the other hand, the South Korean preservice teachers in the US were hoping for more interactions with native US students to learn about the culture and practice language skills, so they sought out the opportunity through living in the dorms with local students. To their surprise, the US students did not interact with them much, so they also felt isolated which exacerbated being homesick despite more extensive travel experience.

As we reviewed the comments in the various data sources, the challenges for students became clear. Preparing for the trip, being excited and nervous about it, going through the accommodation and “cultural shock” phase, having to readjust to a different lifestyle and culture, learning the cultural norms and values, especially within the school context, and having to leave behind people, traditions, and places they loved was emotionally difficult for all groups.

Administrative challenges. During the student teaching exchange program in South Korea, the supervisors at the host institutions change every two years which is not ideal for communicating needs and expectations to US preservice teachers. Faculty supervisors in the exchange program were never in direct contact with the cooperating teachers; communication was done through students or the host partner-supervisor. The US preservice teachers in South Korea also had varying schedules depending on the school they were assigned (some would work on weekends; others commuted for an hour to get to school every day). Some schools would offer lunches; other would charge at the end of the trip for lunches consumed (students found this out at the end of their stay). These were just a few administrative challenges.

Likewise, the South Korean exchange students also experienced some administrative challenges upon their arrival in the US as they had to meet with an advisor to choose their courses. They had varying academic needs and interests and did not always get what they needed. Unfortunately, an official faculty advisor was never assigned to the South Korean exchange preservice teachers at Midwestern University which meant that they were not able to process what they were experiencing in US culture/schools through weekly seminars and assignments except during the focus group interviews with the researchers. Once placed in a school, the South Korean students in the US, or the US students in South Korea or China were not given the opportunity to visit other schools, although the group of South Korean preservice teachers did visit an urban language immersion lab school.

The South Korean preservice teachers also expressed frustration that they did not get a chance to teach in US classrooms as they thought they would. US teachers seemed apprehensive about letting them lead a class (despite excellent language skills by most); curriculum goals and time pressures may have contributed to this unwillingness to share instructional time. Field work was reduced to in-class observations or shadowing the cooperating teacher in a public middle school. In order to have some teaching experiences, some South Korean preservice teachers were able to work with small–group instruction or one-on-one tutoring. With the US focus on standardized testing, these bright South Korean students often were bored.

Teaching challenges. For all student teachers, teaching five times a week was a first-time experience, so some dealt with tiredness and exhaustion. Some were surprised by having to teach unexpected subjects or having to focus on particular segments of English language learning, such as writing and speaking. Due to standardized curricula, some preservice teachers in South Korea commented that they did not have the freedom to create their own lessons, although the resources (especially technology-equipped classrooms) were abundant.

In China, some of the schools in the rural area did not have material resources (especially in terms of technology and print materials), so student teachers had to be creative. The roles they felt they were allowed to play in the classrooms varied depending on the school and the cooperating teacher. Some felt they were only an assistant; others felt like a co-teacher with the freedom to select materials and topics, and share in decision-making. US preservice teachers in China and South Korea were not given the chance to practice grading although they had the opportunity to develop formal and informal assessments through curriculum units or daily regular lessons. They mainly gave participation points, but, ultimately, the respective cooperating teachers assigned grades/points:

My failures in record keeping were bad for me as a teacher because it was harder for me to figure out how to individually assist each student because I didn’t know how they compared to one another. And my failures in record keeping were bad because it made it harder for my students to self-assess to see for themselves how well they understood my material. Failure to keep good records also made it harder for me to give feed-back to my students on how they were doing on their assignments. Without feedback from a previous lesson, my students had a frustrating time trying to understand the new material, and a hard time not knowing how well they even understood the material from the week before. (Rhonda, blog, South Korea)

Some students also had the “overwhelming experience” of teaching subjects they did not expect (especially in high school), such as Economics rather than Social Studies. At the high school level, because fewer teaching hours were required than at an elementary level, the student teachers had minimal teaching exposure. As a result, it was challenging to prepare thematic units which required developing and implementing lessons/assessments for at least five topics in a row. Motivating secondary students was a perceived challenge as well, because of fatigue. Besides having teaching responsibilities in the host country, the US preservice teachers had to also prepare lessons and materials, such as cultural assignments, blogs, a certification portfolios, and video lessons with reflections for their US instructor of record. Despite challenges, participants worked hard to expand their repertoire of teaching knowledge and skills even with large classes.

Some US student teachers found it challenging to teach large classes of up to 60 students. As a consequence, US preservice teachers reverted to whole group instruction (lectures) although in classrooms with fewer students, they reported using a combination of whole group instruction and group/pair work. Even when lecturing, the preservice teachers at secondary level, for example, tried to insure that class material was relevant and interactive; this involved using teaching strategies that were ‘foreign’ to their students:

I did a lot of lecturing but every class period I tried to do an activity also. I think in high school with something like social studies and the amount of time we had, I was kind of forced to lecture a lot because you have to get this in in this amount of time but I tried to do an activity every day where they had to interact with a historical document or respond. I had them work in groups a lot. They did pretty well in groups. (Brenda, focus group, South Korea)

Preparing lessons with numerous accommodations for the diverse needs of English language learners were considered time consuming and challenging by Rhonda and many others:

I sat down to write the lessons, thinking it would take me a couple of hours, but it took me much longer as I agonized over every decision, and pondered how to use language that was clear, how to incorporate student creations, how to present the material in multiple ways, and how to use images in my lessons. (Rhonda, Blog, South Korea)

Most student teachers at the Midwestern University had little to no experience in teaching English as a second language (ESL) prior to their student teaching abroad. Their US supervisor developed some seminars on ESL before their departure, but they were still nervous, especially when it came to “differentiating instruction” or “being more creative” (student teachers’ blogs). Some student teachers were disappointed in the few weeks of classroom observations that they had to do before starting their own teaching; the strategies observed were more teacher-centered within what they labeled a ‘rigid’ curriculum. Another intriguing discovery was that in South Korea, the use of media and technology was infused in all the classrooms/levels, sometimes to the detriment of “active learning” according to preservice teachers. Instances of differentiated instruction were rarely seen in the South Korean or Chinese classrooms.

The preservice teachers appreciated the support they received from the South Korean and Chinese cooperative teachers during their student teaching; these individuals provided them with translated materials, access to resources, invited them to eat together and to share cultural experiences. Although the language barriers were more obvious for the US student teachers, they felt that a lot of people were making an effort to practice English, especially those in China.

Differences in intercultural norms and values defined role boundaries in the classroom and impacted the student teachers’ decisions regarding their lessons and teaching strategies:

In one of my English classes, the teacher has every learning activity done as a competition. Students are pitted against each other, to compete for points, and at the end of the class the team with the most points wins. Every week, 80% of the class leaves feeling frustrated and dejected, while 20% of the class smirks and eats the prize candy loudly. Furthermore, the teacher often puts the teams in boys vs. girls, which I feel perpetuates gender differences. I am frustrated a lot by these lessons, because I want to see collaboration instead of competition, and want to do things to foster a sense of community in the classroom. (Rhonda, blog, South Korea)

In comparison, South Korean preservice teachers in US classrooms got to attend administrative meetings, professional development sessions and/or parent-teacher conferences, but the US student teachers could not attend such functions due to language barriers; therefore, communication with parents was minimal. One group was fortunate to attend an international conference on strategies for teaching English as a Foreign Language in South Korea, participants in the conference claimed the experience was beneficial to teaching.

Classroom management. Classroom management was perceived as one of the biggest challenges according to student teachers’ comments and assignments To some student teachers, this challenge in management was a surprise. The source of the management challenges included large class sizes (in China), cultural differences in communication, and behavioral expectations, language barriers that affected the usual classroom routines and communication between teacher-students and student teachers-mentors. The participants also dealt with sleeping students, especially in South Korean school culture. These were some of the factors that made student teachers agree that classroom management was challenging despite respect for teachers in the culture. Observing effective to ineffective classroom management strategies, the preservice teachers agreed that classroom management was a difficult task. While the South Korean preservice teachers had fewer opportunities to actually teach and manage a class, the US preservice teachers had to be aware of cultural norms and values while making decisions in regards to classroom management. For example, one preservice teacher found herself pointing at students rather than calling their names (a hard task for someone with no Korean) and her cooperating teacher told her that the gesture was considered “rude” in South Korean classrooms. The preservice teachers started paying more attention to their own communication style in trying to also be culturally sensitive as they reflected on such moments.

Personal and Professional Growth (Self-efficacy and Persistence)

Emotional preparedness and feelings of efficacy and self-awareness in acclimating to a foreign context seemed important to students, a phenomenon also documented by Jiang et al. (2008). Students revealed curiosity about another culture and educational system but were cautious in asking questions for fear of being perceived as “ugly Americans”. The South Korean students talked positively about refining English language skills, linking this to more professional opportunities at home. They wanted more time with US peers to question and learn.

Moments of self-doubt and existential aloneness were not uncommon, but students asserted that there were limited things host institutions could do to help them weather the inevitable early culture shock – since “it just takes some time to make needed adjustments.” (Focus group, Elena, China). Others admitted that, although they expected some cultural shock or homesickness, they felt it was minimal. Commenting on the experience in China, Richard remarked:

To be quite honest, this hasn’t been an issue for me. I have found that homesickness hits me hardest when the routine seems similar to home. When everything is new, I don’t have a lot of time to think about it. Also, I lived away from my family for six years after high school, so the idea of going away for three months wasn’t a big deal. Plus, our accommodations have been nice, so there is very little to complain about. Our hosts have been fantastic! I have felt at home since getting here. (Richard, blog, China)

All groups of preservice teachers expressed a commitment to continue to learn about diverse cultures, to grow as educators while developing pedagogical knowledge and skills to make cultural accommodations, and to apply these intercultural experiences in everyday practices. Participants had clearly developed a better understanding of why it is important to be a multicultural educator:

I am pleased I had the opportunity to become more culturally aware by working with a different culture, experiencing a different way of living, a different way of thinking about life, the future and education. I believe by the end I became more aware of cultural differences and how to work with them to ensure better lessons and understanding in the classroom. I was also pleased with how much I enjoyed teaching once I finally got down to it. I was surprised how much my attitude changed from anger about teaching Economics and dreading all the classes, to appreciating the students and wanting to do very well for them so they really understood the information. I want that feeling to extend to my future teaching career which will ensure I am putting my all into the lesson plans and activities. I know I have said it before but I am very grateful for this opportunity. (Claire, blog, South Korea)

Feelings of personal and professional growth and security/insecurity were shared by the participants in the study who were inclined and challenged to self-reflect on their intercultural experiences. Many remained connected after coming home: “[S]ince I’ve come back to the United States, I have gotten, like handwritten letters and emails from (pause), even my second graders have emailed me. It was wonderful, it was dreamlike. I cried on the plane ride home” (Rhonda, blog, South Korea).

As they travelled from experiencing how it feels to be a foreigner to understanding and appreciating the benefits of intercultural experiences that go beyond teaching or being an educator, preservice teachers learned to adapt, be open, flexible, creative, tolerant and self-aware throughout what seemed, at times, overwhelming journeys.

A few voices articulated a commitment to creating a caring classroom in which the classroom environment would showcase respect and appreciation for other cultures, emphasizing multicultural, global education. Another trait of growth was recognizing the importance of cultivating “effective and comfortable” student-teacher and teacher-supervisor relationships (Danielle, Focus Group, China). For most of the South Korean preservice teachers, growth came from being able to get “out of their comfort zone,” and “experience the foreign life with people of different cultures and backgrounds” (Amy, focus group, United States). Paige (1993) succinctly summarizes this point:

The process of adapting to a new culture requires learners to be emotionally resilient in responding to the challenges and frustrations of cultural immersion. It also requires sojourners to be capable of utilizing their own culture-learning skills to master appropriate target-culture behaviors and acquire the insider’s knowledge of the culture. Intercultural education, if it is to be effective, must help learners develop these culture-learning skills and enable them to manage emotional responses. It must, therefore, incorporate cognitive, behavioral, and affective forms of learning into its structure. (p.1)

Finding themselves in a new position as “visitors” and “outsiders” with just enough Chinese or Korean to get by, the US preservice teachers realized how difficult it is to be in a strange land. They were clear that their empathy for international students and immigrant families had increased, so they would be more patient with people/students just learning English. “I’ll just never not help somebody ever again that needs help because they can’t speak English well. I’ll do anything to help them” (Brenda, focus group, South Korea).

They also understood that personal and professional growth is developmental and continuous. The student teachers identified areas of perceived strengths as a result of their intercultural teaching experiences, particularly self-efficacy and persistence. Based on the evaluations received throughout their student teaching, they were able to make changes in their teaching, communicate better with their students, colleagues, and cooperating teachers. More specifically, they allowed their students to make mistakes and learn from them. In their journey to becoming reflective practitioners, they used the “reflect-in-and–on-action” cycle advocated by Schön (1987) to improve their practice, be flexible in their teaching strategies based on their cultural context and the needs of the students.

• I just always tried to relate it to something that they [the Chinese students] understood. Like whenever I did holidays I would relate it to Chinese holidays. Or when I did the geography lesson over American cities and, you know, icons or whatever, I would relate to Times Square, for example. (Andrew, focus group, China)
• I was happy with how I was able to problem solve with regard to classroom management. Using techniques and strategies learned in my classes I was able to see firsthand how differentiation works well with diverse students or students culturally different from the teacher. (Claire, blog, South Korea)

For some, this growth from encountering global education in relation to their previous educational experiences was at the forefront of their decision to student teach abroad and embrace an intercultural experience.

There is a move towards multicultural education and integrating cultural differences into the curriculum. International experiences like this help prepare teachers for addressing the growth of globalization and the impact that makes in the classroom. As teachers discuss different religions, cultures, and ethnicities they can draw from their personal experiences to create lessons. Traveling and teaching abroad helps teachers become more dynamic in their teaching. Oftentimes people become settled in their ways and approaches, when exposed to different teaching techniques and cultures, teachers can gain new skills and techniques for the classroom. (Brenda, blog, South Korea)

The preservice teachers made connections about how context matters and how cultures mutually influence one another. These new perspectives helped them celebrate many positive things in their own cultures while also critiquing weaker educational practices.

Meanings and Implications

Reflection on our findings prompted revisiting the literature to identify how are data aligned with or challenged other research findings (Cushner, 2007; Jiang, Coffey, DeVillar, & Bryan, 2010; Walters, Garii, & Walters, 2009). With growing diversity in US classrooms the importance of addressing global issues in local contexts becomes salient for all educators. This research on the experiences of preservice teachers who ventured abroad to learn firsthand about education in another country adds to the literature on the value and impact of intercultural experiences, particularly observations and beliefs about teaching/learning processes and increased global awareness. As the world gets smaller, teachers need to be ready to bring the world into the classroom. Our data documents that well designed international experiences, even with administrative challenges, can provide education students with a strategic way to open new understandings and perspectives on teaching/learning processes in culturally and linguistically diverse settings. Furthermore, intercultural experiences affect preservice teachers’ cultural identities in ways that promote new global competencies and foster contextual supports to extend and strengthen international programs.

Intercultural experiences, more often than not, precipitate fundamental shifts in how we see ourselves and our world. Evidence of the power of even months spent not as just a tourist but as part of a practicing community of educators and students continues to mount. Since we began this research, our College of Education has terminated the South Korean partnership with concerns about subsidies, faculty time and sustaining long-distance partnerships. We continue to look for new efficient and doable ways to sustain opportunities for our students, particularly in education, to experience firsthand the larger global world. The China program abroad is still continuing, with hope that it could be offered both semesters. The US has much to learn from Asian educators who we have found to be highly trained, knowledgeable about their field, and deeply committed to student learning – even monitoring studies into the night and on week-end tours to museums in some cases. The flow of educational information is becoming more bidirectional as US students continue to struggle with performance issues on tests, engagement in class, and a cultural value for excellence in education.

Part of our future vision includes partnering with other universities and colleges locally to create a network of opportunities and partnerships for both preservice and inservice educators to connect with intercultural experiences for varying time spans – from a few weeks to a semester or year or even electronically through technology tools. We hope to model new ways to develop and sustain international relationships since it takes intentional efforts to stay connected over time and space. More higher education faculty engage in international research which is an important step in growing support for funding intercultural opportunities. The voices of preservice teachers in this study confirm the complex and often transformational benefits of intercultural opportunities.

References

Allen, H.W. (2010). What shapes short-term study abroad experiences? A comparative case study of students’ motives and goals. Journal of Studies in International Education 14(1), 452-470.

Alfaro, C. (2008). Global student teaching experiences: Stories bridging cultural and inter-cultural difference. Multicultural Education, 20-26.

Banks, J. & Banks, C. A. (Eds.) (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Barkhuizen, G. & Feryok, A. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of a short-term international experience programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 115-134.

Black, J.S., & Cutler, R.B. (1997). Sister Schools: An Experience in Culture Vision for Preservice Teachers and Elementary Children. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Childhood Education International, April 9-12, Portland, Oregon.

Bridley, R., Quinn, S., & Morton, M. (2009). Consonance and dissonance in a study-abroad program as a catalyst for professional development of pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 525-532.

Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 249-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd Ed). (pp.139-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clement, C., & Outlaw, E.M. (2002). Student teaching abroad: Learning about teaching, culture, and self. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38(4), 180-183.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The multiple meanings of multicultural education: A conceptual framework. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 7-26.

Creswell, J. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Cushner, K. (2007). The role of experience in the making of internationally-minded teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34, 27-39.

Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2002). Overseas student teaching: Affecting personal, professional, and global competencies in an age of globalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6, 44-58.

Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Exploring interculturally competent teaching in social sciences classrooms. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 2(1), 1-18.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Hesse-Biber, S.N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd edition). Los Angeles, CA:Sage.

Jiang, B., Coffey, D., DeVillar, R.A., & Bryan, S. (2010). Student teaching abroad inter-group outcomes: A comparative, country-specific analysis. Journal of International & Global Studies, 2(1), 36-55.

Kizilaslan, I. (2010). International experiences of Turkish student teachers: A multiple case study. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 4, 108-114.

Lien, D. (2007). The role of scholarships in study abroad programs. Education Economics, 15(2), 203-213.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mahon, J., & Cushner, K. (2002). The overseas student teaching experience: Creating optimal culture learning. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(3), 3-6.

Mahon, J., & Cushner, K. (2007).The impact of overseas student teaching on personal and professional development. In K. Cushner and S. Brennan (Eds.) Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence. (pp. 57-87). Lanham: Roweman & Littlefield

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm .

Meryfield, M. (1991). Preparing American secondary social studies teachers to teach with a global perspective: A status report. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 11-20.

Moll, L.C. & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum.Morey, A. I. (2000). Changing higher education curricula for a global and multicultural world. Higher Education in Europe, 25(1), 25-39.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paige, R.M. (2003). The American case: The University of Minnesota. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1) 52-63.

Pence, H., & Macgillivray, I. (2008).The impact of an international field experience on pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 14-25.

Sahin, M. (2008).Cross-cultural experience in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1777-1790.

Salisbury, M.H., Paulsen, M.B., & Pascarella, E.T. (2011). Why do all the study abroad students look alike? Applying an integrated student choice model to explore differences in the factors that influence White and minority students’ intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education: Journal of the Association of Institutional Research, 52 (2), 123-150.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Slapac, A., & Kim, S. (forthcoming, 2014). International faculty and colleagues as resources for preservice and PK-12 teachers: Building global awareness and cultural responsiveness. Kappa Delta Pi Record.

Walters, L.M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning globally, teaching locally: incorporating international exchange and intercultural learning into preservice training. Intercultural Education 20 (S1-2), S151-158.

Willard-Holt, C. (2001). The impact of a short-term international experience for pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 505-517.

Yagci, E., Ekinci, E., Burgaz, B., Kelecioglu, H., & Ergene, T. (2007).The satisfaction level of Hacettepe University outgoing Erasmus students. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 229-239.

Dr. Alina Slapac is an Assistant Professor at the University of Missouri – St. Louis, USA, and an International Studies Fellow, and Counselor of Kappa Delta Pi International Honor Society in Education. Dr. Slapac received her Bachelors (Romanian-English as a Foreign Language) degree from Ovidius University, Constanta, Romania, Masters (British Cultural Studies) degree from the University of Foreign Languages, Bucharest, Romania, and doctorate (Curriculum and Instruction) degree from the University of Northern Iowa. At UMSL, Dr. Slapac is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Early Childhood, Elementary, TESOL, and Special Education (ECETS).

Dr. Virginia Navarro is an Associate Professor in the Department of Teaching & Learning at the University of Missouri – St. Loius. Dr. Navarro received her Ph.D. in educational psychology from Washington University in St. Louis in 1994. A former high school English and journalism teacher in both public and private schools, Dr. Navarro came to St. Louis from Chicago to complete a Masters in Teaching (in English) at Washington University and decided to put down roots in St. Louis raising four children with her husband of 42 years.

This article was accepted for publication after a double-blind peer review process. Receiving Editor: Patrick Blessinger, St. John’s University, Queens, New York, USA.

Suggested Citation

Slapac, A., & Navarro, V., (2013). Fledgling Steps to Global Self-Awareness for Preservice Teachers Abroad. The Journal of Meaning-Centered Education. Volume 1, Article 3, http://www.meaningcentered.org/journal/volume-01/fledgling-steps-to-global-self-awareness-for-preservice-teachers-abroad

Copyright © [2013] Institute for Meaning-Centered Education (IMCE), Alina Slapac and Virginia Navarro

The author(s) assert their right to be named as the sole author(s) of this article and the right to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third-party rights including copyright. The author(s) retain their intellectual property rights related to the article. The author(s) grants a non-exclusive license to IMCE to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the Journal of Meaning-Centered Education. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s) and IMCE.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position(s) of other professionals or any institution.

Definition

Personality self-development is an integrative process within the dynamics of a human being’s evolvement; its core and nucleus, which is characterized by personal agency to continuously enrich one’s subjective experience, values and motives, in accordance with self-conception, one’s own life strategy, and in harmony with her/his social environment.

Personality self-development is a social and personal phenomenon, and can be defined as:

• a socially valuable and personally meaningful process;
• a unity of antinomies: spiritual and practical, dynamic and steady, implicit (internal decision to self-develop) and explicit ( motivation to influence the world and to actively engage in reaching the result), creative and routine, discrete and continuing, autonomous and pedagogically supported.

Background

The role of the individual in her/his own development has been advocated strongly throughout the history of public thinking. The idea of man as author of her/himself is rooted in philosophy. Socrates considered the human capability to self-improve as a major motivation of human nature. Immanuel Kant spoke of personality as an ever changing and “flowing” substance that produces changes in self as a result of her/his own choice and efforts. Berdyaev held that “man is a creature who is always trying to overcome her/his limits…. by self-developing”. Self-development is often viewed as a way to locate personal existentiality and freedom (Heidegger, 1962; Bakhtin, 1990).

Personality self-development can also be viewed in the context of the human developmental process, in general, which includes multidimensional (physical, intellectual, moral, aesthetic) vectors of human development. According to various concepts of human development vectors of “movement” to self-improvement can be: biological (genotype pre-determined), social (“formation” of an individual within societal norms, rules and expectations), and subjective volition.

A holistic concept of human development entails dynamic interplay of all these factors, with the third one – self-constructing volition – as dominant. Volition itself is not a born trait; it grows within the individual as agency to perfect self in harmony with the world, and aims at reaching the fullness of one’s own life.

Components

To become a personality is to take full responsibility for self-creation. “Personality is the task of a human being her/himself” (N. Berdyaev, 1999). As such, personality self-development can be viewed as the process of becoming the author of one’s own life, which entails:

• self-assessment of one’s own possibilities to improve according to personal meanings and goals
• self-defining ways to improve
• assessment of social environmental conditions and adjusting the interrelationships between self and the social environment
• self-monitoring and self-correcting of the process of personal growth
• self-regulation and self-control.

Personality self-development is a human activity and, as such, can be characterized by internal and external substances, which represent a dialectical unity (L. Kulikova, 2005).

The internal substance of self-development comprises conscious effort: to search for personal meanings and interpretations of resonances with the world, to self-reflect and transform and re-transform personal values, to define and re-define personal tasks for self-creation and co-creation of the world, in collaboration with other people.

The internal substance of personality self-development is a process of accumulating fluctuations and transformations, which a growing personality produces consciously and situationally. It is important for the individual to recognize these fluctuations within her/himself and to constantly exert effort to strengthen them.

Internal activity represents a locus of internal self-control and meaningful self-regulation. This activity is spiritual by nature (“spiritual” here is the notion of self-regulation; the internal human core of personality which allows the individual to act beyond the threshold of social necessity (O. Kovbasyuk, 2009).

The external substance of self-development is represented by behavior, decision making, “probing” self in various activities, communication, interaction, and applying personal experience in life, thus creating one’s own life world.

Personality self-development is the internal work of an individual applied to her/his practical activity. This work is implicit, insightful and never demonstrable, as the idea to self-develop is personal and self-conscious.

However, personality is an open system, and external conditions are critical for personality development because personal capability to accept external conditions as well as to adjust to them and apply them selectively is the basis of self-transformation.

In other words, personality turns the internal vector of development into the external one, and then selectively introduces external factors into the structure of conscious self-regulation. This counter-alternating movement of interiorization and exteriorization of social effects characterizes personality as an open and alive system, and self-development as self-enrichment and self-transformation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). To the Philosophy of Action. M: Nauka.

Berdyaev, N.A. (1999). Man, his freedom and spirituality. M: Flinta.

Bibler. B (1991). From Epistemology to the Logic of Culture. M: Nauka.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. NJ: Harper and Row Publishers.

Kant, I. (1993). Criticism of Pure Mind. SPb: Nauka.

Kovbasyuk, O. (2009). Theoretical Foundations of a Meaningful Approach to Raising a Personality. Siberia Pedagogical Journal. Novosibirsk: NSPU.

Kulikova, L. N (2005). Self-Development of a Personality: Psycho-Pedagogical Foundations. Khabarovsk: KhGPU.

Editors

This encyclopedic entry was edited by Peter C Taylor.

Citation

Kovbasyuk, O. (2013). Personality Self-Development. The Encyclopedia of Meaning-Centered Education. http://www.meaningcentered.org/encyclopedia/personality-self-development

Copyright

Copyright © [2013] Institute for Meaning-Centered Education (IMCE) and Olga Kovbasyuk.

The author(s) assert their right to be named as the sole author(s) of this article and the right to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third-party rights including copyright. The author(s) retain their intellectual property rights related to the article. The author(s) grants a non-exclusive license to IMCE to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the Encyclopedia of Meaning-Centered Education. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s) and IMCE.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position(s) of other professionals or any institution.

Peter C. Taylor

Science and Mathematics Education Centre (SMEC), Curtin University, Australia

Email: P.Taylor@curtin.edu.au

Milton Norman D. Medina

Research and Development Center Office, Assumption College of Nabunturan, Philippines

Email: milton_sept19@yahoo.com

Abstract

In this paper we provide an overview of the characteristics of major educational research paradigms shaping contemporary educational research, ranging from the traditional positivist perspective to the latest multi-paradigmatic worldview. Our purpose is to orient students, faculty and beginning researchers to the newer paradigms that enable researchers to undertake uniquely powerful and insightful inquiries that contribute to transforming the landscape of education.

Keywords:  postgraduate research, new paradigms, teacher education, transformation, metaphor

Introduction

For decades during the late 20^th century, ‘paradigm wars’ raged amongst supporters arguing fiercely for the superiority of their chosen paradigm. Over time, this gave way to a ‘paradigm dialogue’ in which supporters came to accept their differences and realised that every research paradigm is of equal importance. No research paradigm is superior, but each has a specific purpose in providing a distinct means of producing unique knowledge. Thanks to the newer paradigms, educational researchers (including teacher-researchers) are providing empirical and theoretical evidence of ways in which traditional curriculum and assessment policies unduly constrain teaching and learning, and research practices in schools, colleges and universities. And, importantly, these researchers are being empowered to envisage new policies and practices that better meet the emerging educational needs of their rapidly globalising societies.

The term paradigm needs clarification. Willis (2007) explains that: “A paradigm is thus a comprehensive belief system, world view, or framework that guides research and practice in a field” (p.8). From a philosophical perspective, a paradigm comprises a view of the nature of reality (i.e., ontology) – whether it is external or internal to the knower; a related view of the type of knowledge that can be generated and standards for justifying it (i.e., epistemology); and a disciplined approach to generating that knowledge (i.e., methodology). For educational researchers, there are several major paradigms that govern their inquiries into the policies and practices of education. Each paradigm carries related theories of teaching and learning (or pedagogy), curriculum and assessment, professional development, etc.

TRADITIONAL PARADIGMS 

We will not spend much time on these tried and trusted paradigms, as there is a plethora of social science research methods textbooks that serve this purpose. The outlines provided here serve simply as a basis of comparison with the newer paradigms addressed later in the paper.

Positivist Paradigm

We start with positivism, a research paradigm that is very well known and well established in universities worldwide. This ‘scientific’ research paradigm strives to investigate, confirm and predict law-like patterns of behaviour, and is commonly used in graduate research to test theories or hypotheses. This is particularly useful in natural science, physical science and, to some extent, in the social sciences, especially where very large sample sizes are involved. Generally its focus is on the objectivity of the research process (Creswell, 2008). The positivist paradigm mostly involves quantitative methodology, utilizing experimental methods involving experimental (or treatment) and control groups and administration of pre- and post-tests to measure gain scores. Here, the researcher is external to the research site and is the controller of the research process.

An example of research in this paradigm is the second author’s undergraduate biology research at Central Mindanao University, Philippines, entitled “Anti-diarrheal activity of M. Pudica leaf extract on white mice induced with E. coli pathogen”. This experimental research utilized an experimental group and a control group.  The experimental group was given a treatment (leaf extracts) while the control was left untreated. The ontology of this research was realism, the epistemology was objectivism, and a quantitative methodology governed the research process. The quality standards were validity and reliability, and the data were measured and analysed using statistics.

Post-Positivist Paradigm

Post-positivism, as Willis (2007) describes it is a “milder form of positivism “that follows the same principles but allows more interaction between the researcher and his/her research participants. It uses additional methods such as survey research and qualitative methods such as interviewing and participant-observation (Creswell, 2008). This paradigm is the modified scientific method for the social sciences. It aims to produce objective and generalizable knowledge about social patterns, seeking to affirm the presence of universal properties/laws in relationships amongst pre-defined variables. This epistemology is manifested by quasi-experimental research designs that utilize treatment, outcome measures and experimental units, but do not use random assignment to create comparison from which treatment caused change is inferred. It is very similar to the positivist approach of comparing mean scores but depends on non-equivalent groups that differ from each other in many ways other than the presence of the treatment whose effects are being tested (Depoy & Gitlin, 1998). The quality standards of this paradigm are objectivity, validity and reliability, which can be modified with the use of triangulation of data, methods and theories.

An exemplar is the second author’s graduate research at the University of Southeastern Philippines, entitled ‘The effectiveness of conceptual approach of teaching on the scores of students in a biotechnology achievement test’. Two groups were established, the experimental group was given a conceptual teaching approach and the control group was taught with the traditional board-talk method. To test the achievement of the students, a teacher-made test was designed and subjected to content and construct validity analysis. The two groups were tested and the data were analysed using statistics. Most often, graduate research in the Philippines is designed in this way.

RELATIVELY NEW PARADIGMS

The Interpretive Paradigm

This humanistic paradigm arrived in educational research during the late 1970s, influenced strongly by anthropology which aims to understand other cultures, from the inside. That is, to understand the culturally different ’other’ by learning to ‘stand in their shoes’, ‘look through their eyes’ and ‘feel their pleasure or pain’. Thus the epistemology of this paradigm is inter-subjective knowledge construction. Interpretive knowledge of the other is produced through a prolonged process of interaction undertaken by ethnographers who immerse themselves within the culture they are studying. Using ethnographic methods of informal interviewing, participant observation and establishing ethically sound relationships, interpretive researchers construct trustworthy and authentic accounts of the cultural other. Applied to educational research, this paradigm enables researchers to build rich local understandings of the life-world experiences of teachers and students and of the cultures of classrooms, schools and the communities they serve.

The quality standards that regulate interpretive knowledge construction are varied, but arguably the most well-known and coherent are those of Guba and Lincoln (1989) who developed standards of trustworthiness and authenticity that are distinctly different but ‘parallel to’ the validity, reliability and objectivity standards of positivism. The trustworthiness criteria include: credibility (did the researcher undertake prolonged immersion in the field, check his/her interpretations with his/her informants, and display a process of learning?), dependability (did the researcher engage in open-ended or emergent inquiry?), transferability (is there sufficient rich description for the reader to compare his/her own social context with the social setting of the research?), and confirmability (can the research data be tracked to their source?).

The authenticity criteria focus on the ethics of the relationship established by the researcher with his/her participants and include: fairness (are the informants represented fairly?), educative (did the participants benefit by learning about their social world?), catalytic (did the participants benefit by identifying problems associated with their social world?), and tactical (did the research empower the participants to improve their social situation?) (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Josselson, 2007). The authenticity criteria have a strong resonance with the standards of the critical paradigm outlined below.

Recent developments in the interpretive paradigm have highlighted the importance of the researcher’s own subjectivity in the (hermeneutic) process of interpretation, and have emphasised its progressive development as a key part of the inquiry process, thereby adding to the emergent and reflective quality of interpretive research. Thus the interpretive researcher would constantly ask him/herself: What is the influence of my own (past and present) values and beliefs in interpreting the thoughts and feelings of the other? What hidden assumptions are constraining (distorting) the way I make sense of the other? Interpretive research methods include’ narrative inquiry’ and ‘writing as inquiry’, especially autobiographic and auto-ethnographic methods (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Clandinin & Connolly, 1998; Richardson, 2000; Taylor & Settelmaier, 2003).

Applied to education, interpretive inquiry engages teachers as reflective practitioners in developing enhanced understanding of the life-worlds of their students by constantly asking questions such as: Who are these students who sit before me? Who is the self that teaches? (Palmer, 1998). A deeper understanding involves a broader focus on the social, political, historic and economic forces shaping the pedagogies, curriculum policies and schooling system in which teachers are immersed. Such an interpretive orientation is essential for teachers wishing to adopt more student-centred pedagogies such as constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Rigorous standards have been developed for regulating the quality of reflective interpretive inquiry (or ‘self-study’) (e.g., Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001).

The Critical Paradigm

To resolve the global crises we are facing today we need to produce graduates capable not only of conducting scientific research reasoned out through objective quantitative strategies or engaging in interpretive research that deepens mutual understanding. The added challenge for educational research is to empower our students and colleagues to become imaginative and critical thinkers capable of addressing the question: ‘Whose interests are not being (and should be) served by particular social policies and practices?’The critical research paradigm addresses this issue by enabling the researcher to practice ‘deep democracy’ (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000) which involves identifying and transforming socially unjust social structures, policies, beliefs and practices. Its primary purpose is to identify, contest and help resolve ‘gross power imbalances’ in society which fuel ethically questionable profit-making activities that contribute to systemic inequalities and injustices such as social and economic exclusion of some sectors of society, loss of cultural capital and cultural identity amongst ethnic minorities, and anthropocentric climate change and loss of biodiversity.

In this type of research, the process of writing as inquiry (shared with the interpretive paradigm) has an added critical dimension and becomes a means of critical analysis and ideology critique of established policy and practice. The researcher raises his/her own critical consciousness (Brookfield, 2000) and constructs a moral vision of a better society. This can be done individually or, better still, in collaboration with less empowered others participating in ‘critical action research’ led by the researcher in the role of facilitator. The researcher’s role is one of advocacy, a change agent who argues for and leads the way towards a more equitable, fair and sustainable society. The work of Jose Rizal (the national hero of the Philippines) and Patrick Awuah (founder of Ashesi University, Ghana) are good examples of this type of transformative leadership.

Applied to education, critical inquiry focuses first on raising the conscious awareness of teachers about established values and beliefs that underpin their seemingly natural teacher-centred classroom roles (Taylor, 2008). Once this process is underway, critical theory is introduced (e.g., critical pedagogy, cultural inclusiveness, social justice) that stimulates teachers’ creative thinking about designing curricula and assessment that are more student-centred, inquiry oriented, culturally sensitive, community-oriented, socially responsible, etc.

The rigor of this type of research is evaluated in terms of quality standards that are very different from those of the positivist paradigm but which are congruent with the standards of the interpretive paradigm. It is important that the researcher demonstrates critical self-awareness and critical understanding of the complexity of social issues. But critique alone is not enough to nourish the soul, and so it is important for the critical researcher to develop a vision of a better way of teaching and learning, and research practices, a vision based explicitly on moral principles that support the ‘shoulds/oughts’ of a transformed professional practice.

And in order to avoid criticism of being an armchair academic or utopian, the critical researcher is well advised to take direct action, to ‘make a difference’, by enacting his/her ideals in a principled endeavour to transform the culture of his/her classroom community through, for example, critical action research. This involves evaluating the impact of one’s transformative teaching on student learning and, ideally, leads to the teacher-researcher’s evolving praxis. Critical researchers also choose to write in a way that is designed to elicit critical awareness and critical understanding in their readers, thereby writing for pedagogical thoughtfulness (Manen, 1990).

Various literary styles of writing are available to critical and interpretive writers to enable them to impact their readership, and this is taken up in the postmodern paradigm below.

The Postmodern Paradigm

This relatively new and challenging paradigm opens many new and exciting doors for educational researchers as it brings to our attention the very important concept of ‘representation’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) which holds that what goes on in our minds and hearts is not directly accessible to the world outside us. There is no window in our heads that allows another person to look directly into our minds and see ‘exactly what we mean’; the best we can do is ‘represent’ our thoughts and feelings through various means of communication (e.g., language, art, dance, gesture).

Equally for scientists, there is no window into nature that directly reveals nature’s secrets; all scientific observations are ‘theory laden’ whether conducted using the human eye or technological extensions such as radio telescopes, electron microscopes, cloud chambers, x-ray crystallography, gamma spectroscopy, etc. Thus scientific knowledge is at best a model of the ‘unseeable’ and its viability (or usefulness) is tested against the human purposes that shape its production. Scientific knowledge remains forever contingent and open to challenge; and in that way it continues to evolve, sometimes making radical departures that overturn established models. Such is the case with our scientific knowledge of the cosmos and the sub-atomic universe (Dosch & Muller, 2010).

media.beta.photobucket.com

onlyhdwallpapers.com

When educational research is under the governance of the positivist paradigm the scientific form of representation prevails: research reports are written objectively using the passive voice, past tense and third-person gender neutral pronoun (‘it’). However, with the advent of newer paradigms, alternative means of representation are available to us. The interpretive paradigm requires that our personal perspectives, along with those of our research participants, are ‘given voice’. Writing narratively (1^st person voice) about our unfolding experiences enables us to provide deep insight into the inquiry process and outcomes, demonstrating how we have constructed meaning (or interpreted)  and providing rich detail of the context within which it occurred (thereby fulfilling important quality standards of the interpretive paradigm).

Bruce Cowden: cmarz.org/CMarZ_RHBrown_April06/images/animal_photos/cmarzgallery_animals.html

And for those who are drawn to the critical paradigm, a major goal of the ‘researcher as activist’ is to empower self and others by enabling ‘critical voices’ to be heard; voices of protest that point to personal experiences of oppression and the need for changes to policies and practices to ensure equity, fairness and social justice. Interpretive and critical researchers draw from the full range of pronouns (I, you, she, he, it, they), active and passive voice, and multiple tenses (past, present, future), depending on the (unfolding) purpose of their inquiries. The choice can be overwhelming for the novice researcher and quite confronting for ‘elders of the tribe’ still steeped in the positivist paradigm.

White Fish haiku by Ikumi Yoshimura: simplyhaiku.com/SHv7n4/reviews/Yohimura.html

But more so, in celebrating pluralism and difference, the postmodern paradigm opens the door to other disciplines such as The Arts. In recent years Arts-based educational research has flourished, making available many new forms of representation such as: (i) literary genres of impressionist writing, autobiographical writing, storying, poetry, ethno-drama, screenplay and fiction, and (ii) visual imagery such as film, painting, sketching, dance and photography (Knowles, & Cole, 2008; Prendergast, Leggo, & Sameshima, 2009).

timtim.com

Another important contribution of the Arts to educational research is the availability of alternative modes of reasoning. The positivist paradigm privileges a particular form of reasoning – propositional, deductive and analytic logic – which serves well the purpose of reasoning objectively. However, interpretive and critical inquiries, with their emphasis on representing the progressive development of the researcher’s professional practice, require alternative modes of reasoning such as metaphorical thinking, dialectical thinking, inductive thinking, mytho-poetic thinking and reflective thinking (e.g., Taylor, Taylor, & Luitel, 2011).

by Sarah Mitchell: cetartauction.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/sarah-mitchell.html

depositphotos.com

Arts-based educational research offers new quality standards for regulating our educational research inquiries. For example, if we write up our research using a literary genre (e.g., narrative, story or poetry) for the purpose of engaging our readers in critical reflective thinking about their own professional practice then the critical paradigm quality standard of pedagogical thoughtfulness is relevant (Manen, 1990). The literary quality of our writing that serves this purpose needs to have resonance with the experiences of the reader. In other words, we aim to write in a way that seems to the reader to be realistic, plausible or believable. The quality standard of verisimilitude is relevant to this purpose (Barone, 2001). Arts-based research provides many more quality standards for shaping the educative and literary quality of our research writing, thereby enriching the work of interpretive and critical researchers. They direct us to question our writing: Is the story engaging (dramatic, fun, odd)? Does the reader gain emotional appreciation such as empathic appreciation? Does the writing make the topic more complex (subtle, nuanced, deeper)?

Multi-Paradigmatic Research

Aliexpress.com

Rather than standing alone as individual paradigms for framing the design of a researcher’s inquiry, as does the positivist paradigm, the newer paradigms can serve as ‘referents’. In other words, we can design our research by combining methods and quality standards drawn from two or more of the newer paradigms. It is not uncommon for a research study to combine methods and standards from the interpretive and critical paradigms to create a ‘critical auto/ethnography’. And when new literary genres, modes of thinking and quality standards are added from Arts-based research such multi-paradigmatic studies become very powerful means of transformative professional development (Taylor, Taylor, & Luitel, 2011).

One of the second author’s co-scholars at SMEC, Curtin University, Berhana Ignacio, conducted a multi-paradigmatic research for her Masters project. Drawing on the interpretive and critical paradigms and using literary genres (poetry, storying), she examined her real-life experiences as a learner, practising teacher and teacher educator. In particular, she excavated and reflected critically on her past experiences of and beliefs towards constructivist teaching. She narrated and storied aspects of her pre-service and in-service teaching experiences and her more recent experiences as a pre-service mentor and Masters student. Theorising about culturally inclusive teaching fuelled Berhana’s vision of her future science curriculum, one that includes the indigenous knowledge of students from the local community.

As my writing evolved I came to understand that culture plays a vital role in promoting a constructivist informed curriculum and classroom practices. With this, I envisage a classroom where my students use their local knowledge (non-Western), such as their culture, beliefs, traditions, in concert with global (Western) knowledge in understanding the environment and in making sense of the world around them (Brickhouse & Kittleson, 2006). However, it will also be a classroom where students are made to realise though science and science education can bring prosperity, it can also bring annihilation depending on whose interest is being served (Beane, 1995). I believe that such type of classroom might help develop responsible decision makers and students who will see science as a means of understanding the inclusivity of both knowledge systems in attaining better lives on earth (Jardine, 1998).

(Ignacio, 2009, p. 74)

Multi-paradigmatic doctoral research studies have been supervised by the first author. These inquiries, which include compelling literary genres (semi-fictive stories, poems, ethno-dramas, screenplays), vivid visual imagery and alternatives modes of thinking, have been conducted by university-based science and mathematics teacher educators in Mozambique (Nhalivelo, 2008; Cupane, 2008) and Nepal (Luitel, 2009). Similar to Berhana’s research, these intercultural researchers explored their culturally situated autobiographies as students, teachers and teacher educators. Having developed powerful critical theoretic perspectives, they deconstructed oppressive cultural myths governing the educational policies and practices of their (post-colonial) countries. As significant research outcomes, they developed philosophies of culture-sensitive curricula for preparing new science and mathematics teachers to take their respective countries forward into a culturally inclusive globalising world (Afonso & Taylor, 2009; Cupane, 2011; Luitel & Taylor, 2009; Taylor, 2010).

Closing

This has been a necessarily brief summary of the huge and rapidly evolving field of educational research, and much has been omitted, not the least of which is an account of the ‘mixed methods’ approaches employed by post-positivists who bring qualitative methods into their predominantly objectivist research. Also missing is an account of the new ‘integral paradigm’ that provides a rationale for drawing upon multiple paradigms to design new hybrid methodologies that involve multiple epistemologies and their accompanying quality standards. For more on this see Taylor, Taylor and Luitel (2011).

Returning to our purpose in writing this paper, we join Paul and Marfo (2001) in calling for graduate research programs to provide diverse philosophies of research and knowledge production. In making our education systems more ethically responsive to the urgent challenges of globalization – designing sustainable development, countering climate change, preventing ongoing loss of biocultural diversity – we cannot afford to simply look to the past for ‘know-how’. Educators can learn from new developments in interdisciplinary collaboration (Linger, 2011) that bring together the Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences and Engineering in creative endeavours amongst discipline experts, policy makers and the public to engage in new forms of interdisciplinary knowledge production aimed at resolving real-world practical problems. For example, Robert Frodeman (2008) explains how philosophers and environmental scientists have joined forces to create the new interdisciplinary field of ‘environmental philosophy’ that is enabling local communities to resolve the complex problem of sustainable development, with its competing economic, environmental and socio-cultural interests. We need education systems that actively prepare young people with the social and cognitive skills to engage critically and imaginatively in ethical decision-making about complex issues facing their societies. By drawing on multiple paradigms educational researchers can make a major contribution to aligning curricula, teacher education, and classroom teaching and learning practices with the complex and challenging needs of the 21^st century. No country can afford not to take seriously the pressing need to produce educational researchers capable of using the powerful new interdisciplinary tools offered by the new research paradigms.

References

Afonso, E., & Taylor, P. C. (2009). Critical autoethnographic inquiry for culture-sensitive professional development. Reflective Practice, 10, 273-283.

Barone, T. (2001). Science, art, and the representations of educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 30(7), 24-28.

Brookfield, S. (2000). The concept of critical reflective practice. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 33-49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13-21.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1998). Stories to live by: Narrative understandings of school reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 28, 149-164.

Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3^rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Cupane, A. F. (2011). Towards an understanding of the role of language in the science classroom and its association with cultural identity development in the context of Mozambique.Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2), 435-440.

Cupane, A. (2008). Towards a culture-sensitive pedagogy of physics teacher education in Mozambique. (Doctoral thesis). Curtin University, Bentley, W.A.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). SAGE Handbook of qualitative research (3^rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dosch, H. G., & Muller, V. F. (2010). The facets of relativistic quantum field theory. The European Physical Journal H, 35, 331-375.

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2^nd ed., 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Ignacio, B. T. (2009). A teacher’s belief of constructivist teaching and learning practices and its impact in a primary science classroom: An autoethnographic inquiry. (Masters project report).  Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University, Bentley, W.A.

Josselson, R. (2007). The ethical attitude in narrative research. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2^nd ed., pp. 279-313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of arts in qualitative research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Luitel, B. C. (2009). Culture, worldview and transformative philosophy of mathematics teacher education in Nepal: A cultural-philosophical inquiry. (Doctoral thesis). Curtin University, Bentley, W. A.

Luitel, B. C., & Taylor, P. C. (2009). De-frosting and re-frosting the ideology of pure mathematics: An infusion of Eastern-Western perspectives on conceptualising a socially just mathematics education. In P. Ernest, B. Greer & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics education (pp. 125-152). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Nhalivelo, E. A. (2010). Endless journey: An autoethnographic search for culturally inclusive philosophy of science teacher education in Mozambique.Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.

Paul, J. L., & Marfo, K. (2001). Preparation of educational researchers in philosophical foundations of inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 71, 525-547.

Palmer, P. L. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Prendergast, M., Leggo, C., & Sameshima, P. (Eds.) (2009). Poetic inquiry: Vibrant voices in the social sciences. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2^nd ed., pp. 923-948 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, P. C. (2010). Transformative educational research for culturally inclusive teaching. Keynote address delivered at the 7^th International Conference on Intercultural Competence, Khabarovsk, Far East Russia.

Taylor, P. C. (2008). Multi-paradigmatic research design spaces for cultural studies researchers embodying postcolonial theorising. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 4(3), 881-889.

Taylor, P. C., & Settelmaier, E. (2003). Critical autobiographical research for science educators. Journal of Science Education Japan, 27, 233-244.

Taylor, P. C., Taylor, E., & Luitel, B. C. (2012). Multi-paradigmatic transformative research as/for teacher education: An integral perspective. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin  & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 373-387). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Manen, M. V. (1990). Researching lived experience. London, ON: State University of New York Press.

Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

About the Authors

Dr. Peter Charles Taylor is an Associate Professor of Transformative Education at the Science and Mathematics Education Centre (SMEC), Curtin University, Western Australia. His research focuses on the contextualization of science and mathematics education with/in postcolonial societies, especially culture-sensitive ways in harnessing global forces of modernisation. This research as/for professional development of teachers and teacher educators involves excavating personal education histories and alternative knowledge systems, examining critically the legacy of (neo) colonial education policies and practices, envisioning transformative curricular possibilities for creating Third Space Classrooms. Of particular research interest are auto/ethnography, literary genres of narrative, fictive and impressionistic writing, nondual logics such dialectics and poetics, and agentic standards of critical reflexivity and pedagogical thoughtfulness. Dr. Taylor draws on a wide range of theoretical referents, including critical constructivism, reconceptualist curriculum theory, research as reflective/imaginative praxis, the cultural/linguistic natures of science and mathematics and postcolonial theorising.

Milton Norman Dejadena Medina is an Assistant Professor and Research Coordinator of Assumption College of Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province. He holds a bachelors degree in biology from Central Mindanao University, and a masters degree in science teaching major in biology from the University of Southeastern Philippines. He finished his masters degree in science education from the Science and Mathematics Education Centre (SMEC), Curtin University, Western Australia. His research interests are biodiversity research and conservation, and lately on transformative education research.

This article was accepted for publication after a double-blind peer review process. Receiving Editor: Dr. Elisa Garzitto-Michals, California State University, Sacramento, USA.

Suggested Citation

Taylor, P. C., &  Medina, M. N. D.  (2013). Educational Research Paradigms: From Positivism to Multiparadigmatic. The Journal of Meaning-Centered Education. Volume 1, Article 2, http://www.meaningcentered.org/journal/volume-01/educational-research-paradigms-from-positivism-to-multiparadigmatic

Copyright © [2013] Institute for Meaning-Centered Education (IMCE), Peter C. Taylor and Milton Norman D. Medina.

The author(s) assert their right to be named as the sole author(s) of this article and the right to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third-party rights including copyright. The author(s) retain their intellectual property rights related to the article. The author(s) grants a non-exclusive license to IMCE to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the Journal of Meaning-Centered Education. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s) and IMCE.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position(s) of other professionals or any institution.

Definition

Meaning-Centered Education (MCE) is an educational philosophy that places meaning making at the center of the teaching-learning process. As a philosophy, MCE is a justified set of suppositions that provides a consistent and unified view of the inner world of the individual and his/her external world and the relationship between the two worlds. MCE views learning as the integration of knowing, acting and being in the world and MCE aims to develop appropriate and meaningful ways of being across a wide range of disciplinary practices and human activities. In short, MCE involves integrating the epistemology of learning (what students are expected to know) with the ontology of learning (what students desire to become) with the axiology of learning (what students value the most).

Background

MCE is based on humanistic suppositions, which provides understanding of humans as the consciousness of the world. Without human consciousness there is nothing and/or nobody to make meaning of the world. Humans cannot exist apart from the world. Hence, this is why the idea of the human-world relationship (i.e., one’s life-world) is such an important concept in MCE. Ontologically, the category of a human being represents the dynamic and ever changing flow of life of humankind. An individual is a part of this flow; she/he is becoming a personality and fulfills her/himself as personality throughout her/his existence in the world.

MCE is also based on existential suppositions, which justifies the aim of MCE as supporting a self-regulating and autonomous personality who operates out of her/his own volition and strives to achieve self-fulfillment and self-determination. Self-determination and self-regulation are primary indicators of an existential worldview of personality wherein one assumes personal responsibility and endeavors to achieve self-fulfillment (Leontiev, 2004). The core learning processes supported by MCE are therefore complex, active, constructive, connected, and continuously evolving according to one’s life-world context (Shuell, 1990).

Components

The cultural-anthropological foundations of MCE lie within its ontological aspect, and refer to the deep structures of human subjectivity as an innate attribute. These structures are included in ontogenesis and phylogenies, providing positive and negative states of mind and spirit within the processes of individual development.

MCE as a philosophy is ontologically located within an integrated life world (holistic integration of self with world), and axiologically, within personal values, interests, beliefs, aspirations defining meaning making. In the MCE epistemological view, knowledge is personified, situated, and attempts to integrate authentic learning elements of both the objectivist and constructivist paradigms (Cronje, 2006). Knowledge is created through an awareness of external objective reality but is internally constructed and re-constructed by cognitive, affective, and socio-cultural activities and perceptions.

MCE facilitates the conscious integration of new learning/understanding with prior learning/understanding across all the domains based on personal meanings about oneself in relation to the world. Knowledge therefore is alive, situated and contextual and exists both subjectively and objectively (Leontiev, 2004).

Authentic contexts are critical to motivate learners and usually take the form of complex, full-scale multidimensional problems representative of real-world tasks and problems. Within the MCE paradigm, learners (both teachers and students) are viewed as the co-owners of the curricula, wherein they co-define their learning goals and tasks, assess their own successes and failures, and negotiate their own personal meanings within the learning process. In such a way, learning becomes authorial and entails transformation of the student’s and teachers’ authorship in a targeted practice that is recognized and validated by members of a community of practice, in a broader sense. Such learning is constantly creative and even transcends pre-existing human culture (Lave, 1991; Lobok, 2001).

MCE can be implemented in a variety of ways. To a large degree, context (e.g., institutional mission and type, organizational and societal culture, type of discipline and course, course learning objectives) and how teacher and learner decide to co-create authentic conditions for meaningful teaching and learning will drive how it is implemented.

With MCE, there are multiple modes of inquiry and multiple perspectives, depending on the context and depending on the nature of the questions (Dahlberg, 1985, Rogalsky, 2006). The artistic mode (subjective inquiry), the philosophic mode (rational inquiry), and the scientific mode (empirical inquiry) are all acceptable, as long as they are authentic and meaningful to the participants and germane to the context of inquiry. The integration of multiple modes of inquiry, together with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary learning, can be a useful approach to develop a more holistic and multidimensional understanding of different realities (e.g., scientific truth, moral truth, artistic-poetic truth).

Examples include learning that is interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (e.g., integration of math and art, global learning) as well as the development of new models and theories (e.g., exploration of one’s own existential experience, variational learning, probabilistic learning, learning as a dialogue of cultures).

MCE is the interplay between diversity and uniqueness – the process of joining individuality with the diversity of human cultures. So, what is needed is both objectivity and subjectivity that is in a constant dialogical relationship just as one needs both theory and praxis in order to critically evaluate and understand the world. And in the dialogical process where one is striving to become a more conscious, self-governing, authentic agent of one’s own destiny and transformation, one tries to move towards an authentic, holistic, and humane view of the world achieved through critical dialogue with self and with others.

MCE enriches the existent relevant theories (constructivist, learner-centered, transformative, cognitive-development) by the existential dimension of our being in the world and by viewing human life as a coherent whole, with a variety of possible contexts (preset biologically and culturally, as well as the contexts created autonomously).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

References

Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms Regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design and the Learning Sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54 (4), 387-416.

Dahlberg, G. (1985). Context and the Child’s Orientation to Meaning: A Study of the Child’s Way of Organizing and Surrounding World in Relation to Public Institutional Socialization. Stockholm: Gleerup.

Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, S. Teasley (Eds), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington DC: APA.

Leontiev, D. (2004). Psychology of meaning. M: Smysl.

Lobok, A. (2001). Veroyatnostnyi mir. Ekaterinburg: Evrika.

Rogalsky, E. I. (2006). Creativity as Meaning of Life. SPb: SPb State University

Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 531.

Editors

This encyclopedic entry was edited by Peter C Taylor.

Citation

Kovbasyuk, O., & Blessinger, P. (2012). Meaning-Centered Education. The Encyclopedia of Meaning-Centered Education. http://www.meaningcentered.org/encyclopedia/meaning-centered-education-2

Copyright

Copyright © [2012] Institute for Meaning-Centered Education (IMCE), Olga Kovbasyuk, and Patrick Blessinger

The author(s) assert their right to be named as the sole author(s) of this article and the right to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third-party rights including copyright. The author(s) retain their intellectual property rights related to the article. The author(s) grants a non-exclusive license to IMCE to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the Encyclopedia of Meaning-Centered Education. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s) and IMCE.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position(s) of other professionals or any institution.

Definition

Meaning-Centered Learning (MCL) is a learning theory that holds that human learning is the self-motivating and self-regulating process of creating personal meaning in one’s life-world through reflective, critical, and inquiry-based activities that occur across all learning domains. Thus, according to this meaning-centered learning theory, the learner constructs personal meaning from his/her own experiences and their relationship to prior experiences within multiple life contexts in order to continually self-evolve as a mature personality who is capable of authoring his/her life.

Background

Theories, as opposed to philosophies, identify real-world events needed for learning to occur; they rely on research findings to substantiate the veracity of their claims and they identify a specific set of principles that form the essence of the theory. Thus, in this sense, MCL expands the following philosophical and psychological principles of the learning process: holism, self-regulation, and the self-creating experiential personal life–world.

MCL is human centered and is oriented around holistic human development because a human being represents the means, the aim, the subject, the result and the criteria of the MCL learning process.  Holism in education corresponds to the humanitarian tradition (Gessen, 1998, Ventzel, 1993) as developing the humane in a human being and as the non-completeness of a human being who strives for completeness.

MCL provides diverse authentic life contexts for learning and for creating one’s own life world.  Based on the broad concepts of MCE as an educational philosophy, MCL can be viewed as a human centered approach to learning that facilitates the holistic integration of all learning domains (affective, cognitive, social) and diverse life contexts, which is self motivating and self-regulating process of creating personal meaning in one’s life-world through reflective, critical, and inquiry-based activities that occur across all learning domains.  MCL domains (dialogical, authorial, developmental) explain the holistic approach in designing MCL strategies, curricular and relationships between learners and educators, which makes it humane while accounting for individual development in personal, social, and cultural spheres.

MCL is learning from life, in all its complexity and variety, through all meaning making processes inherent in human consciousness. The self-motivating and self-regulating character of MCL originates from the autonomous and self-strengthening nature of personality (Frank, 1992).  According to this character of MCL theory, the learner constructs personal meaning from his/her own experiences and their relationship to prior experiences within multiple life contexts in order to continually self-evolve as a mature personality who is capable of authoring his/her life.

Components

MCE principles are pedagogical pluralism and learning diversity, agency and authenticity, holism and humaneness, which explain the goal of MCL, the nature of MCL environment, the focus of MCL and the MCL instruction mode.  The MCL environment is individualized and personally meaningful to each unique learner. It provides a setting where students and teachers are free to explore and develop diverse personal meanings within diverse life contexts that take place within the broad social milieu of life. In such a way, MCL brings more understanding of oneself in relation to the world, and a heightened awareness of multiple truths, multiple perspectives, and multiple modes of inquiry that exist in the world.

The focus of learning is on independent, critical and creative thinking, as well as on ethical and psycho-social self-development (e.g., moral and psychological maturing, creation of personal value systems, social and relationship oriented actions).  The preferred mode of instruction is dialogical and authorial.  The instructor is the author of her/his teaching mode, and collaborator and co-creator of knowledge, so she/he learns alongside the student. The student is the author of her/his learning processes that involves a high degree of self-regulation and autonomy in order to authentically create her/his personal life–world.

MCL seeks to develop highly mature, integrated, and well-rounded multi-dimensional learners who have the capacity to function in a multiplicity of contexts or situations and as lifelong learners (Fischer, 2000).  This includes thinking from different ontological perspectives (what is reality, objectively and subjectively), from different epistemological perspectives (how we know, empirically-sensing and rationally-intuiting), from different logical perspectives (how we reason, ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’), from different axiological perspectives (how we value, intrinsically and extrinsically), and from different phenomenological perspectives (how we experience reality, individually and relationally).

MCL seeks to develop knowledge and learning experiences that traverse across all learning domains and across all disciplinary areas using appropriate modes of inquiry (e.g., scientific, philosophic, artistic) to develop self-regulating personalities who are capable of lifelong sustainable learning.  The result is to develop personalities that are knowledgeable, skillful and able of making meaningful contributions to their community (citizenship), their profession (leadership), and their fields of study (scholarship).

To that end, MCL seeks to use contextualized and appropriately integrated problem-based and inquiry-based reasoning approaches (e.g., deductive, inductive, reductive, reflective, reframing, analogical) to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate complex phenomena at multiple levels (e.g., individual, group, organizational, national, global) and across multiple learning domains (e.g., affective, cognitive, socio-cultural) in order to equip students with the ability to think and judge critically and creatively, to evaluate common themes/patterns across disciplines, to gain a comprehensive, 360 degree view of an issue/question, to generate new knowledge, and to explain a claim/statement from multiple positions (e.g., apologetic, dialectic, polemic) and from multiple theoretical perspectives (e.g., scientific, philosophic, ethical, psychological, political, sociological, anthropological, historical, humanistic, technological) in order to provide multiple, contextualized answers to complex questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

References

Fischer, G. (2000). Lifelong Learning – More than Training. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, Volume 11 issue 3/4 pp. 265-294.

Frank, S (1992) Moral Foundations of Society. M.: Respublika

Gessen, S. (1998). Theory of Pedagogy. Introduction into the Applied Philosophy. M: Nauka.

Ventzel, K. (1993) Free upbringing: Selected works. M: Pedagogika

Editors

This encyclopedic entry was edited by Peter C Taylor.

Citation

Kovbasyuk, O., & Blessinger, P. (2012). Meaning-Centered Learning.  The Encyclopedia of Meaning-Centered Education.  http://www.meaningcentered.org/encyclopedia/meaning-centered-learning

Copyright

Copyright © [2012] Institute for Meaning-Centered Education (IMCE), Olga Kovbasyuk, and Patrick Blessinger

The author(s) assert their right to be named as the sole author(s) of this article and the right to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third-party rights including copyright. The author(s) retain their intellectual property rights related to the article. The author(s) grants a non-exclusive license to IMCE to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the Encyclopedia of Meaning-Centered Education. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s) and IMCE.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position(s) of other professionals or any institution.