International socialization of young people:

Obstacles and opportunities

Kenneth Cushner

Kent State University, Kent, OH, United States

Abstract

The international or intercultural socialization of young people depends upon an appropriate skill-set and experiential

background of a competent core of teachers. This paper presents an analysis of psychosocial development of young people,

arguing that the middle childhood years represents the critical period to begin addressing international and intercultural

socialization. Analysis of cohorts of educators utilizing the intercultural development inventory (IDI) and other surveys suggest

that most teachers, however, lack the knowledge and experience required to adequately address these issues in schools. Finally,

research that supports the role that international student teaching experience can play in enhancing teacher’s intercultural sensitivity

is presented.

# 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Intercultural socialization; Psychosocial development; Critical period; Youth; International socialization

How educators can facilitate the development of an intercultural perspective, both in the domestic context as well as

in the international sphere, remains more on the margins rather than considered central in the field of teacher

preparation. There is scant attention to the topic of international or intercultural socialization in the professional

literature, with reviews of a number of online databases yielding few, if any, relevant citations. Given our increased

mobility, globalization, interdependence and vulnerability, attention to the intercultural or international dimension of

learning should become the essential fourth ‘R’ in education—‘‘Reading, ‘Riting, ‘Rithmetic, and I would propose,

Relations’’. This paper looks at psychosocial development as it relates to intercultural socialization; provides an

overview of demographics of the teaching profession, paying particular attention to the development of intercultural

sensitivity of US teachers and students; and, considers some ways in which the education of teachers can be enhanced

to more effectively address this dimension.

1. Psychosocial development in relation to international socialization

The process of international socialization lies at the intersection of cognitive, affective and behavioral processes. It

does not, however, come automatically with cognitive development or physical maturity. Rather, like all

developmental processes, both maturation and learning are requisite. Some characteristics of intellectual

development, however, may prohibit an international perspective from emerging until an individual has reached a

certain age or stage of development. Thus, critical periods may exist in the international socialization of young people

that can serve as important benchmarks for educators.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173

E-mail address: kcushner@kent.edu.

0147-1767/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.09.004

Educators make frequent reference to Piaget’s stage theory of development to ground their understanding and

explanation of developmental opportunities of young learners (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Piaget proposed four stages

of cognitive development: the sensorimotor period from birth to 2 years of age; the preoperational period from 2 to 7

years of age; concrete operations from age eight to twelve; and formal operations beginning around age twelve. These

stages describe a progression that is brought on by a combination of maturation and the child’s actions. The

preoperational and concrete operations periods are of most interest with regard to the international socialization of

young people.

Characteristic of the preoperational period is that children begin to internalize mental representations of the world

around them. Until this ability is perfected, children do not seem capable of taking the perspective of another. They are

said to be egocentric, with the world being viewed as if the child was the center of the reality.

There is a gradual shift away from cognitive egocentrism as children progress to concrete operations during the

middle childhood years. For instance, children at the age of seven or eight are able to correctly identify the right and

left hand of a person standing opposite themselves. This partial relativism becomes a more true relativism around age

10 or 11, when children can correctly identify that an object in the middle can be both on the right and left of

something. Related to this is a process Piaget termed perceptual or cognitive centration, referring to the tendency that

preoperational children have of being so overwhelmed by one aspect of a visual experience that they are unable to

attend to other dimensions. This helps to explain why young children may be unable to acknowledge conflicting or

contradictory points of view on social issues, often seeing things as either black or white; right or wrong. As children

progress from the preoperational stage to concrete operations they begin the process of decentering, especially if

provided with guidance and practice, beginning to accommodate shades of gray and alternative points of view.

Research on perceptual role-taking has demonstrated that children acquire the skill of third-person perspective

taking between the ages of 9–15, thus beginning to understand that others may have a viewpoint that is different from

their own (Flavell, Botkin, & Fry, 1968; Selman & Schultz, 1990). With this comes an increased ability to

communicate with others since the individual can now comprehend the perspective of the listener. At this stage,

children also demonstrate the ability to deal with two elements, properties or relations of a concept at the same time

(e.g. length and width).

Children’s thought processes, too, shift from being static to dynamic during this period of time. That is, the

preoperational child is generally unable to conceive of change upon an object—what is perceived is assumed to have

always been; thought to be unlikely to change. As the child progresses to the next stage, the world is seen as more

dynamic and changeable.

In support of using developmental theory to explain international socialization, studies indicate that political

understanding and learning are initiated at a relatively early age as children begin to interact with authority roles, make

decisions, and deal with interpersonal and intergroup cooperation and conflict. The types of experiences encountered

affect subsequent attitudes regarding national and international identity and perception. Remy, Nathan, Becker, and

Torney (1975) concluded that children in the intermediate grades (grades 4–8; ages 9–14) have a sense of their national

identity and are beginning to develop attitudes, values and beliefs of their own nation and others as international beings

and actors, as well as gaining knowledge about such issues as war and peace. And, the shift from a present, concrete

orientation to a more future, abstract and general orientation noted above, supports the growth of political ideas in

early adolescents (Adelson & O’Neill, 1966), as well as an increasingly capability to demonstrate concern for the

needs of others in the community-at-large.

Related to this line of research is the early work done on prejudice formation, an area which has always contributed

significantly to educators. It has long been established that recognition of ethnic difference, as well as attitudes related

to people of different groups, appear very early in a child’s development (Frenkel-Brunswick, 1948; Radke &

Sutherland, 1949). And, Allport’s (1954) three-stage theory of prejudice formation demonstrated the interrelationship

between the cognitive and affective domains. In the first stage, pregeneralization, children are generally aware of

differences but do not categorize others or have strong feelings toward other groups. Early puberty marks a period

where total rejection of outgroups peaks. Stage three is characterized by the adolescent whose thinking becomes more

differentiated and less generalized. Allport suggested that middle childhood and late adolescence are periods

dominated by more positive attitudes and low rejection of other groups, while early adolescence is characterized by the

most negative attitudes.

Aboud and Doyle (1993) support these findings, suggesting that children are highly ethnocentric between the ages

of 4–7 and become less so between the ages of 7 and 10 as they acquire more differentiated views of both ingroups and

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173 165

outgroups. Thus, by the age of 10, children seem capable of exhibiting more balanced views of ethnic groups different

from their own, providing important implications for those attempting to reduce prejudice.

This research, coupled with the experiences of educators traveling with young people (Cushner, 2004), suggests

that the middle childhood years, around the ages of eight to twelve, may represent the critical period in the

development of an international or intercultural perspective in children. This age seems to be characterized by rapid

cognitive development, especially related to the area of perspective and role-taking ability; low rejection of groups;

high attitude flexibility; development of more differentiated intergroup perceptions; and, is a time when one is able to

perceive another’s point of view. Additionally, for those concerned with the role of experience in international

socialization, this represents an ideal time to begin traveling with young people and having them participate in

international and intercultural youth programs and exchange experiences. Children at this age are comfortable being

away from home, interact with ease nonverbally through games and other activities, and are eager and willing to learn

new languages. Educational efforts to develop an international and intercultural perspective should, therefore, begin

during these years.

2. International and intercultural readiness of US teachers and their students

The introduction of international or intercultural education in most schools in the United States, as elsewhere, is a

particularly slow and complex process. Unlike a discipline-centered approach that provides the foundation of much of

the educational experience in school, international or intercultural education has no easily identified or discipline-

based core. Large-scale or institution-wide goal setting and program design, thus, becomes difficult. While there are

increasingly obvious international and intercultural dimensions of most content areas to which young people are

exposed, these perspectives are much more interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary in approach, which most US

teachers at least, are ill-prepared to undertake. To complicate the picture, international or intercultural education

means different things to different people. Some feel threatened, fearing they are giving something up in the process.

Others feel that a focus on international minimizes or shortchanges domestic concerns, thus presenting a serious

roadblock. Nor is international education a topic that is assessed in the current test-crazed environment of public

education in most places. As such, an attempt to address international and intercultural education through the formal

and non-formal school curriculum must consider aspects associated with psycho-social development previously

discussed alongside an understanding of pedagogical, curricular and other educational concerns, including readiness

of both teachers and teacher educators at the local level.

Concerns related to global or international education have been discussed in the educational literature in a serious

manner in one form or another since at least the 1970s. Robert Hanvey’s (1978) paper, An Attainable Global

Perspective, is often cited as the foundation work in the field of global education. Hanvey proposed five dimensions of

a global perspective that could theoretically be integrated across the school curriculum regardless of the age of

students and discipline of instruction—perspective consciousness, state of the planet awareness, cross-cultural

understanding, knowledge of global dynamics, and awareness of human choice. All of these would be familiar to the

interculturalist. Perspective consciousness refers to a person’s awareness that he or she has a view of the world that is

not universally shared, that this view is shaped by unconscious as well as conscious influences, and that others may

have profoundly different views. State of the planet awareness reflects an understanding of the prevailing world

conditions and trends such as population growth and migration, economic conditions, resources and the physical

environment, political developments, advancements in science and technology, law, health, and various forms of

conflicts. The cross-cultural dimension includes an awareness of social and cultural diversity around the world and at

least a beginning awareness of how one’s own culture and society might be viewed from other vantage points.

Knowledge of global dynamics requires a modest understanding of how global systems operate, stressing the

interconnectedness of things by asking students to consider the impact one particular decision or action may have on

another. Finally, Hanvey’s fifth dimension, awareness of human choices, represents the final critical step in developing

a global perspective. The problems of choice that confront individuals, nations, and the human species as knowledge of

the global system increases is addressed in this dimension. Social studies, environmental and multicultural educators

have been building upon these dimensions in one form or another for years. Of particular interest to the interculturalist

is that Hanvey suggested, even then, that addressing the cross-cultural dimension would be the most difficult to

achieve, I believe, for many of the reasons that follow.

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173166

The teacher is obviously a vital link to the attainment of an intercultural or international perspective. But given what

we know about the demographics and experiences of most U. S. teachers, there is cause for concern. Even with the

increased efforts of the past two decades in the United States to recruit underrepresented groups into the teaching field,

the demographics of the field have not changed appreciably nor diversified sufficiently to match the increasing cultural

and ethnic diversity of students in most U. S. schools (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2006; Gay, 1993; Zimpher,

1989). In the United States, teaching is still a rather homogeneous profession, the majority of teachers being European

American, with fewer that 12% being teachers of color. Females continue to dominate the field (65–70%), and are by

far the majority in elementary or primary schools (80%+). The majority of teachers are middle class and live in small-

to-medium-sized suburban communities. This is in contrast to the increasing percentage of students of color in

American public schools (who now represent upwards to 40% of school population nationwide and higher in many

urban areas), and the fact that an increasing number of students live in poverty. And, the picture does not seem much

different in other nations (Cushner, 1998), except that the predominant ethnic background of teachers may vary from

nation to nation.

Today’s teacher education students, at least in the United States, do not promise to bring much change to these

demographics. Teacher education students tend to be relatively cross-culturally inexperienced, with most living within

100 miles of where they were born, and the majority wishing to teach where they grew up or in schools very similar to

the ones they experienced firsthand. Fewer than 10% of preservice teachers report an eagerness to teach in urban or

multicultural environments, and only 3% of American teachers are fluent and able to teach in any second language.

Add to this the fact that the majority of teacher education students spend all or most of their time with people of their

own ethnic and racial group, and that most believe minority and low-income children are not capable of learning the

higher level concepts in the subject areas they are preparing to teach, and the situation becomes increasingly dire.

Teachers and teachers in training, it appears, live in vastly different worlds from the students in their charge.

3. Recent studies utilizing the intercultural development inventory (IDI)

Recent studies employing the intercultural development inventory (IDI; Hammer & Bennett, 1998) support the

concern that today’s teachers may not be up to the tasks required of an intercultural educator. The IDI is an assessment

tool designed to identify where an individual falls along a continuum from highly ethnocentric to highly ethnorelative.

Three stages lie on the ethnocentric side of the continuum (denial, defense, or minimization), and three stages reflect

increasingly ethnorelative perspectives and skills (acceptance, adaptability, or integration).

Mahon (2003) studied 155 teachers from the American midwest and reported that all had IDI scores that placed

them at minimization or below—all on the ethnocentric side of the scale. Similar results were found by Grossman and

Yuen (2006) in a study that sampled 107 teachers in schools in Hong Kong. They report 55% of teachers in Denial/

Defense or the Reversal stages, and 43% in Minimization, with only 2% in the Acceptance or Adaptation stages.

Complicating the situation is the fact that teachers tend to overestimate their intercultural sensitivity as reported by

their Perceived Means. Teachers report not seeing color or difference, treating all children alike, and not

discriminating, which, according to Mahon (2006), is exactly the skill teachers need to develop. Believing they are

doing well, this makes it all the more difficult to advance to a more ethnorelative stage.

In a related study of preservice early childhood teacher education students, Pappamihiel (2004) found that students

who had taken one class in multicultural education and another class specific to the needs of English Language

Learners still exhibited a low level of intercultural sensitivity. Basing her study on the Developmental Model of

Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS; Bennett, 1993) but not utilizing the IDI, Pappamihiel asked respondents to compare

how they would express caring behaviors to children in general compared to a group of ESL (English as a Second

Language) students. Very few of the 28 respondents demonstrated any indication that they understood, accepted and

valued cultural differences between these groups of students, or that they would behave any differently in their

interactions. Like others in minimization, they reported that they would ignore any differences by offering ‘hugs and

smiles’ as the predominant way to express caring to all.

Additionally, there is evidence of a surprising disparity between teachers, teacher education students, and the

children they are preparing to teach. By and large, young people seem to demonstrate higher levels of intercultural

sensitivity than their teachers. Although not normed on young people, Pederson (1997) administered a modified

version of the IDI to 145 seventh-grade students in six social studies classrooms from three schools (one each from

urban, rural and suburban settings). In addition to the IDI, they completed Bem’s Sex Role Inventory, Bryant’s

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173 167

Empathy Index, and Altemeyer’s Adapted Authoritarian Scale. Eight participants from the urban middle school, six

from the rural junior high, and five from the suburban school were later interviewed (nine with high IDI scores and 10

with low IDI scores).

Contrary to the teachers sampled in the studies above, more than 70% of these middle school students were found to

be in high minimization or acceptance (53 in minimization and 52 in acceptance). The number of intercultural

relationships one reported, along with interest in talking with people from different cultures, were statistically

significant predictors of levels of intercultural sensitivity. Those with higher IDI scores reported having more friends

and enjoyed talking with people from different cultural or ethnic groups more than did those with low IDI scores.

Geography also seemed to play a role in the quality and orientation of the intercultural experience. Urban and

suburban students, not surprisingly, tended to have more frequent and regular interactions across cultural, racial and

ethnic boundaries than did their rural counterparts. These students reflected a positive and inquisitive attitude toward

cultural difference and a somewhat sophisticated level of understanding as to why such differences may occur. Of

those scoring high on the IDI, all reported a desire to live in culturally diverse neighborhoods, with many suggesting it

was more interesting and by doing so they would be better prepared as adults.

Yet, as others have noted (e.g., Allport’s contact hypothesis), there is evidence that while intercultural contact may

be necessary to promote higher levels of intercultural sensitivity, contact alone may not be sufficient. Dash and Niemi

(1992), for instance, found urban teens, who have the most contact with those considered culturally different, to be

significantly less tolerant of divergent cultural perspectives than their suburban counterparts. In their analysis, urban

students who were immersed in a multicultural environment held a dichotomous perspective of intercultural

interaction. At the interpersonal level, they enjoyed having friends who were culturally different from themselves. At a

more impersonal, societal level, the urban students reflected more fearful and suspicious attitudes of the ‘‘other.’’

Suburban students had a more pragmatic view, seeming to accept the fact that their world was becoming increasingly

multicultural. Thus, the context or situation may be a significant influence on intercultural competence.

Rural students, who generally do not have the same opportunity for frequent intercultural interaction but who

scored high on the IDI in Pederson’s study, generally expressed curiosity as well as a desire to have more of such

experiences. Unlike their urban and suburban counterparts, however, rural students tended to view intercultural

exchanges as exotic or as ‘‘adventures’’ with non-Americans. Those with low IDI scores were more hesitant and

suspicious of intercultural contact. Half of this group said they did not want to live in a culturally diverse

neighborhood. Most of this group said that the majority of their friends were of the same race and cultural background

as themselves, that they did not have as many intercultural relationships, nor were they interested in developing them.

Among the students in Pederson’s study, neither minority group status nor second language acquisition were

significant predictors of intercultural sensitivity, and gender showed only borderline significance. There was strong

correlation between empathy score and IDI score, and a statistically significant negative relationship between

authoritarianism and intercultural sensitivity, with those having lower IDI scores reflecting inflexible and conventional

attitudes. There was also a statistically significant negative relationship between empathy and authoritarianism. Those

with high IDI scores had developed the skill of perspective taking, while those scoring low may not have developed the

cognitive ability to take a third-person perspective.

An interesting finding in this study was that those who were categorized as androgynous (n = 22), that is, boys and

girls who identified strongly with both masculine and feminine traits, had significantly higher scores on the IDI. The

four androgynous children who were interviewed had flexible and curious attitudes about learning and interacting with

those who are culturally different.

A more recent and related study by Straffon (2003) found even greater disparity between students’ levels of

intercultural sensitivity and that of the teachers reported above. Assessing the levels of intercultural sensitivity of 336

high school students attending an international school in southeast Asia, he found only 3% on the ethnocentric side of

the IDI. In this study, the longer students were in attendance in the school (mean length of time in this school was 5.7

years), the higher their IDI score, with 71% in Acceptance and 26% in Cognitive Adaptation.

4. Enhancing teacher education through international internships

Given that few come to the field of teaching have sufficient intercultural experience and knowledge, and that the

critical period to begin intercultural socialization lies with the young child, it is imperative that attention be given to

how to improve the knowledge and experience of teachers who work so closely with young people. If we truly are

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173168

serious about preparing teachers, and subsequently the pupils in their charge, to better understand the increasingly

intercultural and complex world in which they live and to develop the skills necessary to interact effectively with

people from a variety of cultural backgrounds, then applying what we know about culture learning is essential.

Teachers, as architects of educational experiences and opportunity, must understand how closely intertwined the

relationship between cognition and experience is—they are just inseparable when it comes to culture learning. A deep

understanding, skill and commitment to living and working with others is not achieved in the cognitive-only approach

to learning that characterizes much of education worldwide—it develops only with attention to experience in the

affective domain. It is through impactful immersion experiences, where people are challenged to make sense of their

new environment and accommodate to the difference, where they ultimately gain more knowledge about other people

and a feeling of being at home in a new context. And this takes time. Adequate fixes to complex problems that require

significant unlearning and relearning do not happen overnight.

Current thinking on acculturation supports the need for intercultural training and education for adults, while at the

same time suggesting that children might more naturally have such experiences in their schools and communities (Sam

& Oppedal, 2002). The educational setting, they suggest, may provide a ‘natural arena’ for such learning if focused

upon appropriately.

Merryfield (2000) suggests that most teachers have not been prepared to teach for diversity, nor do they understand

the impact of globalization in the lives of their students and communities. Interested in understanding why this was so,

she interviewed 80 teacher educators recognized by their peers for their success in preparing teachers in both

multicultural and global education. What she discovered is of critical importance to teacher educators concerned with

the intercultural development of their students.

Merryfield found there to be significant differences between the experiences of people of color and European

Americans that reflect the importance of impactful, experiential learning. Most American teachers of color have a

double consciousness (DuBois, 1989). That is, many have grown up conscious of both their own primary culture as

well as having experienced discrimination and the status of being an outsider by encountering a society characterized

by white privilege and racism. Middle-class white teacher educators who are effective at teaching for diversity had

their most profound and impactful experiences while living outside their own country. According to Merryfield, these

teachers had encountered discrimination and exclusion by being an outsider within another cultural context, and they

had found ways to bring this to their teaching.

As Merryfield’s study suggests, those who leave the comfort of their home society for an extended period

of time come to understand what it is like to live outside the mainstream and to be perceived as ‘‘the Other.’’ It is the

impactful international experience that has facilitated these mainstream European American teachers to

become more ethnorelative in their understanding of others, more skilled at crossing cultures, and committed to

bringing about change through their work. A significant international experience, thus, leads to new, firsthand

understandings of what it means to be marginalized, to be a victim of stereotypes and prejudice, and how this might

affect people.

Increasingly, colleges of education are beginning to encourage students to participate in student teaching

opportunities in other cultural contexts. Through one such organization, COST—the Consortium for Overseas Student

Teaching, students can complete their student teaching in any of 16 different countries. In English-speaking countries,

student teachers are placed in national schools, and in most cases, come under the direction of a local university and

teach from a host-national curriculum. In non-English speaking countries, students are placed in culturally diverse

international or American schools and teach from an American or other curriculum (e.g., International Baccalaureate).

Through these internships, individuals are immersed, usually on their own, in local schools and communities where

they interact daily as young professionals with children, teachers and others for 8–15 weeks. A series of on-going

studies have documented profound personal and professional impact on these young teachers in such areas as self-

efficacy, challenging ideas about self and others, and on global mindedness (Cushner & Mahon, 2002; Cushner &

Brennan, 2007). Following is a summary of these, and statements made by some US students learning to teach while

living abroad.

4.1. Increased self-efficacy

Gibson and Dembo (1984) note that teachers with high self-efficacy motivate and praise students more, are better

able to guide students in their learning by promoting or offering probing questions, and make greater efforts to

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173 169

confront problems and issues in their classrooms. By confronting new and different experiences, perhaps even fearful

ones at times, and having to act and make choices, overseas student teachers find they have to rely upon themselves in

new and different ways. For many, this may be their first experience at total self-reliance. They may have to find

housing, pay bills, and use public transportation in a completely different cultural context and sometimes a different

language. As one student stated,

For me, this was really the first time I was totally on my own and had to rely solely on myself. I was

confronted with many new and different situations, some that even scared me at times and some I did not totally

agree with. Yet, I had to act and make the right decision if I was to be successful. This was also the first time I had

to navigate around a large city, and Mexico City is the largest city in the world. Now that made me a bit

nervous—I come from a small town of about 25,000 people. But I made it! Now I think I can do just about

anything.

Through facing their personal anxieties and testing their own limitations, students create a space for opportunity

and empowerment. In that space, they report the growth of self-confidence and esteem, as well as increased

adaptability, confidence, persistence, and risk-taking. One returning student reported an increased ability to take on

challenges, saying,

I was the only African American in my school and community. At first I was scared and a bit nervous about going

to Australia. Many people asked me why, as an African American, I would want to go there? I had read about the

struggles of the Aborigines. I was interested in their experience and in learning about their culture, but at the

same time I was a bit nervous that I might suffer some of the same discrimination they had encountered. I didn’t

find this to be the case at all. Most people were really welcoming and interested in me as a person as well as in my

African American heritage. Many doors opened up for me, both in the school and in the community, especially

through my host family. While it may have been stressful at the beginning, I found I was able to adapt in this

environment. Now I know that as a result of this experience, I can do just about anything I put my mind to. I’ve

become much more independent and self-sufficient than I ever thought I could become. And, I‘ve learned to take

chances in my life, something that I really never did before. I’ve also learned a lot about a couple of other

cultures, both Australian Aborigines and White Australians, and for that I’m really grateful.

This student’s comment regarding independence suggests one of the most profound aspects of the overseas

experience. Inside the classroom, these overseas student teachers appear to have the same support networks as a

domestic student teacher. However, when the bell rings and the day is done, students are left to their own devices and

must learn to trust and rely on their own capabilities. And, this study supports what Stachowski and Mahan (1989)

observed of overseas teaching. Through the combination of different settings, the opportunity to form new

relationships, and an expanded exposure to different pedagogical philosophies, student teachers can achieve self-

assurance and a sense of accomplishment.

4.2. Being otherwise and perceiving the other

For some, a recognition of ‘being otherwise’ came during an overseas living and teaching experience and directly

affected their perception, as well as interactions, with others. As a result of an impactful international experience,

individuals begin to question their stereotypes of others, as well as aspects of their own culture, which had previously

gone unexamined. They also begin to develop an empathetic appreciation of the variety of perspectives that govern

people’s behavior throughout the world. Such a sensitivity is critical to developing effective cross-cultural

understanding and maintaining good communication. Bennett (1998) concurred with this notion when he spoke of the

development of empathy, which, he noted, is the skill that enables people to engage in ‘‘perspective taking’’ because it

enables one to look at another person’s life by participating in their experience and to ‘‘get inside the head and heart of

the other.’’ During the overseas student teaching experience, students begin to challenge their beliefs about the world

and its people, and to develop empathy and trust. As one student commented,

I learned how to empathize with others, and to be sensitive to the needs of children at a much higher level. Being

in a new and different situation gave me the opportunity to experience what it feels like to be away from one’s

familiar surroundings and to be the odd person out. It can be very scary and lonely at times, but you do get over

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173170

it. This is one way I have become more sensitive. This will definitely help me if I ever get a student who is from

another country, or even another state, in my classroom. I learned so much, especially about myself.

Another reported a similar experience.

In New Zealand, I learned what it was like to be an outsider, to not understand what others around me take for

granted. This is extremely helpful to me as I think about teaching children from different backgrounds now that I

am back home. I learned how to be accepting of differences. Even people completely different from you have

something in common. I learned to listen to what others are interested in and in what they believe. I also learned

to be much less suspicious of people and to trust people much more than I ever had before. I met some incredibly

nice, giving people. Most of the time, people are good, and can be much more helpful and kind than I had ever

thought.

Finally, another student’s empathetic understanding became evident through a lack of language fluency,

I have to get over my fear of sounding stupid, it is the only way I will be able to learn to speak the language. At

least now I can relate to others who come to America and have to learn English. It is very difficult when you are

older and can be depressing and scary when you can’t communicate what you want to be known.

4.3. Global mindedness and culture learning

Another aspect of increased cultural sensitivity involves learning about one’s own culture. Once outside the United

States, students are able to reflect back on the country they left and examine it from a different space. Sometimes this is

not a pretty picture. As one student noted, ‘‘I learned that other cultures are not as openly racist as in the United States,

and that other cultures are more open to African Americans. I felt more welcome as an African American in Europe

than I typically do at home.’’ This is an example of perspective consciousness referred to by Hanvey (1978). As another

student succinctly stated:

I was excited about my first overseas experience and was glad to be able to teach at the same time. But it was

quite overwhelming, and I was a bit stressed at the beginning. It was difficult trying to learn another culture, to fit

into another school, and learn their national curriculum all at the same time. I just took it one step at a time and I

did it! At first, I thought I had a lot to share with the Australians; and perhaps I did. But they had so much more to

give to me. I know I was told about this during my orientation; that I shouldn’t just barge right in with all that I

know, but should take some time to learn from others. But this still caught me by surprise. I always thought that

everyone wanted to learn from America; that everyone wanted to be American. And even though I thought

Australians really seemed to look to us in so many ways, I now know that the United States is not the center of the

Universe. Australians know so much more about the United States than I knew about them, and I think that’s a

shame.’’

Another student who taught in Australia had a similar experience.

I was rather embarrassed at first, especially about how little I seemed to know, both about them as well as about

most of the rest of the world. But the Australians seemed to take it in stride, after they poked a bit of fun at me. It

was almost as if they expected me to be that way. I often wondered why it was that Australians expected me to be

somewhat naı̈ve about the rest of the world. Now I know. They were right about a lot of things. Americans in

general, and many of the teachers I now teach with, know relatively little about the rest of the world. I think that

is a shame.

Still others came away with a deeper understanding of the effort and time required for true culture learning to take

place. One student observed,

People should be certain to allow themselves to live the way that specific culture lives. Involve yourself in the

traditions, government, and way of doing things. At first it seems so foreign and you just want things to be the

way you’ve always known them to be. Open up your mind and think like the people who surround you. If

environmental issues concern them, concern yourself. The more you involve yourself the more you will learn.

And take time. I was just beginning to really understand things when I had to return.

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173 171

5. Some concluding thoughts—and a plea for the future

Through my career as both a teacher and teacher educator, the conflict that exists in this field has become

increasingly clear. On the one hand, our field has demonstrated both a growing understanding of how individuals

develop intercultural sensitivity, understanding and skill, and strategies which make it feasible to facilitate growth and

development along this path. On the other hand, the education to which most people are exposed continues to place

internationalization on the margins. Until this becomes more central to the educational mission in our schools and

communities, we will never reach a point of greater understanding and intercultural skill which is so badly needed

across the planet.

Our schools urgently need teachers who can serve as cultural translators and mediators, and who understand the

importance of developing intercultural understanding and sensitivity in the lives of young people. Such teachers not

only serve to bridge cultural gaps, but empower students to solve intercultural problems in the larger society. But given

the lack of intercultural experience and skills of most teachers demands that they are provided increased opportunities

to experience the world of others and then to consider ways to bring this to their students.

References

Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A. B. (1993). The early development of ethnic identity and attitudes. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity:

Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 47–59). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Adelson, J., & O’Neill, R. P. (1966). Growth of political ideas in adolescents: The sense of community. Journal of personality and social psychology,

4, 295–306.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation (pp.

27–69). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Bennett, M. J. (1998). Overcoming the golden rule: Sympathy and empathy. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication:

Selected readings (pp. 191–214). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Cushner, K. (1998). International perspectives on intercultural education. Lanham, MD: Lawrence Earlbaum Publishers.

Cushner, K. (2004). Beyond tourism: A Practical guide to meaningful educational travel. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2006). Human diversity in education: An integrative approach (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2002). Overseas student teaching: Affecting personal, professional and global competencies in an age of globalization.

Journal of International Studies in Education, 6(2), 44–58.

Cushner, K., & Brennan, S. (2007). Intercultural student teaching: A bridge to global competence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Dash, S., & Niemi, R. (1992). Democratic attitudes in multicultural settings: A cross-national assessment of political socialization. Youth and

Society, 23, 313–334.

DuBois, W. E. B. (1989). The souls of Black folks. New York: Bantam Books.

Flavell, J., Botkin, P., & Fry, C. L. (1968). The development of role taking and communication skills in children. New York: John Wiley.

Frenkel-Brunswick, E. (1948). A study in prejudice in children. Human Relations, 1, 295–306.

Gay, G. (1993). Building cultural bridges: A bold proposal for teacher education. Education and Urban Society, 25(3), 284–299.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.

Grossman, D., & Yuen, C. (2006). Beyond the rhetoric: A study of the intercultural sensitivity of Hong Kong Secondary School Teachers. Pacific

Asian Education, 18(1), 70–87.

Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (1998). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication

Institute.

Hanvey, R. (1978). An attainable global perspective. New York: Center for Global Perspectives.

Mahon, J. (2003). Intercultural sensitivity development among practicing teachers: Life history perspectives. Dissertation abstracts international,

document number 3097199.

Mahon, J. (2006). Under the invisibility cloak? Teacher understanding of cultural difference. Intercultural Education, 17(4), 391–405.

Merryfield, M. M. (2000). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity and global interconnectedness? A study of lived

experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 429–443.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2004). Hugs and smiles: Demonstrating caring in a multicultural early childhood classroom. Early Child Development & Care,

174(6), 539–548.

Pederson, P. (1997). ‘‘Intercultural sensitivity and the early adolescent.’’ Paper presented at the 77th Conference of the Nat’l Council for the Social

Studies, Cincinnati, OH, Nov. 20–23, 1997.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Radke, M., & Sutherland, J. (1949). Children’s concepts and attitudes about minority and majority American groups. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 40, 449–468.

Remy, R. C., Nathan, J. A., Becker, J. M., Torney, J. V. (1975). International learning and international education in a global age. Bulletin 47, Nat’l

Council for the Social Studies, pp. 39–40.

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173172

Sam, D. I., & Oppedal, B. (2002). Acculturation as a developmental pathway. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.),

Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 8, Chapter 6). Belligham, WA: Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington

University. (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/�culture/index-cc.htm)

Selman, R., & Schultz, L. (1990). Making a friend in youth: Developmental theory and pair therapy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Stachowski, L. L., & Mahan, J. M. (1989). Overseas student teaching experiences: Participant satisfaction by self-evaluation over eight weeks and by

certification level. International Education, 19(1), 57–75.

Straffon, D. A. (2003). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students attending an international school. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 27, 487–501.

Zimpher, N. L. (1989). The RATE project: A profile of teacher education students. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(6), 27–30.

K. Cushner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 164–173 173