japanese and american preservice teachers' attitudes toward global issues and relations

PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 72(1), 187-202 Copyright O 1997, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Japanese and American Preservice Teachers' Attitudes Toward Global Issues and Relations

Walter Parker Allen Glenn Yasushi Mizoue C ystal Meriwether William Gardner

We report in this article a comparison of Japanese and American preservice teachers' attitudes toward global issues and global relations. Respon- dents were elementary education students at Hiroshima University (HU) in Japan and the Universities of Minnesota (Minneapolis; UM) and Wash-

WALTERPARKER is Professor in the College of Education, and ALLJIN GLENN is Dean of the College of Education, Uniwsi ty of Washington, Seattle.

YA~USHI MJWUE is Vice President, Naruto Uniwsity of Education, Japan.

CRYSTAL hhmwmm~ is an educational consultant in St. Paul, Minnesota.

WILLIAM GARDNER is Dean Emeritus of the College of Education, University of Minnesota.

We are grateful for the assistance of Bruce Larson of the University of Washington and Susumu Oshihara of Hiroshima University.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Walter Parker, College of Education, Box 353600, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3600.

W. Parker, A. Glenn, Y . Mizoue, C. Meriwether, and W. Gardner

ington (Seattle; UW) in the United States. Mainstream educators in both nations profess a strong and sincere commitment to education for intemational understanding and cooperation; accordingly, an initial glimpse at beginning teachers' attitudes on this matter, if only partial and brief, should be useful.

Our plan here is as follows. First, we review recent global education initiatives in Japan and the United States. Second, we present the purpose of our study. Third, we describe our method, which features a "worldmindedness" survey that was administered at the three universities in 1993-94. In the fourth section, we report the findings in two parts. One provides the three groups' scores on the survey and compares them. Statistically sigruficant differences were found. The other part provides an item analysis of the survey questions. We were interested to know which items were highly discriminating and whether any items discriminated well across the three groups. The fifth and final section of the article provides a conclusion, examines some of the limitations of this study, and ends with recommen- dations for further research.

Global Education Initiatives in Japan and the United States

Internationalization has been a much-discussed movement in Japan in the past decade. The Japanese government's Economic Planning Agency, for example, called for "expansion of Japanese business overseas, expansion of foreign goods and companies within Japan, growth of interdependence on foreign economies, and policies and measures concerning Japan's international duty" (Internationalization Research Committee, 1984, p. l). Difficul- ties arose, however, because education did not appear to be "intemational- izing" at the same rate as the rest of Japanese society. Consequently, the National Council on Educational Reform was created. Its report was issued in four parts, in 1985,1986, and two in 1987.

Generally, the report emphasized the fostering of knowledge and toler- ance of different cultures while respecting and understanding Japanese culture: "The educational question of the internationalization age is how to establish education which could result in an understanding of Japanese culture and foreign cultures and traditions" (1986, p. 158). This might seem to be paradoxical, as it calls for understanding Japan's own culture first; however, the aim of an intemational education is not simply one of obtain- ing knowledge about internationalization, but also to foster the develop- ment of people who can help to advance internationalization in society. The

Attitudes Toward Global Issues and Relations

report concludes, "A good international person is a good Japanese" (p. 158), and it calls for the establishment of education that nourishes the growth of love for one's country, which in turn provides a firm understanding of the character of Japanese culture. It is also an education which deepens the understanding of diverse cultures and traditions.

The basic stance of the report is that today's internationalization efforts are different from those that occurred during and since the Meiji Era (1863-1912). In that era, Japan was in the process of catching up with other nations and becoming industrialized. Today the important area of concern is solving problems, particularly in the areas of peacemaking and protecting the environment. The report emphasizes that Japanese citizens of the next generation need to have an understanding of the international community that is deeper and wider than that of the present generation-namely having knowledge of other countries' culture, history, politics, and economics. In addition, the ability to understand other cultures, knowledge of etiquette in other cultures, and foreign language ability are emphasized.

A Curriculum Council was held at roughly the same time as the National Council on Educational Reform and took roughly the same stance. It issued its own report in 1987. This report directly affected the reformulation of the school curriculum. It set forth the following objective for social studies in the elementary and junior high schools:

To foster in pupils the basic principles of civics for a nation which is democratic, peaceful, and part of the international community. To also encourage a consciousness as a member of a peaceful, democratic nation, and a fully cognizant member of the international community. (p. 26)

As for senior high schools, "social studies" has been replaced with two subjects entitled "Geography/History" and "Civics." In Geography/His- tory there are six courses: World History A, B; Japanese History A, B; and Geography A, B. In Civics there are three courses: Contemporary Society, Ethics, and Government/Economics.

The United States

What is called internationalization by educators in Japan is probably captured best in the United States by the termglobal education. Unlike Japan, of course, global education in the United States is not sponsored by the central government--quite the opposite; it is an array of local school initiatives, most taking the very conventional form of world geography and world history courses, and a school reform quest that seeks, in the words of a position statement of the National Council for the Social Studies (1982),

W. Parker, A. Glenn, Y. Mizoue, C. Meriwether, and W. Gardner

to cultivate in young people a perspective of the world which emphasizes the interconnections among cultures, species, and the planet. The purpose of global education is to develop in youth the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to live effectively in a world possessing limited natural resources and characterized by ethnic diversity, cultural plural- ism, and increasing interdependence. (p. 36)

Like multicultural education, global education is to a large extent an "educational slogan" (Popkewitz, 1980), the meaning of which is secondary to its function as a battle cry for a varied group of teachers and reformers who want students to be less provincial and ethnocentric, who want them to be more "worldminded."

Research conducted in 1985 by Torney-Purta identified school and non- school activities that predict students' knowledge of world affairs, which she called "global awareness," and attitudes toward global events and people in other nations, which she called "global concern." The basic distinction here is between knowledge and attitude. Tomey-Purta discovered that school programs which are most effective in these two areas (a) have been in existence for several years, (b) include extracurricular as well as curricular components, and (c) contain some teacher training. Furthermore, she identified specific predictors of global awareness and global concern:

1. The most powerful predictors of global knowledge or awareness are (a) success in school (measured in the United States by a student's grade point average), (b) reading international news, and (c) studying social studies for a number of years.

2. The most powerful predictors of global attitude or concern are (a) reading international news, (b) participating in extracurricular activities, (c) and watching television news.

Two courses are the mainstays of global education in the United States: world geography in the junior high school and world history in the senior high school (Woyach & Remy, 1989). Most of the 16,000 school districts in the United States require the world geography course; less than half, perhaps fewer than that, require the world history course. By one estimate, only one third of U.S. high school graduates have taken a world history course.

Several additional approaches to global education can be found in U.S. schools, though they involve fewer students than the two courses just described. They are the Western civilization approach, the international relations approach, and miscellaneous approaches.


Western Civilization approach. Many so-called world history courses are actually Western civilization courses; however, some high schools have an upper-level course that is actually called by this name. The emphasis in this course of study, whether couched in world history or taught directly as Western civilization, is on values and institutions rooted in the Mediter- ranean world and now entrenched in Europe and North America. The typical course design is chronological by era.

International relations approach. Though quite rare, this approach is found in some high school social studies departments. Emphasis is placed on issues and problems facing the world today. Key concepts are the international system and interdependence of societies and nations. Cultural aspects are considered in this approach, but political and economic dimensions are the central concerns.

Miscellaneous approaches. There are three approaches that we can list which fall into this category: First, some high schools offer a course on a single nation (e.g., Japan, China) or continent (e.g., Africa, Middle East, Asia). Second, ostensibly nonworld courses (American History, State His- tory, U.S. Government) may have a global studies component-for example, comparing democracy in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Third, teacher outreach centers affiliated with the international studies departments of universities1 can now be found in every region of the United States. They produce world-focused units that can be incorporated in existing courses of study.

Purpose

Although there is considerable activity in both the United States and Japan toward the goal of improving students' global knowledge and attitudes, little is known about teachers' own global knowledge and attitudes in either nation. It is well known that the scope and depth of teachers' own subject matter understandings dramatically affect their curricular and in- structional practices (cf. Shulman, 1987). It seems reasonable to us to extend this generalization to the matter here: global knowledge and attitudes.

l ~ o r example, the Center for Teaching International Relations at the University of Denver, SPICE at Stanford University, and various international studies resource centers at UW's Jackson School of International Studies.


We decided to begin with a comparative study of teachers' attitudes toward global issues and relations, not their knowledge. This was an important starting point, we reasoned, because attitudes function psychologically as powerful perceptual screens or lenses. They influence which knowledge is noticed, sought, and developed. If one does not appreciate perspectives different from one's own, for example, or if one is not open-minded to information that contradicts deeply held values ("Don't bother me with the facts; I've already made up my mind."), then there is little chance that information about different cultures or knowledge of arguments contrary to one's position on global issues will be seriously pursued or developed.

But this was only one reason for beginning with attitudes. The other was a matter of convenience: We had available to us from prior research a promising attitude survey that purported to measure respondents' worldmindedness. It is described in the next section.

Education faculty from three universities conducted the research: HU, UM, and UW. Our research question was this: What are elementary school preservice teachers' attitudes toward global issues and relations (i.e., their worldmindedness)?

Method

An attitudinal survey was administered at each university to students who were enrolled in education courses that were developed to prepare teachers for elementary schools. One hundred students at HU completed surveys, 43 at UM, and 53 at UW. The survey was adopted from Enloe, Minoura, Willis,\and Kitagawa (1991), which in tum was a revision of a survey developed by Sampson and Smith (1957).

The survey is a 12-item Likert-style scale that centers on what Enloe et al. (1991) and Sampson and Smith (1957) called worldmindedness. These researchers were concerned to distinguish attitudes from knowledge. "An executive of a multinational corporation who is solely interested in maxi- mizing the profit of his company" (Enloe et al., 1991, p. 1) may know in considerable detail facts and concepts related to other cultures and the international system but not be at all worldminded. Worldmindedness, according to Sampson and Smith, "designates purely a value orientation, or frame of reference, apart from knowledge about, or interest in, international relations" (p. 99). This value orientation or attitude "demands a humanitarian commitment to people on the earth and a readiness to follow up one's commitment in one's action" (Enloe et al., p. 1).

The Sampson and Smith version of the survey had 32 items representing eight dimensions of worldrnindedness. The Enloe et al. version reduced both the number of items (to 12) and the number of dimensions of world-


mindedness (to six). Although the longer scale may prove useful in future research, we chose to use the more recent and shorter survey by Enloe et al. The six dimensions are immigrants and refugees, world citizenship, economics, war, race and culture. For each dimension there is one pro- and one anti-worldminded statement for a total of 12 statements. The six pairs of items follow:

Immigrants and Refugees

1. Immigrants should not be accepted into our country if they take jobs away from our country's workers or lower our living standards.

10. Our country should accept refugees as immigrants even though they have a culture or language different from ours.

War

2. We should be willing to fight for our country without questioning whether it is right or wrong.

11. War is never justified even if it is the only way to protect our national freedoms and way of life.

Economics

3. Our country should not cooperate in any international trade agreements that attempt to better world economic conditions at our country's expense.

7. If necessary, we should lower our standard of living in cooperation with other countries in order to raise the standard of living of others.

World Citizenship

4. It would be better to be considered a citizen of the world first, then a citizen of one's country.

8. We should take care of our own people's needs before we concern ourselves with other nation's peoples.

Race

5. We should protest against nations or organizations that discriminate against people because of race, religion, ideas, political beliefs, or nationality.

9. Some races can be considered naturally less intelligent than ours.

W . Parker, A. Glenn, Y . Mizoue, C . Meriwether, and W. Gardner

Culture

6. The only people we can truly share our feelings with are those from the same racial group that we are from.

12. People from different cultures are more alike than they are different.

Scoring

Items were scored as follows. Items 1,2 ,3 ,6 ,8 , and 9 are the anti-worldminded items. Items 4,5,7,10,11, and 12 are the pro-worldminded items. The possible range of scores is 0-72. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with each statement along a continuum. The two groups of items were scored in reverse; see Table 1.

Findings, Part I: Group Comparisons

Table 2 presents results from the three campuses on the Worldminded- ness scale. HU had twice the respondents of the other universities. UM had the most worldminded respondent; HU had the most anti-worldminded

Table 1 Scoring the Worldmindedness Survey

Anti-Worldminded Items Pro- Worldmindedness Items (1,2,3,6,8, and 9) (4,5,7,10,11, and 12)

Strongly Agree Agree Mildly Agree Mildly Disagree Disagree strongly Disagree

Table 2 Results From Three Campuses on the Worldmindedness Scale: Total Sample Size, Range, Mean, and Standard Dariation

Hiroshima University University of University of Minnesota Washington

N 100 43 53 Score range 29-44 37-72 32-64 M 47.62 54.33 49.21 SD 7.43 8.51 7.97

Attitudes Toward Global lssues and Relations

Table 3 Analysis of Variance for the Three Groups of Students

Source of Variation Sum of Squares df MS

Explained Residual Total

-

Note. F = 11.058.

Table 4 T-Test Results, Pairs of Three Universities

UM and UW t(94) = 3.04' UMandHU t(141) = 4.74* UW and HU t(151) = 5.35*

Note. UM = University of Minnesota; UW = University of Washington; HU = Hiroshima University.

*p < .05.

respondent. The mean scores of students at the three universities were rather similar as were the standard deviations. The three groups could each be characterized as moderately worldminded.

Table 3 presents an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the three groups of students. The ANOVA revealed a main effect for university; F(2,193) = 11.058.

Table 4 gives the results of a simple t test made between pairs of the three universities. A statistically s i e c a n t difference was revealed in each pair. The UM group scored signhcantly higher than UW and HU; the UW group scored signhcantly higher than HU.

Findings, Part 11: Item Analysis

In addition to comparisons of the three groups, we conducted an item analysis of the 12-item Worldmindedness scale. Our purpose was to deter- mine which questions most powerfully distinguished low scorers from high scorers, both across and within the three groups.

Our method was to order each of the three distributions of scores from high to low score. (Recall that the score ranges for HU, UM, and UW were 29-64,37-72, and 32-64, respectively.) The bottom 25% of each distribution was called the low quartile (LQ), and the top 25% of each distribution was

W . Parker, A. Glenn, Y . Mizoue, C . Meriwether, and W. Gardner

called the high quartile (HQ). Next, the means of the top and bottom quartiles in each group and for each item were determined and compared. The difference between a group's HQ and LQ on each item served as an index of that item's discriminating power. A small difference meant that the item did not help much to distinguish a highly worldrninded respondent from a respondent who was not worldrninded; conversely, a large difference meant that the item was a good discriminator. We determined that a difference greater than 1.5 between HQ and LQ means constituted a highly discriminating item, whereas a difference below .75 was not a discriminating item. For example, in the HU distribution on Item 1, the mean response in the HQ was 3.76; the mean response for the LQ was 1.48. The difference was 2.28, which constituted a highly discriminating item for the HU group.

Table 5 presents the findings of the item analysis by item and group. Note that the third column combines the two U.S. groups. We thought that it might be interesting to compare the U.S. and Japanese groups; more interesting, however, is simply to observe which items discriminated most powerfully for each group and to observe which items discriminate one group from another. For example, the most discriminating item for the two U.S. campuses was Item 7 concerning the voluntary lowering of "our" standard of living for the standard of living of nations generally to be increased. This was not, however, a particularly discriminating item for the Japanese group.

We now summarize and highhght these figures. Recall that a highly discriminating item was defined as one on which the HQ/LQ difference was 1.5 or higher, and a nondiscriminating item as one on which the difference was .75 or lower.

Range. The differences between HQ and LQ ranged across the three groups from .23 (UW, #6) to 3.23 (UW, W). For UM the differences range was .45 (#) to 3.19 (#7). For I-IU the differences range was .68 (#) to 2.36 (#3). The range of differences in the combined U.S. groups was from .50 (#9) to 3.21 (#7).

Least discriminating item. Item 9 ("Some races can be considered naturally less intelligent than others.") had the lowest discrimination value in all four groups: UM = .45, U W = .54, combined U.S. = .50, and HU = .68.

Most discriminating items. The reader can see in Table 6 the items that were the highly discriminating for each group. The most discriminating item for both UM and UW and U.S. combined was Item 7 ("If necessary we should lower our standard of living in cooperation with other countries in

Table 5 Findings of the Item Analysis by Item and Group

Minnesota Washington Combined U.S. Hiroshima

Item 1: immigrants should not be accepted into our country if they take jobs away from our country's workers or lower our standard of living. HQ 5.73 4.62 5.13 3.76 LQ 3.91 2.62 3.21 1.48 Diff. 1.82 2.00 1.92 2.28

Item 2: We should be willing to fight for our country without questioning whether it is right or wrong. HQ 6.00 5.92 5.96 5.64 LQ 3.64 3.69 3.67 3.96 Diff. 2.36 2.23 2.29 1.68

Item 3: Our country should not cooperate with any international trade agreements that attempt to better world economic conditions at our country's expense. HQ 5.55 5.00 5.25 4.48 LQ 3.55 3.54 3.54 2.12 Diff. 2.00 1.46 1.71 2.36

Item 4: It would be better to be considered a citizen of this world first, then a citizen of one's country. HQ 5.45 5.15 5.29 4.96 LQ 3.27 2.23 2.71 3.00 Dif f. 2.18 2.92 2.58 1.96

Item 5: We should protest against nations or organizations that discriminate against people because of race, religion, ideas, political beliefs, or nationality. HQ 5.64 5.54 5.58 5.36 LQ 4.64 4.00 4.29 4.28 Diff. 1.00 1.54 1.29 1.08

Item 6: The only people we can truly share our feelings with are those from the same racial group that we are from. HQ 5.91 5.77 5.83 5.04 LQ 4.73 5.54 5.17 3.68 Diff. 1.18 .23 .66 1.36

Item 7: If necessary we should lower our standard of living in cooperation with other countries in order to raise the standard of living of nations. HQ 5.64 4.46 5.00 3.28 LQ 2.45 1.23 1.79 1.80 Diff. 3.19 3.23 3.21 1.48

Item 8: We should take care of our own people's needs before we concern ourselves with other nation's people. HQ 4.09 3.46 3.75 3.44 LQ 1.64 1.63 1.63 1.36 Diff. 2.45 1.83 2.12 2.08

Item 9: Some races can be considered naturally less intelligent than others. HQ 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.48 LQ 5.55 5.46 5.50 4.80 Diff. .45 .54 .50 .68

(Continued)

W. Parker, A. Glenn, Y . Mizoue, C . Meriwether, and W. Gardner

Table 5, Continued

Minnesota Washington Combined U.S. Himshima

Item 10: Our country should accept refugees as immigrants even though they have a culture or language different than ours. HQ 5.91 5.77 5.83 5.00 LQ 5.09 4.31 4.67 3.68 Diff. .82 1.46 1.16 1.32

Item 11: War is never justified even if it is the only way to protect our freedom and way of life. HQ 3.09 2.69 2.88 5.36 LQ 1.91 1.38 1.63 3.92 Diff. 1.18 1.31 1.25 1.44

Item 12: People of different cultures are more alike than they are different. HQ 5.36 5.31 5.33 5.08 LQ 4.18 3.69 3.92 3.80 Diff. 1.18 1.62 1.41 1.28

Note. HQ = high quartile; LQ = low quartile; Diff. = differences

Table 6 Highly Discriminating Items Per Group

Minnesota Washington Combined U.S. Hiroshima

Item Value Item Value Item Value Item Value

order to raise the standard of living of nations"). This item was not highly discriminating for the HU group.

The most discriminating item for HU was Item 3 ("Our country should not cooperate with any international trade agreements that attempt to better world economic conditions at our country's expense"). This was not highly discriminating for UW. It was the fifth and sixth most discriminating item for UM and U.S. combined.


Conclusion

With this survey, we have only touched the surface of these teachers' attitudes toward global issues and relations. Triangulation with in-depth interviews and with different types of surveys (e.g., Q-sorts, Delphi policy statements) are needed to more fully understand and compare these groups. Based on the survey results, however, we conclude the following.

First, the three groups each appear to be moderately worldminded as opposed to strongly worldminded or moderately or strongly anti-worldminded. Second, based on the statistical tests, we can say that the students at the three universities were signhcantly different in their worldmindedness, that the UM group was the most worldminded of the three groups, and that the HU group was the least worldminded (though it, too, was generally worldminded). Third, based on the item analysis, four items (8, 2,4, and 1) were the most powerful discriminators (i.e., the most controversial) across all three groups. Furthermore, one (Item 9) failed to discriminate in any group, which is to say that both HQ and LQ in each of the three groups of teachers were highly worldminded when it came to claims of racial superiority.

Of special interest is the discriminating power of the pairs of items representing each of the six dimensions of worldmindedness. Examining the pairs, we find that the items representing economics (3 and 7) and world citizenship (4 and 8) showed the greatest discriminating power. The pairs representing immigration and refugees (1 and 10) and war (2 and 11) had one item each that was highly discriminating. The pairs representing race (5 and 9) and culture (6 and 12) had low discriminating power.

Limitations of the Study

Readers should consider numerous limitations of the studies. First, tests for statistically sigruficant differences perhaps should not have been per- formed. The three groups of teachers are not randomly selected samples; therefore, a key assumption underlying these tests was violated. Yet, ANOVA specialists with whom we consulted were divided on the perti- nence of this assumption, and we received many requests for these analyses following the 1994 Japan-United States Teacher Education Consortium meeting in Hiroshima. Accordingly, we provide them here.

Second, the scale may not be a reliable instrument today. Sampson and Smith found it reliable in 1957: Based on responses of 56 university students, the product-moment correlation between odd and even items was 37, corrected to .93 by the Spearman-Brown formula. A test-retest reliability


check (spanning 28 days and involving 33 students) gave a product-moment correlation of .93. The Enloe et al. (1991) scale that was adopted by the present study, however, was a revision of the Sampson and Smith scale, and its reliability was not determined.

Third, turning from reliability to validity, there are good reasons to question the scale's meaning. We judged that the six dimensions of worldmindedness were relevant and meaningful today, but in our view, the wording of each of the 12 items may need to be improved. Also, the scale was translated into Japanese from English, and a careful check on equiva- lence was not done. Beyond these concerns looms a much larger validity problem. Sampson and Smith's (1957) "humanitarian commitment," around which the 12 items were constructed, may not capture what they call worldrnindedness. In fact, it may lead researchers considerably off-track, away from assessing respondents' worldmindedness and, instead, toward assessing the particular positions they hold on controversial global issues. This is a serious problem. Two worldminded citizens should be able to take opposing positions on, say, immigration and trade agreement policies, without one of them necessarily being called anti-worldrninded. Sampson and Smith may have led us on a detour where there is only one "correct" position on any pressing global policy question. We discuss this further below.

Future Research

We believe that future studies on the present research question ought to strive for greater understanding of the meanings in different education systems (e.g., United States and Japan) of knowledge about and attitude toward global issues, relations, and concerns. Conducting surveys before adequately tilling the conceptual landscape sometimes can hinder our knowledge more than it helps. The danger of premature surveys is that they can lead readers to make false claims-for example, that Hiroshima teachers are less worldminded than Minnesota teachers. Let us turn very briefly now to that conceptual landscape. We find the distinctions drawn by a Canadian scholar, Roland Case, a fruitful starting point.

Case (1993) addressed what he and others (e.g., Hanvey, 1976) called a global perspective. Case's contribution to this literature was to distinguish two dimensions of a global perspective: the substantive and the perceptual. By the substantive dimension, Case meant roughly what Torney-Purta (1985) called "global awareness" or knowledge about the world. By the perceptual dimension, he means roughly what Torney-Purta called "global concern" or attitude, but it is more complex, more like a point of view than


a position. For this reason, Case's perceptual dimension may be a more powerful construct than Sampson and Smith's worldmindedness.

In order to define this perceptual dimension, Case (1993) referred to "contrasting spatial metaphors such as narrow or broad, provincial or cosmopolitan, and parochial or far-reaching" (p. 318).

The perceptual dimension, which is the lens for the substantive dimension, is made up of various intellectual values, dispositions, and attitudes that distinguish a parochial perspective (i.e., making sense of the world from superficial, narrow, self-absorbed points of view) from a broadminded perspective (i.e., making sense of the world from "enlightened" points of view). (p. 320)

Case identified five elements of this perceptual dimension: Open-mindedness, which is defined as a greater loyalty to evidence than to prejudice; anticipation of complexity, which resists perceiving events in the world as isolated and localized, but also resists simplistic notions of interdependence; resistance to stereotyping, which involves perceiving groups with sufficient attention to diversity within and among them; inclination to empathize, defined as willingness to imagine events from others' perspectives and, beyond this, to put ourselves in their shoes; finally, nonchauvinism, which is the inclination not to distort the facts based on one's affiliations.

Comparing these five to Enloe et al.'s six elements of worldmindedness (immigration, war, economics, etc.), we can see that Case's are different in kind. They capture a "lens" or viewpoint, perhaps, more than they capture an opinion that may be constructed on such a viewpoint. Consequently two persons who are both broadminded (or both parochial) could hold different positions on topical issues such as immigration and trade policy.

In addition to doing basic conceptual work of this sort on international/global education, research is needed that provides educators and policymakers with rich, descriptive accounts of curricular and extracurricular activities that are ostensibly related to international/global education. For example, what are the contents of the world history course required since 1994 in Japan? And what are the contents of the largely elective world history course in the United States? Also, it would be helpful to know if a portion of the contents in the national history course in both nations' high schools is aimed at developing students' global/international awareness or attitudes. If so, what are the particulars? Turning to extracurricular activities, it would be helpful to know whether schools in Japan or the United States sponsor any activities that are designed at least in part to foster humanitarian attitudes, open-mindedness, nonchauvinism, knowledge of

japanese and american preservice teachers' attitudes toward global issues and relations

Documents