As an institution of higher education, the university is responsible for researching and putting into practice academic theories necessary for the development of the nation and human society (Higher Education Act, 2011). To do this, a college educatio... As an institution of higher education, the university is responsible for researching and putting into practice academic theories necessary for the development of the nation and human society (Higher Education Act, 2011). To do this, a college education should help students become morally mature and act as responsible citizens (Chae, 2013a; Higher Education Act, 2011). In other words, universities should reflect the globalization trends of modern human society and motivate students to contribute to the making of a harmonious society (Ernst, 2008) and to cooperate with members of the global community. Global citizens are defined as responsible and ethical citizens, who engage, embrace and solve worldwide problems from a more comprehensive point of view (Sung, 2010; Jelinek & Formerand, 2015), and participate in and contribute to local and global communities alike to create a harmonious and sustainable society (Oxfam, 2015; USCO, 2013). Hence, one of the responsibilities of university education in the 21st century is to cultivate such global citizens. Even though most university students in Korea are acknowledged as independent members of society, for their age, many are not socially mature because their development has been severely constrained by the ultracompetitive university entrance exam system (Son, 2014). Therefore, efforts should be made to enable them to play a role as citizens whose opinions and voices count. While universities around the world are making efforts with recognition of the need for global citizenship education in international organizations and councils to meet these needs (AACU, n.d.; The Tallories work, n.d.; UNAI, 2016), discussion and practice in Korea are lacking in this respect. The essential competency of global citizens that universities should educate is global citizenship (UNAI, 2016). Global citizenship is a personal competency that is needed to increase the worth of universal values such as multiculturalism, social justice and sustainability (Cogan, 2000; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013; Snider, Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013). Global citizenship is a multi-dimensional concept composed of the four dimensions of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavioral intention in perspectives of competency (Kim & Nam, 2003; Oxfam, 2015; World Vision, 2015). In terms of knowledge, global citizenship is to know about the wider world (Cogan, 2000) and understand the interdependent relationship between humans and the world that transcends national identity (Song, 2014). Skills for global citizenship are those required in local and global participation such as critical and creative thinking, empathy, self-awareness and reflection, and communication and networking ability (Oxfam, 2015). Global citizenship in the dimension of attitudes means those attitudes dedicated to universal values such as human dignity and rights, diversity, and respect for other people’s opinions and feelings (Cogan, 2000; Oxfam, 2015). Lastly, behavioral intention involves participating in community activities positively and actively based on the three dimensions described above (World Vision, 2015). Such global citizenship is one of the competencies that a university education must provide to cultivate substantial individuals who contribute to human society (Chae, 2013a; Higher Education Act, 2011). Global citizenship is, therefore, a specific objective and outcome indicator of global citizenship education in the university. Developing a valid indicator for measuring global citizenship is significant in the following ways. First, identifying the concept and specific constructs of global citizenship can provide direction on how to design and implement an educational program. In addition, the indicator makes it possible to measure outcomes of global citizenship education, reveals the effectiveness of educational programs, and suggests revisions and additions to the program (Han et al., 2008; Hopkins, 1998). Second, an indicator, as a prerequisite for scientific research methods (DeVellis, 2012), not only broadens theoretical understanding of global citizenship but also facilitates theoretical progress as the basis for subsequent applied research. Furthermore, this may help direct innovation in higher education by drawing to global citizenship that is one of the competencies required for the qualitative improvement of university education. Thus, the author aims to develop a valid indicator for university students in Korea, investigating the concept of global citizenship, and securing a foundation for content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity. The purpose of this study is to determine how the design and implementation of a global citizenship education program can impact university students. Specific research questions are: What are the constructs of a global citizenship indicator? What are the items of a global citizenship indicator? Does the global citizenship indicator show evidence of validity and reliability? To answer the above research questions, first, the definition, construct, and initial items of global citizenship were deduced through literature review, and then content validity was identified by conducting a Delphi survey. For the Delphi survey, 13 experts experienced in practice and research on global citizenship education, and 6 experts on higher education and liberal education were selected as panelists. By conducting 2 rounds of a Delphi survey, a total of 46 initial items that were composed of 13 items for knowledge, 9 items for skills, 13 items for attitudes, and 11 items for behavioral intention were developed. To validate the initial items of global citizenship selected through the Delphi survey, the author surveyed 1,099 university students across the country. The collected data were analyzed through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The results of exploratory factor analysis showed that indicators of global citizenship were composed of 6 constructs; and a total of 31 items were confirmed. Also, internal consistency reliability was acceptable. The author conducted confirmatory factor analysis of the hierarchical model that 6 constructs deduced through exploratory factor analysis are explained by second constructs deduced theoretically which are knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavioral intention. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the hierarchical model fits the data well. Also, evidence of construct validity shows suitable convergent validity and discriminant validity. Lastly, the author identified the correlation between global citizenship measured through the scale developed in this study and multicultural attitudes, 21st century skills, and period of stay abroad, thereby confirming the evidence of criterion-related validity. The discussion about the constructs of global citizenship to be drawn from the study is as follows. First, knowledge was composed of one factor without sub-factors, for a total of 7 items. This construct is the cognitive dimension of the competency that global citizens should have. It is an understanding of the interdependent global system beyond the national community, including the meaning and importance of social justice, multiculturalism, and sustainable development. Second, according to the results of this study, skills were divided into two sub-factors that the author named analytical skills and social skills. Analytical skills refer to the inner-personal skills needed for global and local participation, including critical and rational thinking about global society issues, creative problem solving, and identifying one’s own strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, social skills refer to the competency of communicating and networking with other members as a member of the community. Third, attitudes, composed of 7 items of one factor, reflect pursuing and committing to human universal values. It includes attitudes committed to the values of human dignity, rights, other people’s opinions and feelings, and diversity. Fourth, behavioral intention is divided into two sub-factors through factor analysis. The author named these sub-factors empathic behavior and synsemantic behavior. Empathic behavior expresses the intention to help community members who need care based on the ability to understand being in others’ shoes and sympathy. Meanwhile, synsemantic behavior means the intention to contribute to the global and local system to protect the value of multiculturalism and sustainable development. This study is significant in the following ways. First, the results of this study support constructs of global citizenship that can be explained from a competency perspective. The competency of global citizenship is unlikely to change over time rather than domain; and students who have the competencies can apply them to a variety of issues. The study showed that the competency perspective composed of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavioral intention are empirically valid through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Second, in this study, initial items were developed through literature review and Delphi survey, and validated with 1,099 university students in Korea. The scale deduced through this process, as an appropriate scale for university students in Korea, is expected to be highly applicable. Third, this study differs from previous studies (Chi, 2007; Kim & Nam, 2003; Yoon, Park, & Song, 2014) because it showed evidence of criterion-related validation. Global citizenship as measured by the scale developed in this study showed significant correlation with multicultural attitudes (Kim & Heo, 2013), 21st century skills (Yoon & Kang, 2016), and period of stay abroad (Kim & Nam, 2003). The global citizenship indicator for university students developed in this study can be used from both a practical and theoretical approach as follows. First, the four constructs of global citizenship in this study, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavioral intention can be the aim of global citizenship education. In other words, when designing and implementing global citizenship education for university students, the goal that students must achieve needs to be specified with these constructs. Second, the indicator developed and validated in this study is a useful tool to assess the current level of students’ global citizenship. It can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a global citizenship education program and provide suggestions to modify it (Hopkins, 1998). Third, the indicator developed in this study can be used as the basis of various applied studies such as design research, experimental research, and survey research. Based on the significance and limitations of this study, we propose the following directions for further research. First, because the indicator developed in this study is measured by self-, its ability to interpret the measured results unconditionally is limited. Therefore, for a more precise interpretation, social desirability can be measured and used as a control variable. Second, the author suggests using various measurement tools including an assessment rubric as another way to overcome the limitations of self-. Third, a manual can be developed for practical use of the scale developed in this study (McCoach, Gable, & Madura, 2013). If the user manual including the measurement procedure, validity, reliability, and interpretation guidelines for scores are developed through a follow-up study, it could be a more useful measurement tool. Fourth, the author identified construct validity using factor analysis based on Classical Test Theory (CTT). The CTT is a valid theory that has been widely applied to the development of scales until now, but the possibility of applying the Item Response Theory (IRT) has recently emerged. Therefore, the author proposes a revalidation using the IRT in subsequent research. Fifth, classical EFA was conducted to secure evidence of factor structure. However, more recently, Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) has been suggested, as its use could help researchers come up with more precise results. Sixth, as the author developed and validated a global citizenship scale with university students in Korea, differences in factor structure regarding demographic characteristics were not considered. A further study, therefore, can identify whether there are significant differences associated with such specific characteristics. Finally, this study aimed to raise awareness of the need for global citizenship education for university students by developing a global citizenship scale for them. For global citizenship education to become more rooted in the field, further studies that contribute to the practice and theory of global citizenship education such as design research, experimental research, and survey research should be conducted.
|
