Looking at Learning / Blicke auf das Lernen

Barbara Schröttner, Christian Hofer (Eds.)

Looking at Learning / Blicke auf das Lernen

Higher Education. Language. Place / Hochschule. Sprache. Ort

Waxmann 2011Münster / New York / München / Berlin

ISBN 978-3-8309-2430-2© Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 2011Postfach 8603, 48046 Münsterwww.waxmann.comorder@waxmann.comUmschlaggestaltung: Anne Breitenbach, TübingenUmschlagbild: Martin Bauer, GrazSatz: Stoddart Satz- und Layoutservice, MünsterDruck: Hubert & Co., GöttingenGedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier,säurefrei gemäß ISO 9706Printed in Germany

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Nachdruck, auch auszugsweise, verboten.Kein Teil dieses Werkes darf ohne schrift liche Genehmigung desVerlages in irgendeiner Form reproduziert oder unter Verwendungelektronischer Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfältigt oder verbreitet werden.

Bibliografi sche Informationen der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation inder Deutschen Nationalbibliografi e; detaillierte bibliografi scheDaten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufb ar.

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung

des Bundesministeriums für Wissenschaft und Forschung in Wien

der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

des Amtes der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung, Abteilung Wissenschaft und Forschung

AlfredSchachnerGedächtnisFonds des Alfred-Schachner-Gedächtnisfonds in Graz

der Gemeinnützigen Grazer Wohnungsgenossenschaft

Inhalt

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 7

Preface ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Barbara SchröttnerLearning and GlobalizationNew Approaches to Reaching Global Understanding ............................................................ 15

I Learning and Higher Education

Werner LenzLernen als Privileg ...................................................................................................................... 31

Eva CendonLernen und Zukunft Die Universität an der Schnittstelle von Th eorie und Praxis ................................................. 41

Angelika Th ielschLearning and Self-DirectionWays to Foster Self-Directed Learning in Higher Education ................................................ 55

Franz ZederLernen und Philosophie(ren)Vom lehrendengesteuerten Lernen über den Funken des Verstehens auf den Zauberberg des philosophischen Wissens ................................................................. 71

Daniela Unger-Ullmann Lernen und ManagementProzessorientiertes Arbeiten und erfahrungsgeleitetes Lernen im Bildungs- und Lehrmanagement ........................................................................... 83

Anita MörthLernen und Wissenschaft liche Weiterbildung mit E-LearningEine Entzauberung ....................................................................................................................101

II Learning and Language

Christian HoferLernen und DidaktikSkizze eines konstruktivistischen Sprachenlernens ..............................................................113

Neda Forghani-AraniLearning and SpaceTh e Role of Language in Creating Open Spaces for Dialogue and Enquiry ......................127

Eva SeidlLernen und PersönlichkeitsentwicklungIdentitätsbildungsprozesse bei Austauschstudierenden ......................................................135

Marjorie Rosenberg Learning and StylesLearner-Diff erentiated Approaches and Methods ................................................................151

Doris Pichler Lernen und LiteraturLiteraturtheorie und Literaturdidaktik im universitären Unterricht .................................163

Isabel Landsiedler, Ingrid Pfandl-Buchegger, Milena InsamLernen und HörenAudio-vokales Training im Sprachunterricht ........................................................................179

III Learning and Place

Barbara SchröttnerLearning and the World CommunityIndividuals as Global Actors? ..................................................................................................195

Ulli VilsmaierLernen und GeographieGeographien des Lernens .........................................................................................................211

Maria Valentina KravanjaLernen ohne Schrift Träger des Wissens in der Kultur der Māori ..........................................................................223

Jennifer M. MurphyLearning and Confl ict AnalysisPrefi guring Alternative Analytical Interpretive Horizons ...................................................239

Steven HalesLearning and Curriculum KnowledgeLegitimacy in Brazil’s Public School Curricula .....................................................................257

Sidi M. OmarLearning and MulticulturalismSpanish Public Education .........................................................................................................275

Yan Feng and Dave BurnappLearning and International SettingChinese Academics’ Learning Experiences through International Collaborations ....................................................................................289

Greta Dermendjieva and Veronica Valkanova Learning and Information CompetenceTh e Necessity of Teaching Information Literacy in Higher Education ..............................301

Notes on Contributors ..............................................................................................................319

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the authors and our colleagues who helped us with their knowl-edge, inspiration and cooperation in approaching the topic of learning from diverse and interdisciplinary points of view. Th eir interest and experience made possible the framing of this volume which is structured around the themes of higher education, lan-guages and places. We also off er thanks to the publisher for their support, and we are very grateful to those who generously fi nanced this collected edition with their contri-butions.

Preface 9

Preface

By three methods we may learn wisdom: fi rst, by refl ection, which is noblest;

second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

Confucius (551 BC–479 BC)

Th is preface off ers an introduction to the text and outlines the content of selected arti-cles within the three sections of this publication; the focus is on higher education, lan-guages and places. Institutions of learning and learning individuals are more than ever exposed to phenomena of change and transition. Authors from various scientifi c disci-plines and coming from diverse cultural horizons of understanding look at the coming years with scientifi c interest and as a result go beyond traditional learning and educa-tion concepts. Th e aim of the book is to extend the topic of learning as a central cat-egory of educational research and to introduce interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary scientifi c approaches such as art history, cultural anthropology, philosophy, literature analysis, second language acquisition, etc. Th is intention is realized via incorporation of the viewpoints of a number of local and international authors in terms of theoreti-cal learning considerations. Th e book discusses intercultural and plurilingual contexts and deals with diverse ways of learning which are of central importance in the twenty fi rst century. Learning strategies such as self-directed learning as well as self-develop-ment and identity building processes are discussed. When discussing the aspects men-tioned above, research in higher education also has to be mentioned as it is a central theme of the book. Th e volume further analyses learning – language – society, illustrat-ing language learning processes in the context of education. Th is collected edition also focuses on geographic and fi gurative places of learning. Th e analysis of three themes of learning leads to a systematic discourse which raises relevant questions, opens up new fi elds of action and supports innovative scientifi c research approaches. Th is work can be thought of as a textbook, a reference book, and a workbook for a specialized audience including scientists and students, employees and participants in adult and continu ing education, staff members of local and international non-governmental or-ganizations and scientifi c institutions as well as those working in development agencies and social organizations, politicians and other participants in the political arena along with and the interested public.

In her introductory preface Learning and Globalization. New Approaches to Reach-ing Global Understanding, Barbara Schröttner focuses on developments in current globalization processes, on both the local and global level, which greatly infl uence and shape the modes of learning of individuals in the 21st century. Extensive cross-cultur-al exchange and communication is needed which requires dialogical learning environ-ments and a better understanding and implementation of innovative learning practic-

Preface 10

es. Additionally, the author goes into aspects of the knowledge society which leads to an increasing demand for lifelong learning activities and on the requirement of new forms of learning practices and aims. Her analysis leads the educational scientist to the conclusion that the knowledge society can be analyzed as a symbol of current global changes.

Th e volume is organized in three sections. Part I of this publication, with the title Learning and Higher Education is a collection of six chapters, which look at learning processes and practices at the university level. Learning as Privilege. In his analysis, Werner Lenz, professor of continuing and adult education, off ers a description of the interdependency, dynamic and the role of teachers which is intensively a part of these processes. Th e author illustrates in which ways learning and teaching have changed in recent decades, especially in the fi eld of higher education. He delves into more gener-al scientifi c areas such as social justice, democracy and equal opportunities. Th e author shows in his biographically oriented discourse that learning takes place on a formal level and moreover in personal interrelationships. Learning and Future. Th e central question of the article by Eva Cendon of the Berlin University for Professional Stud-ies is how universities generate and deal with knowledge acquisition following the im-plementation of the Bologna Process. Another relevant question introduced by Cendon is how learning processes and practices can and should be developed in this new and challenging environment. It is in this context that the author illustrates the concept of the Refl ective Practitioner which is based on a holistic form of knowledge production, i.e. mode 2 knowledge production. Mode 2 is characterized by knowledge production through practical utilization; it is interdisciplinary and involves the participation of var-ious centers of knowledge. A university as a place of knowledge production in mode 2 thus demands an integral perspective in which a synergy between research and teach-ings is fundamental. From this perspective, mode 2 not only concentrates on the pro-duction of and refl ection on knowledge, but according to Cendon, also on its con-solidation, stabilization and institutionalization. Learning and Self-Direction. In her article “Learning and Self-Direction. Ways to Foster Self-Directed Learning in Higher Education” Angelika Th ielsch, a German cultural anthropologist, looks at the necessity for refl ecting on individual learning processes, emphasizing the idea that the most im-portant factors for learning are motivation, prior knowledge and meta-cognitive knowl-edge; these encourage people to enhance their ways of learning. Th ielsch presents and develops the concept of self-directed learning and introduces learner centered teach-ing, noting their importance in the fi eld of higher education. In her writing, person-al organization is an essential competency for successful learning. Th e author off ers a concept that helps teachers as well as learners to act more independently in terms of personal learning behaviors. Learning and Philosophizing. In his work, Franz Zeder critically examines the state of the art as well as the functions of “modern” ways of teaching philosophy, paying special attention to contradictory phenomena. Regarding his critical explanations, Zeder deepens his discursive arguments by thoroughly ana-lyzing diff erent themes of learning such as lifelong learning and self-directed learning versus teacher centered learning. He completes his analysis by adding a literary per-spective, referring to the “Zauberberg” by Th omas Mann. Learning and Management.

Preface 11

In her article, Daniela Unger-Ullmann considers the value of experiences in learning processes and university leadership. In her systematic discourse, Unger-Ullmann looks at the center treff punkt sprachen – Zentrum für Sprache, Plurilingualismus und Fach-didaktik at the University of Graz, refl ecting on quality management and human re-source management. Th e author emphasizes the need for learning processes as a basis of productive and qualitative university management. Th e author states that employees, in her case language teachers, acquire their competences mostly through their person-al work experiences rather than through formal education. Statistics underline her the-ories and demonstrative ideas. Learning and New Media. Anita Mörth brings into fo-cus the theme of e-learning, relating actual aspects of life-long and life-wide learning. In addition, she refl ects on the discourse of competence and competence development in higher education. In doing this, the author concentrates on the theme of New Media, analyzing blended learning concepts at the university level in a critical and in depth way. For Mörth, the key message is that the choice of the e-learning tools should adhere to only one logical principal: the form follows the content.Part II of this collected edition, with the title Learning and Language consists of six chapters and refl ects on aspects of language learning processes, didactic and second language acquisition. Learning and Didactics. In his piece, the adult educator, teacher and lecturer Christian Hofer refl ects on the role and functions of didactics in essential fi elds of education. He focuses on relevant aspects of constructivism outlining a con-structivist approach to language learning processes and modern language didactics. Th e author also off ers detailed strategies that are useful in creating language learning mod-els. Learning and Space. In her investigation entitled “Learning and Space. Th e Role of Lan guage in Creating Open Spaces for Dialogue and Enquiry”, Neda Forghani- Arani of the University of Vienna introduces a study concerning the creation of open and safe spaces in university learning settings, specifi cally having to do with global issues in education. Her article is based on an analysis of ways in which university students can change their roles and self-concepts, specifi cally from being passive recipients of knowledge to active constructors of knowledge. To this end, the author presents a con-cept and method which focuses on the creation of open spaces for individual learning. She refers to the signifi cance of English as a lingua franca in higher education. Learn-ing and Self-Development. In her article, Eva Seidl introduces a didactic approach to higher education which focuses on a target group made up of international students who are learning German as a foreign language. In her analysis she off ers new and in-novative ideas in the fi eld of second language acquisition by mingling common con-cepts of language learning didactics. Th e author uses a very social and systemic way of analyzing language learning processes – processes which are always connected to in-dividual and cultural aspects. It is in this context that Seidl creates the triad “language – identity – culture” by linking her ideas and experiences as a teacher of German as a foreign language. Learning and Styles. Th e article by Marjorie Rosenberg, a theoreti-cal and practical approach to learner-diff erentiated approaches and methods, discuss-es and explains the relevance of diff erent learning styles in language learning processes. Based on the fact that learning groups are characterized by heterogeneity as well as by diff erent learning expectations and preferences, their prospective outcomes diff er great-ly. Th e author aims to ready language teachers for diversity in learning styles. In her

Preface 12

paper Rosenberg outlines diff erent learning styles and behaviors and reveals useful me-thodical strategies and models for including these diverse learning strategies in higher education. Learning and Literature. Th e text by Doris Pichler discusses the relation-ship between theory and didactics of literature. Th e author clarifi es and describes fun-damental models in the fi eld of literature theory, referring to their infl uence in teach-ing literature in higher education. Th e author points out an important issue: in which ways can theory contribute to establish high-quality learning designs. In a very reveal-ing way, Pichler introduces practical examples of learning settings and thus creates a bridge between theoretical assumptions and conceptions and practical literature teach-ing. Learning and Hearing. Th e authors Isabel Landsiedler, Ingrid Pfandl-Buchegger and Milena Insam combine the topic of learning with the topic of hearing as listen-ing can be considered a fundamental competence in language learning processes. Th eir theoretical and practical investigation is based on the fact that hearing is not a passive act but is interactive and requires several cognitive strategies. As part of their practical study, they present the FauvoT project which aims to improve the pronunciation and intonation of adult language learners, clarifying the importance of dealing with the lis-tening competence.

Part III is entitled Lear ning and Place and is a compilation of eight chapters, linking the theme of learning to diff erent locations such as Spain, Bulgaria, Brazil, China and New Zealand and various spaces such as global consciousness, theoretical geographi-cal spaces, New Media, information literacy, alternative analytical horizons in confl ict analysis and multicultural settings. Learning and the World Community. Th e piece by Barbara Schröttner entitled “Learning and the World Community. Individuals as Global Actors” centers on the following topics: global consciousness, participatory and civic competence, active citizenship, non-governmental transnational advocacy, intercultural and cross-cultural exchange and democratic comprehension. Th e article from the edu-cational scientist gives an insight into the challenges which result from changes related to global fl ows, their eff ects on global civil citizens and consequentially on their cur-rent learning and identity formation processes. Th e author off ers an educational per-spective on the debate about the formation of a global democratic civil society which demands from its citizen’s dialogical participation and active engagement, sustained involvement and cooperation through new forms of multicultural and cross-cultur-al communication together with a transformed understanding of global consciousness. Learning and Space. Th e analysis of Ulli Vilsmaier combines the themes of geography, space and learning theories. In her theoretical discourse about, the author concentrates on the fact that space is not a static concept, for example the picture of the nation state as a container, in the fi eld of transnationality research; instead it can be seen as dynam-ic phenomena which generates new references to life and new allocations of meaning. Vilsmaier off ers a constructivist approach to the geographic comprehension of space whereby the creation of diff erent perspectives of the world is constitutive. It is in this context that the author speaks not about geography but of its plural: geographies. As a consequence, learning is also interpreted as dynamic which intro duces a cognitive process. Referring to Paulo Freire, the author defi nes learning pro cesses as a dialogi-cal relationship in a problem-driven education whereby learning is the initiation of a common cognitive process. Learning without Writing. Maria V alentina Kravanja, the

Preface 13

art historian and museum educator, looks at learning processes in the fi eld of art his-tory. For the author, the attainment of knowledge about culture, history and stories can be analyzed as a lifelong learning process. Kravanja looks at such processes in the cul-ture of the Māori, the original inhabitants of New Zealand. She focuses on the knowl-edge acquisition of the Māori in the time before written history. Only through colo-nization and Christian conversion did the people fi rst encounter writing; before that time, they expressed themselves through music and dance, myth and stories and body-culture such as tattooing. In her article, the art historian presents contemporary Māori artists and their work, showing that even in the present time these forms of art are still of inestimable value in the Māori culture. Learning and Confl ict Analysis. Th e study by Jennifer M. Murphy concentrates on the question of how we analyze and as a consequence learn about confl ict and its peaceful transformation. Murphy argues in her essay “Learning and Confl ict Analysis. Prefi guring Alternative Analytical Interpre-tive Horizons” that interpretive horizons, which can be described as human-made an-alytical constructs, create the rules of political action and infl uence the relevant fac-tors by which we evaluate and learn about confl ict. Next the author considers the idea that these interpretative horizons infl uence our ways of knowing, learning and onto-logical interconnections. Th e North American peace, confl ict and development re-searcher shows that alternative interpretive horizons are needed to compensate for the naturalized and universalized workings of Realpolitik in confl ict and its analysis, and likewise to be able to rethink dominant political structures in order to gain new ways of knowing, learning and being. Learning and Curriculum Knowledge. In the article “Learning and Curriculum Knowledge. Legitimacy in Brazil’s Public School Curricula”, Steven Ha les examines public school curriculum and its reform in Brazil. In his anal-ysis of national and municipal curriculum documents, he relates and critically refl ects on curriculum knowledge areas and school curriculum together with the role of stu-dents, teachers and society. In doing so, he reveals ambiguities, contradictions and ten-sions between centralizing and decentralizing authority, autonomy, and accountability. Looking at the selection dealing with organization and treatment of knowledge in the offi cial curriculum, Hales’ ambition is to better connect policy and practice. Learning and Multiculturalism. Sidi M. Omar, a member of the diplomatic service of the Sah-rawi Republic and visiting researcher and professor at the Universitat Jaume I in Cas-tellón (Spain) concentrates in his article “Learning and Multiculturalism. Spanish Pub-lic Education” on the fact that there are large demographic and cultural transformations observable which infl uence current pedagogical practices in Spain’s public education system. He critically addresses the issue of an increasing cultural diversity and plural-ity; nevertheless he observes a lack of an adequately integrated intercultural pedagogy. In his essay, the author makes clear intercultural diff erences, helping to overcome this pedagogical defi cit and leading to new concepts and practices in teaching and learn-ing. Last but not least, Omar brings into focus the aspect of democracy, yielding equal opportunities for all students by incorporating a more holistic intercultural education. Learning and International Setting. Th e authors Yan Feng and Dave Burnapp high-light in their empirical research “Learning and International Setting. Chinese Academ-ics’ Learning Experiences through International Collaborations” that strategic interna-tionalization in higher education supports the knowledge transfer of students as well as

Preface 14

of academics in diff erent cultural contexts. In their essay, the authors look at the signif-icance of context-specifi c factors of sustainable international collaborations in higher education which support the enhancement of professional academic competences. Th e authors discuss institutional strategies and cross-cultural management of internation-al activities in order to develop international cooperation systems. Feng and Burnapp present research data which focuses on a case study exploring learning experiences of Chinese academics co llaborating with European academics. Learning and Information Competence. Th e article of Greta Dermendjieva and Ve ronica Valkanova is based on an empirical investigation of information literacy in higher education in Bulgaria. In their work, entitled “Learning and Information Competence. Th e Necessity of Teach-ing Information Literacy in Higher Education”, the scientists describe and discuss the results of a pilot study focusing on the level of information literacy among students in humanities bachelor’s degree programs. Dermendjievas and Valkanovas argument is that the curricula, mainly those of students in pedagogy and journalism, should include programs to raise the level of student information competence.

Learning and Globalization 15

Barbara Schröttner

Learning and Globalization

New Approaches to Reaching Global Understanding

Words are never ‘only words’; they matter because they defi ne the contours of what we can do.

Slavoj Žižek (*1949)

Opening

Th e specifi c objective of this introductory preface is to acknowledge that recent global developments, which are increasingly multifaceted and contradictory, highly infl uence and shape educational processes and learning practices. Th ese observable fundamental changes at the local and global level require a rethinking of the concepts, implementa-tion and realization of learning environments. Education and learning are regarded as important in meeting the challenges of globalization, modernization and individuali-zation processes which bring about changes in society and aff ect each and every citi-zen (Görsdorf, 2010: 141). Education characteristically undergoes changes because of shift s in values, new scientifi c breakthroughs or sweeping historical and social shift s along with other factors such as globalization (Suárez-Orozco/Sattin, 2007: 7). Globali-zation can be described as ongoing processes in almost all areas of life which connect events around the globe and put them in relation to each another; thus, globalization stands synonymously for global simultaneity (Th ielsch, 2010: 118). Th e following ele-ments can be useful as a frame of reference for globalization processes: global economy, transnational linkages, new forms of collective decision making, development of inter-government and quasi-supranational institutions, intensifi cation of transnational com-munication, creation of new regional and military orders, increased economic, cultural, environmental and social interdependencies, new transnational fi nancial and political formations, the mobility of capital, labor and information and the simultaneous ho-mogenizing and diff erentiating tendencies related (Neubauer, 2006: 3).

Th e analysis proceeds from the premise that contemporary globalization phenome-na demand a fundamental rethinking of the aims and processes of education (Suárez-Orozco/Quin-Hilliard, 2004: 14) and in terms of learning practices. Th is leaves open the question as to how education deals with the mechanisms of globalization phenom-ena and how it is transformed by globalization. Th ere seems to be a need for a better theoretical understanding of the social and cultural, demographic and economic impli-cations of globalization such as the necessity to examine how education supports par-ticipation and engagement in global processes as well as the requirement for a dialogue between scholars, policy makers, practitioners (ibid.: 25) as well as participants. Be-fore taking a detailed look at the connection between globalization and education, it is possible to note that the complexity behind many problems caused by globalization

Barbara Schröttner 16

pro cesses requires a deep disciplinary grounding and the ability to multi-disciplinari-ly reach understanding, collaborate and fi nd solutions. Interdisciplinary concerns are therefore at the foreground in an increasingly globalized society. Issues such as pov-erty reduction, ecological balance, energy conservation, anti-terrorism and numerous others call for input from and syntheses of diff erent forms of disciplinary knowledge and methods (ibid.: 6). To understand the current global dynamic and its implications for education and learning practices, global understanding is fundamental. By taking this reality into consideration, the question is what can be understood to be a global understanding? Global understanding is the capacity to think in fl exible and compe-tent ways about contemporary global developments. It requires a knowledge and un-derstanding of contemporary global developments within a framework via which daily practices and products can be interpreted and organized. But the global consciousness does not blindly absorb, consume or resist the products and practices yielded by the ac-celerated global exchange; instead it aims to locate them refl ectively within believable explanations, trustworthy narratives and informed considerations of how local cultures deal with experiences of global transformation and of views on how the world works (Mansilla/Gardner, 2007: 59f.). Nevertheless, there is a global awareness of the course of events and circumstances to an extent that has never existed before in terms of both general context and detail (Pakesch, 2010: 177).

To summarize briefl y, there are enormous challenges posed by globalization which have a signifi cant impact on education: Globalization can be characterized as increas-ing world economic interdependence which leads to competition among countries and modifi es the world distribution of labour. Th e eff ect on education is the need for people to acquire new skills or update their existing skills on a regular basis – global citizens are therefore required to become lifelong learners. Globalization leads to more econom-ic exchanges and cultural interchange between countries and also to greater social het-erogeneity in terms of culture, ethnicity, language and religion. Social capital such as values and principles (tolerance, cooperation and solidarity) need to be further devel-oped. Because of globalization processes, issues such as the protection of the environ-ment, poverty reduction and anti-terrorism should be the concern of every individual. Finally, people should be aware of the fact that they are no longer citizens of only one country but global citizens (Hugonnier, 2007: 138f.); this calls for the development of global understanding, sensitivity and self-representation.

Learning and Globalized Realities

One of the central discourses in the study of globalization is the cultural homogeneity hypothesis which predicts that global change processes will certainly lead to a more ho-mogeneous world culture (Suárez-Orozco/Quin-Hilliard, 2004: 14). Globalization pro-cesses restructure events not only on a global scale but also, to a considerable degree, at the everyday local level as world events have a strong infl uence on the living environ-ment of each individual (Egger/Schabler, 2009: 33). Th is means that even though peo-ple live in local realities, their increasingly globalized realities are challenged by and integrated into larger global networks (Suárez-Orozco/Quin-Hilliard, 2004: 2). Individ-

Learning and Globalization 17

uals around the world do not experience globalization in its fullest complexity; however their daily lives are aff ected by contemporary processes in concrete ways such as chang-es in governance, cultural exchange and new forms of production as well as new modes of working, consumption and communication. In this context global sensitivity can be understood as the awareness of local experience as a manifestation of broader develop-ments on the planet. Daily experiences are then considered through global sensitivity as instances of the world’s increasing local presence, and thus a globally conscious mind is adjusted to local expressions of global phenomena (Mansilla/Gardner, 2007: 59). None-theless, globalization has not yet produced homogenization because the images and ef-fects of globalization are mostly mediated and interpreted by local interests and actors. Local consumers indigenize products to serve their own cultural interests. Th ey oft en cannot identify with the global images off ered, and thus they respond to globalization phenomena by highlighting their local identities (Derné, 2008: 27). Th at said, maintain-ing, nurturing and validating local knowledge, languages and natural resources as well as to strengthen local cultures is a critical task (Bloom, 2004: 73).

Additionally, in such globalized times social spaces are more discontinuous and fractured than they have ever been (Suárez-Orozco/Quin-Hilliard, 2004: 176). As a consequence, there is an increasingly heterogeneity of particularism noticeable within local contexts. As part of the counteracting tendencies in globalized times, the ‘ notions of that world’ such as the so called ‘global truth’ or ‘global values’ decrease. Th e great paradox of globalization is then that out of the eff ort to create global integration, it leads to a particularization of the world which deeply contradicts the core of global in-terconnectedness (Neubauer, 2006: 27). In this context, Roland Robertson (1992 cit-ed in Sharma, 2008: 3) conceptualized the term glocalization as “the universalization of particularization and the particularization of universalism”. Th e expression glocal-ization has its roots in the Japanese term ‘dochakuka’ which fi rst appeared in articles by Japanese economists in the Harvard Business Review in the late 1980s. While the word originally meant the adaptation of farming technique to local conditions, the idea was later adopted to refer to global-localization phenomena. Habibul Khondker (1994 cited in ibid.: 3) describes the term as a process which combines the twin pro-cesses of macro-localization and micro-globalization, while Anthony Giddens (2000 cit-ed in ibid.: 3) conceptualized the relationship between the global and the local a little diff erently, describing the idea that globalization provokes the revival of local cultural identities; in other words, the local can be described as the provider of the response to global forces (Sharma, 2008: 3). In brief, the global interdependence of living condi-tions is clearly growing and thus it is necessary to deal in a measured way with this growing complexity which ultimately can only be bridged by individual and collective learning. Th e central argument of this study is then that worldwide relations impercep-tibly infl uence the local environment and should therefore be mediated and developed through didactic gateways and processes of learning which ensure clear benefi ts (Seitz, 2000: 87f.).

Barbara Schröttner 18

Learning and Global Educational Flows

In spite of claims regarding the novelty of today’s global fl ows, the condition which is called globalization is not a new one if it is viewed historically in the context of colo-nial power relations and other earlier world-systems existing prior to the European he-gemony aft er 1492. Th e fact is that every world-system builds on the structure of the previous one; consequently, the new system expands and transforms elements from the previous and thus they are always interrelated (Smythe, 2009: 6f.). In the face of this re-ality, today’s globalization is in particular characterized by the high speed of global in-teractions and processes. Due to the great number of global interconnections made in recent decades, one can observe an obvious related increase in transnational cultural fl ows. Th e worldwide systems of transportation and communication increase the poten-tial speed of the global transmission of ideas, values, goods, labour, technology, capital and people. Consequentially, both the speed and the volume of the global fl ow of ideas have intensifi ed the entanglement of the local and the global, and thus many local de-velopments have, as described in the previous chapter, enormous global consequences and vice versa (Derné, 2008: 22f.).

Looking at the work of Arjun Appadurai, the social-cultural anthropologist, fi ve di-mensions of global cultural fl ows are introduced which he termed as follows: ethno-scapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, fi nancescapes and ideoscapes. Th e common suffi x ‘-scape’ points on the one hand to the fl uid, irregular shapes of these landscapes, and on the other hand it indicates that these landscapes are not objectively given relations but deeply perspectival constructs which are aff ected by the historical, linguistic and political situatedness of diff erent sorts of actors. Such actors can be nation-states, mul-tinationals, diasporic communities, subnational groupings, religious, political and eco-nomic movements as well as intimate face-to-face groups such as villages, neighbor-hoods and families. Th ese landscapes are navigated by agents who both experience and constitute larger formations. Appadurai calls these landscapes imagined worlds; they can be defi ned as multiple worlds that are constituted by the historically situated imag-inations of persons and groups around the world. Today many people live in such ‘im-agined worlds’ and not just in ‘imagined communities’; thus, they are able to challenge and even undermine offi cially imagined worlds and entrepreneurial mentalities. Appa-durai describes the ethnoscape as a landscape of persons who represent the shift ing world such as “tourists, immigrants, refugees, exiles, guest workers, and other moving groups and individuals”. Th ese individuals form a central feature of the world and af-fect the politics of and between nations to an exceptional degree. Technoscapes are for Appadurai global confi gurations which are fl uid and which move at high speeds across various kinds of previously impenetrable boundaries. Th ese technoscapes are driven by increasingly complex relationships such as political possibilities, unskilled and highly skilled labor, and money fl ows. Financescapes, as the character of global capital, are in this context a rapidly changing and diffi cult landscape to follow because of currency markets, national stock exchanges and commodity speculations which move at blind-ing speed and have vast and absolute implications. Unfortunately, the global relation-ship among ethnoscapes, technoscapes and fi nancescapes is deeply disjunctive and ran-dom because each landscapes has its own constraints or political, informational and

Learning and Globalization 19

techno-environmental incentives. Moreover, each landscape acts as a restraint and de-fi ner of movements for the others, and thus one can observe the deeply disjunctive re-lationships between human movement, technological fl ow and fi nancial transfers. Me-diascapes and ideoscapes, which are closely related landscapes of images, are further heightening the above mentioned disjunctures. Mediascapes refer to the distribution of the electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information and also to the im-ages of the world which are created by these media and which involve extensive and complicated self-referencing (i.e. the interests of those who own and control them). Fi-nally, ideoscapes are combinations of images which are oft en directly political, are fre-quently related to ideologies of states and to counter ideologies of movements which confront and attack state power which are composed of elements of the Enlightenment worldview; this includes ideas, terms and images such as “freedom, welfare, rights, sov-ereignty, representation, and the master term democracy” (Appadurai, 2006: 181ff .).

Summing up, Appadurai’s framework shows that the ‘educational superstructure’ consists of global fl ows of ideas, institutions and people with dynamic interactions on the global and also on the local level. By taking this into consideration, global networks connect educational institutions and policy makers, professional educational organiza-tions, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations as well as multinational organizations. Th e new communication and information technologies therefore support the global exchange of educational practices and ideas which has an enormous impact on local teaching methodologies. Critics of the fl ow and network images of globaliza-tion argue that they portray individuals as passive participants or as simple subjects. On the contrary a teacher’s educational practice, for example, is never simply a product of the infl uences of global ideoscapes, technoscapes and ethnoscapes. Th e reality shows that local school offi cials and teachers, because of their own cultural perspectives, give meaning to the infl uence of global educational policies. Th ey are able to adapt global education to local conditions just as they are able to reject or accept global infl uences. Th e act of globalizing educational institutions therefore results from a structure which is composed of global fl ows and networks, but its infl uence is still determined by the interpretation and adaptation/rejection of local educators (Spring, 2009: 7).

Learning and Knowledge Society

Th e discussion draws on the fact that many countries all over the world perceive them-selves to be part of the knowledge society which is viewed as a symbol of the cur-rent global changes. Th is phenomenon leads to increased educational dynamics such as the demand for lifelong learning and also to new forms of learning practices and aims. Th e technological improvements that globalization has accelerated facilitate knowledge transfer between countries and between their education systems (Bloom, 2004: 74). Th e eff ects of the global communication networks therefore have profound consequences for education processes because they facilitate the deterritorialization of entire eco-nomic sectors and knowledge-intensive work in general (Suárez-Orozco/Sattin, 2007: 12). With reference to the expansion of the knowledge economy, the knowledge soci-ety can be described as both an enabler for national policy reforms as well as a major

Barbara Schröttner 20

source for observable global dynamics in education politics. Although specifi c knowl-edge (e.g. agricultural knowledge) might be more relevant in one location than in an other, knowledge as such is important everywhere. As a consequence, the central role of knowledge for domestic development is part of education policy arguments through-out the world. Markedly diff ering countries speak of the knowledge society, some con-sidering themselves to be members of it, or at least as becoming part of it. Th is leaves the question why the knowledge society attracts so much attention? Th e knowledge so-ciety can be described as an idea in the tradition of modernization and thus countries around the world tend to see the knowledge society as a symbol of the changes that they expect in coming years and thus they adopt policies that serve its needs. More-over, the knowledge society is hardly ever assumed to have a plural; accordingly, coun-tries tend to see themselves as part of a development which is not restricted to partic-ular countries and which tends to encompass the whole world. Because the idea of a knowledge society is widely shared, it can be linked with the explanation of increas-ing dynamics in education politics. In spite of that fact, the idea of a knowledge society has helped countries to perceive themselves as similar with respect to necessary educa-tional changes. Th e result of this development is that various countries exchange pol-icies which would have been assumed to be bound to and determined by specifi c in-ternal traditions some decades ago. In the sense of a functional relationship, education policy and the education system try to ensure that education keeps pace with the new-ly arising demands of the knowledge-intense society. Th e demand for lifelong learning supports the view that the knowledge society is an important element of an institution-al process (Jakobi, 2007: 39f.).

With the Memorandum for Lifelong Learning (European Commission 2000), the concept of lifelong learning was offi cially introduced into the educational policy of the EU in the 1990s, and it has gained new momentum with the implementation of the Lisbon strategy and given its name to the action program in education for the period 2007-2013 (Görsdorf, 2010: 142). With Europe’s goal “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” (European Council 2000 cited in ibid., 2010: 142), lifelong learning is inextricably connected with economic progress in the knowledge society. Employability, one of the new key words, calls for good ba-sic education and greater fl exibility on the job market through lifelong learning oppor-tunities. Learning in this sense is regarded as desirable and the learning society is seen as an intrinsically good thing; however it can also be also interpreted as being a mis-leading value orientation. It is in this context that it is important to keep in mind that the education concept of lifelong learning is strongly and directly linked to globaliza-tion and Europeanization (ibid.). Th erefore, a general tendency towards an “economi-zation of education policy” can be observed which is conveyed through the vocabulary of education which is full of economically-related words: “eff ectiveness, effi ciency, com-petitiveness, standards, indicators and benchmarks”. Elisabeth Görsdorf claims in her 2010 article “Th e Case of Europe: Europe-Related Learning in the Context of a Summer University” that Europe-related learning has to move away from economizing tenden-cies which are associated with lifelong learning; instead Europe-related learning has to focus on “human learning” as a process. For Görsdorf, “European competence” should be going beyond the achievement of knowledge about Europe such as familiarity with

Learning and Globalization 21

history and geography and knowledge about traditions and habits in diff erent countries and regions. Th e basic principle behind European competence development should in-stead be “Begegnungslernen” which includes learning through encounter and exchange, foreign language skills and intercultural communication competences (ibid.: 143f.). It is in this context that competence development can be described as “the ability and readi-ness of people to act in diff erent kinds of environment in self-directed ways” (Heyse et al. 2002 cited in ibid.: 144).

Th e knowledge society is, in a functionalistic way, directly linked to lifelong learning as a ‘causal story’; thus, the growing importance of knowledge implicates a justifi cation for a country’s education policy reform. Th e functionalistic justifi cation of the knowl-edge society is the narrative about the educational need to adapt to changes in society. In a phenomenological sense, the knowledge society facilitates the spread of the policy to very diff erent countries which enhances a policy diff usion process. While the func-tional foundation of the knowledge society points to the content of educational reform, its phenomenological role can be seen as being the key to understanding the current globalization processes in education policy (Jakobi, 2007: 42f.). However, the knowl-edge society constitutes a sort of global community building, and thus countries around the world align themselves to be or to become members of it. As a result, education policy became a national strategy as a means of enhancing international competitive-ness (ibid.: 40). It is possible to summarize the issue by stating that the knowledge soci-ety is assumed to be a ‘globality’ and various policy statements include the idea that this new type of society is truly global. However, today the political frame of the knowl-edge society can be observed as a phenomenon in countries all over the world, even if it is more oft en embodied as a goal or vision than a depiction of empirical reality, and thus it is primarily an idea of worldwide exchange and the formation of globalism. Th e knowledge society is oft en used as an argument for education policy reforms world-wide as it constitutes a plausible argument for policy reforms and delivers a frame to which reforms can be linked. Th erefore, it can easily be argued by policy makers that the knowledge society creates pressure or will create it; consequently, education systems are transformed through such arguments (ibid.: 43).

Learning and Key Competences

One of the specifi c objectives of this paper is to acknowledge the idea that it is cru-cial to win back democratic participation and the competences to form the conditions that defi ne social development on local, regional, country, international and global lev-els through various forms which match the specifi c circumstances (Seitz, 2000: 107). Speaking about competences, the question is how they can be defi ned. For Weinert (2001 cited in Th ielsch, 2010: 116) the defi nition of competences is that they are “a roughly specialized system of abilities, profi ciencies, or skills that are necessary to reach a specifi c goal”. Uniquely unfamiliar situations have increased during the last few de-cades because the more the world grows and ‘moves’ together, the more its inhabitants need to learn to deal and interact with each other. Key competencies, which usually re-fer to multifunctional and transdisciplinary competencies, have thus become immense-

Barbara Schröttner 22

ly important for education. Although it is still unclear which competencies should be labeled as key competencies, they can be subdivided into comprehensive dimensions such as social and aff ective competence, as well as communication skills. However key competencies, no matter which, cannot be taught but must be learned through indi-vidualized processes and thus learners have to utilize their knowledge about the ca-pacities before they can be truly acquired. Likewise, a learner’s competence cannot be measured until the competences are applied in relevant situations (ibid.: 116f.). In her analysis about “Learning and Self-Direction. Ways to Foster Self-Directed Learning in Higher Education” in this work, Angelika Th ielsch (2011: 58) points to the fact that if new learning processes are initiated, the active participation of the learners is necessary in order to experience the new knowledge and to deal with it on diff erent levels. Th ese processes ask the learner to experience and deal with new knowledge on diff erent levels such as “thinking, feeling, watching and doing” (Kolb/Kolb 2005 cited in ibid.). Learn-ing can then be defi ned as a process in which knowledge is created through the trans-formation of experience. Th e point Th ielsch would like to emphasize is the fact that if learners are experiencing something, they have the chance to learn from it. In that case, experience can be understood as a transaction between the individual and the environ-ment that changes both (ibid.). Th e American linguist, philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky (2002: 186f.) is of the opinion that

real awareness in fact comes about through practice and experience with the world. It’s not, fi rst you become aware and then you start doing things; you be-come aware through doing things. (…) In my view, you should always push all of the opportunities to their limits-partly because sometimes you can get some useful results that help people, but primarily because pretty soon you’ll fi nd out what those limits are, and you’ll understand why there are limits; you’ll gain awareness you can’t gain from a lecture. I mean, you can hear all the lectures you like about the way that power works, but you learn it very fast when you actual-ly confront it, without the lectures. So there’s an interaction between awareness and action.

Th e lecturer and researcher Neda Forghani-Arani (2011: 128) describes in her study entitled “Learning and Space. Th e Role of Language in Creating Open Spaces for Dia-logue and Enquiry” in this collection the need to renegotiate modes of dialogue, inter-action and enquiry in the context of university courses on global issues in education. To reach this goal within the predefi ned course setting, languaging the attributes of the required change seems to be the greatest challenge. Her objective was to create a sem-inar space which, through destabilizing given rules, roles, positions and fi xed identi-ties, encourages participants to bring the self into the process of exploring the global. By renegotiating the rules of space, a shift in the role of students from being recipients of knowledge to constructors and generators of knowledge could be achieved. By rene-gotiating principles of discussion, the focus of discussion was shift ed from a confronta-tion between diff ering views to a collective, participatory, joint endeavor for exploring the object of enquiry from various perspectives.

Going into more detail concerning this matter, it is obvious that lacking human competencies are the source of many problems and that education can have a powerful

Learning and Globalization 23

eff ect on human development (Bloom, 2004: 57). Th e task of education is then to nur-ture and stimulate cognitive and meta-cognitive skills, strengthen communication and understanding, cultivate interpersonal sensibilities and values as well as encourage cul-tural sophistication (Suárez-Orozco/Sattin, 2007: 12). Th ese competences are required for problem defi ning and problem solving processes as well as the ability to articulate arguments and make use of verifi able facts. Moreover, they are compulsory if one is to engage in the larger world, to master its greatest challenges and to transform it for the betterment of humanity (Suárez-Orozco/Quin-Hilliard, 2004: 6).

Going back to the central argument, education for the global era has to include life-long cognitive, behavioral and relational engagement with the world. To possess the competency to identify, analyze and solve problems from multiple perspectives requires cognitive fl exibility, toleration of ambiguity and the synthesis of knowledge within and across disciplines (Suárez-Orozco/Sattin, 2007: 19). Besides these points, the develop-ment of individual and societal competencies such as critical thinking, networking abil-ity and creativity as well as fl exibility, adaptiveness, mobility or digital literacy (Hugon-nier, 2007: 140f.) are required for productive and critical participation (Suárez-Orozco/Sattin, 2007: 20) in the global civil society. Particularly willingness and creativity, which involve innovative ideas and formulations such as metaphors, imagery, paradoxes, hu-mor, jokes and story telling, are essential components to engaging in dialogue. In a world where relativity, complexity and uncertainty are inevitable companions, these components support the enrichment and the variety of options and the process of act-ing together. Th rough dialogue it is possible to replace ‘who one is’ with ‘what one’s ex-periences are’ which is a course of action crucial in dialogue. Also, a pedagogy of dif-ference reveals aspects of our hybridity and enables individuals to analyze class, race, gender, ability and special needs issues in order to understand the sources of inequal-ity and, as a consequence, confl ict. Interrupting essentialist identities can be supported by surfacing and valuing hybrid identities instead of purity; providing means to belong-ing which are not exclusionary or segregated; space for critical discussion and debates on diff erent experience across borders; and a transversal politics of learning of which the main focus is the responsibility of learners towards each other. Besides, it is essen-tial to cope with globalization phenomena and the related threat to self-identity which appear through competitive economies that prevent democracies establishing a global consensus around human concerns and rights. But this refl exiveness requires the ac-knowledgement of multiple competences to interrupt political agendas and dogma, a professional and not over-controlled teaching force and decentralization, a protest and resistance culture and a more participatory democracy (Davies, 2006: 1035).

Learning and Intercultural CompetenceEven if people have to deal with greater diversity and complexity and face new threats and dangers through globalization processes, globalization also represents new op-portunities such as an increased ability to travel, to interact with diverse cultures, to live outside the context into which one was born, etc. (Süssmuth, 2007: 199). Th rough this increased international mobility, countries are more socially, politically and eco-nomically interdependent and thus interaction with people from other countries and

Barbara Schröttner 24

cultures is becoming more and more important. Globalization therefore brings na-tions closer together and increases the value of cross-national communication. Exten-sive cross-cultural interchange currently takes place at many levels of society and cre-ates a “teachable moment” that allows for refl ecting on other cultures as well as on the view of other cultures (Bloom, 2004: 68f.). It is in this context, Angelika Th ielsch ar-gues in her 2010 article “Nice to Meet You! – About the Combination of Teaching Lit-erature and Acquiring Intercultural Competence in the Context of Higher Education: Th eoretical Assumptions and Models of Course Design” that the relevance of intercul-tural competence increases for each individual because of the ongoing interaction be-tween diff erent cultures today. Intercultural competence refers to the ability to act and react in situations of contact with members of diff erent cultures with regard to their values and moral standards or communicative styles; in other words, to be able to deal with cultural diff erences like diff erent cultural standards. Furthermore, it copes with the ability to recognize and analyze images of otherness, especially in relation to our-selves, which encourages the capacity for self-refl exiveness. While the ‘aff ective dimen-sion’ of intercultural competence includes the ability to put oneself into someone else’s position, the ‘cognitive dimension’ includes knowledge about the world in general and also about one’s own and a target culture. Th e objective, to be interculturally compe-tent, is then to become aware of the norms and values which exist in both cultures and the ability to understand and be articulated in the respective language. To acquire in-tercultural competence, the individual has to directly get in contact with another cul-ture and interact with its members; however, such situations of intercultural contact do not leave a person ‘unmarked’ and this leads to changes in the participants because their knowledge and emotions concerning the other culture are transformed. At the present time it is therefore increasingly important to integrate intercultural perspec-tives in the process of developing and structuring education systems (Th ielsch, 2010: 117f.). To summarize, accelerating globalizing processes pose more challenges to con-ventional modes of thinking about education and the socialization process; this has sig-nifi cant implications for intercultural and cross-cultural communication in an increas-ingly interrelated world. As a consequence, there is the task of searching for alternative conceptual frameworks and pedagogical tools that allow a better understanding of in-tercultural and cross-cultural communication and the dynamic of identity construction in an increasingly interrelated world. If education and socialization are understood as complementary processes through which individuals gain knowledge of their social en-vironment and learn how to negotiate, adapt to, and infl uence its variable components, the question is then how globalization phenomena have impacted the modes of under-standing, the ways of conceptualizing identity and the multiple processes involved in identity construction. Any discussion of identity at this time of globalization hence en-tails a critical engagement with the dominant discourses that frame the understanding of identity and culture (Omar, 2009: 89f.).

Learning and Globalization 25

Learning and Global Crisis

Cultural diversity dominates contemporary daily life in post-industrial as well as in de-veloping nations and various forms of media transport cultural symbols transnational-ly, making popular culture a central agent in the selection and representation of global things. Transnational media production is hence creating new international and intra-national inequalities and social unrest; this is noticed selectively by the globally con-scious mind as experiences of growing interconnectedness and tension (Mansilla/Gard-ner, 2007: 59f.). It is in this context that the number of people losing out in the process of globalization is increasing and the policy, born out of neo-liberal ideas, of unques-tioning submission to the power of the market is failing more and more. Tendencies towards re-nationalizing and re-regionalizing are therefore becoming more important; this is in part to absorb the eff ects of the global crisis (Faulstich, 2009: 104). Harvard economist David Bloom (2004) asserts in this context that education is more important today than ever before, claiming that growing worldwide inequality, based on increas-ing gaps in income and well-being, leads to a continuing and growing global gap in ed-ucation (Suárez-Orozco/Quin-Hilliard, 2004: 16). In the same vein, Bernard Hugonnier (2007: 138), Deputy Director of the Directorate for Education at the OECD, maintains that “Globalization increases social and income disparities at the expense of social co-hesion, necessitating improvement in equality of access to quality education and equali-ty of educational outcomes”. Education systems are adaptive and they tend towards bal-ance and stability rather than radical leanings, however they do not challenge existing social patterns which are sources of confl ict; in fact they oft en even act as amplifying mechanisms. As a result, formal education can yield economic inequality and the bi-furcation of wealth/poverty, increased ethnic and religious segregation and intolerance, inheriting a particular version of hegemonic masculinity and gender segregation and a competitive individualism rather than cooperation. Th e problem of formal education is then that it genuinely destroys the connectivity between the ‘able’ and the ‘less able’, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’, males and females as well as between diff erent ethnic and re-ligious groups instead on focussing on inclusion by reintegration, on cooperation and encounters and on building cohesive political and public cultures. A radical rethinking of the goals of education and the responsibilities of learners is of increasing importance in drawing from educational institutions a greater inclination to challenge injustice and violence (Davies, 2006: 1029f.).

Concluding Thoughts

It is possible to assert that the world community, which for a long time has been thought of as a grand framework for the future of the human story is, these days, more and more oft en experienced as a confl ict-ridden reality (Seitz, 2000: 108). Th is devel-opment makes it necessary, in terms of solidarity and justice, to draw up new bench-marks for judgement, horizons of understanding and methods of doing business (Scheunpfl ug/Hirsch, 2000: 5) and to determine how best to develop innovative and

Barbara Schröttner 26

contemporary learning practices. But the majority of educational systems around the world, which have the considerable responsibility of preparing the future generation for the challenges of a globalizing world, are unprepared because they do not take into consideration the fact that future generations have to learn, interact and live in an envi-ronment that is connected with varying degrees of intensity to diff erent values, cultures, languages and economic developments. Th erefore, educational systems have to adapt and expand their priorities to account for this new context by teaching diverse compe-tences such as intercultural skills to support the ability of individuals to think globally (Süssmuth, 2007: 197) and thus enhance their development of a more global conscious-ness which is based on the facilities of global understanding, sensitivity and self-repre-sentation.

Bibliography

Appadurai, Arun (2006): Disjuncture and Diff erence in the Global Cultural Economy, In: Laud-er, Hugh, Brown, Philip, Dillabough, Jo-Anne and A.H. Halsey (Eds.): Education, Globali-zation & Social Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 179-188.

Bloom, David E. (2004): Globalization and Education. An Economic Perspective, In: Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo and Desirée Baolian Quin-Hilliard (Eds.): Globalization. Culture and Ed-ucation in the New Millennium, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press, pp. 56-77.

Chomsky, Noam (2002): Understanding Power. Th e Indispensable Chomsky, (Edited by Mitchell, Peter Rounds and Schoeff el, John), New York, Th e New Press.

Davies, Lynn (2006): Education for Positive Confl ict and Interruptive Democracy, In: Lauder, Hugh, Brown, Philip, Dillabough, Jo-Anne and A.H. Halsey, (Eds.): Education, Globaliza-tion & Social Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1029-1037.

Derné, Steve (2008): Globalization on the Ground. Media and the Transformation of Culture, Class, and Gender in India, New Delhi, SAGE.

Egger, Stefanie and Markus Schabler (2009): Bildung – Orientierung – Gestaltung, In: Schrött-ner, Barbara and Christian Hofer (Eds.): Education, Identity, Globalization – Bildung, Iden-tität, Globalisierung, Graz, Leykam, pp. 31-41.

Faulstich, Peter (2009): Globalisierung und Weiterbildung, In: Hessische Blätter für Volksbil-dung: Globalisierung und Erwachsenenbildung, Hessischer Volkshochschulverband, 59. Jg., No. 2, pp. 103-105.

Forghani-Arani, Neda (2011): Learning and Space. Th e Role of Language in Creating Open Spaces for Dialogue and Enquiry, In: Schröttner, Barbara and Christian Hofer (Eds.): Look-ing at Learning/Blicke auf das Lernen, Münster, Waxmann, pp. 127-134.

Görsdorf, Elisabeth (2010): Th e Case for Europe: Europe-Related Learning in the Context of a Summer University, In: Schröttner, Barbara and Christian Hofer (Eds.): Kompetenzen – Interdisziplinäre Rahmen/Competences – Interdisciplinary Frameworks, Graz, Leykam Ver-lag, pp. 141-157.

Hugonnier, Bernard (2007): Globalization and Education. Can the World Meet the Challenge?, In: Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. (Ed.): Learning in the Global Era. International Perspectives on Globalization and Education, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press, pp. 137-157.

Jakobi, Anja P. (2007): Th e Knowledge Society and Global Dynamics in Education Politics, In: European Educational Research Journal, 6 (1), http://www.wwwords.eu/pdf/freetoview.asp?j=eerj&vol=6&issue=1&year=2007&article=4_Jacobi_EERJ_6_1_web, last accessed: 6 Janu-ary 2011.

Learning and Globalization 27

Mansilla, Veronica Boix and Howard Gardner (2007): From Teaching Globalization to Nurtur-ing Global Consciousness, In: Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. (Ed.): Learning in the Global Era. International Perspectives on Globalization and Education, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press, pp. 47-66.

Neubauer, Deane (2006): Globalization and Education: Characteristics, Dynamics, Implications, In: East-West Center, Version of 19 September, http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fi leadmin/resources/education/ed2020_docs/Glob_and_Higher_Ed_2009_Seminar.doc, pp. 1-45, last accessed: 3 January 2011.

Omar, Sidi (2009): Rethinking Identity from a Post-Colonial Perspective, In: Schröttner, Bar-bara and Christian Hofer (Eds.): Education – Identity – Globalization/Bildung – Identität – Globalisierung, Graz, Leykam Verlag, pp. 89-99.

Pakesch, Peter (2010): Foreword, In: Pakesch, Peter: Human Condition. Mitgefühl und Selbst-bestimmung in prekären Zeiten. Empathy and Emancipation in Precarious Times, Universal-museum Joanneum, Kunsthaus Graz, Walter König Verlag, Köln.

Scheunpfl ug, Annette and Klaus Hirsch (2000): Einleitung, In: Scheunpfl ug, Annette and Klaus Hirsch (Eds.): Globalisierung als Herausforderung für die Pädagogik, Frankfurt am Main, IKO-Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation, pp. 5-13.

Seitz, Klaus (2000): Bildung für ein globales Zeitalter? Mythen und Probleme weltbürgerlicher Erziehung, In: Scheunpfl ug, Annette and Klaus Hirsch (Eds.): Globalisierung als Heraus-forderung für die Pädagogik, Frankfurt am Main, IKO-Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommu-nikation, pp. 85-114.

Sharma, Chanchal Kumar (2008): Emerging Dimensions of Decentralization Debate in the Age of Globalization, In: MPRA Paper, No. 6734, 14. January, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14337/1/MPRA_paper_14337.pdf, last accessed: 28 December 2010.

Smythe, Kathleen R. (2009): Th e Dangers of Teaching About Globalization, In: Globalization, Volume 8, Issue 1, http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v8.1/Smythe.pdf, last accessed: 27 December 2010.

Spring, Joel (2009): Globalization of Education. An Introduction, New York and London, Routledge.

Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo and Desirée Baolian Quin-Hilliard (2004): Globalization. Culture and Education in the New Millennium, In: Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo and Desirée Baolian Quin-Hilliard (Eds.) (2004): Globalization. Culture and Education in the New Millennium, Berke-ley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press, pp. 1-37.

Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. and Carolyn Sattin (2007): Introduction: Learning in the Global Era, In: Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. (Ed.): Learning in the Global Era. International Perspec-tives on Globalization and Education, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of Califor-nia Press, pp. 1-43.

Süssmuth, Rita (2007): On the Need for Teaching Intercultural Skills: Challenges for Education in a Globalizing World, In: Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. (Ed.): Learning in the Global Era. International Perspectives on Globalization and Education, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press, pp. 195-212.

Th ielsch, Angelika (2010): “Nice to Meet You!” – About the Combination of Teaching Literature and Acquiring Intercultural Competence in the Context of Higher Education: Th eoretical Assumptions and Models of Course Design, In: Schröttner, Barbara and Christian Hofer (Eds.): Kompetenzen – Interdisziplinäre Rahmen/Competences – Interdisciplinary Frame-works, Graz, Leykam Verlag, pp. 113-125.

Th ielsch, Angelika (2011): Learning and Self-Direction. Ways to Foster Self-Directed Learning in Higher Education, In: Schröttner, Barbara and Christian Hofer (Eds.): Looking at Learn-ing/Blicke auf das Lernen, Münster, Waxmann, pp. 55-70.

I Learning and Higher Education

He, who learns but does not think, is lost. He, who thinks but does not learn, is in great danger.

Confucius (551 BC–479 BC)