University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EXAMINING LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENT
LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE:
AN INNOVATION GAP ANALYSIS STUDY

by
Virginia Mason Wade

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2012

Copyright 2012 Virginia Mason Wade
ii

DEDICATION
I dedicate this journey of intellectual growth and discovery to two special
individuals, both of whom inspired my spirit of life-long learning:
My mother, Lee Mason, a true life-long learner, who believed one is never too old
to learn and grow. She was the founder and many years director of the Balboa Island/
Newport Center United Methodist Church Preschool, whose dedication, expertise, and
knowledge in the field of early childhood education never stopped inspiring me to love
my work with children, young adults, and teacher/ parent education. She inspired a love
of reading and children’s literature that has been passed down to her children,
grandchildren and thousands of preschoolers and their parents. She served on local, state,
and national chapters of early childhood professional organizations, to help build the best
practices and values of early childhood education. The educational values she held so
dear are alive and living in me daily.
Secondly, I dedicate this work to Tom Wood, our former President of Marymount
College, who took the chance to hire me 37 years ago, to design, build, and direct the
Marymount College Preschool, a college laboratory school dedicated to teacher training
and the highest quality of educational programs for college students, children, and
families. Tom inspired, trusted, and mentored a cadre of young professionals in the early
stages of our higher education careers. He expected innovation, quality, and best practice.
He inspired me to recognize my gifts and talents and to never stop improving.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I sat at the USC Dissertation Conference, August 2010, listening to chairs share
their dissertation team plans. I envisioned what it would be like to delve into each
particular topic, knowing I would be living and breathing the topic around the clock for
the next two years. When I listened to Dr. Mark Robison and Dr. Michael Diamond, I
knew that the world of global study was my only choice. I never regretted the decision.
Over the next year, as a team, we read, we discussed, we wrote, we critiqued. Our
literature reviews covered a wealth of current research in the field. We struggled over the
development of our individual dissertation topics. Through it all, Dr. Robison and Dr.
Diamond provided their leadership, support, guidance, and knowledge, deepening our
understanding of global education, while leading us through the intricacies of doctoral
level research. I thank you both for an invaluable experience.
Dr. Yates, I don’t know where to begin thanking you. You were my introduction
to learning theory at the doctoral level, and from that moment on, there was no question
that educational psychology would remain my primary focus. And, you were my
introduction to gap analysis; what more can I say? I knew that there had to be a way to
combine gap analysis, educational psychology, and global education. With your
unending help, I succeeded. You were there from my first innovation academic advising
gap analysis through every stage of this dissertation. You provided not just ideas,
solutions, and recommendations, but also your time and expertise in a very specialized
field. You gave more than was expected of a committee member and I will be always
grateful.
iv

I want to thank Dr. Robert Keim, for providing his expertise in quantitative
statistical analysis, leading to clarity and organization of the data.
I am particularly appreciative to Dr. Michael Brophy, President, and Dr. Ariane
Schauer, Provost, of Marymount College. They provided support, interest, and
encouragement of my research in global education. They willingly allowed me to use
Marymount College as my case study, providing the “laboratory” for an innovation gap
analysis during a time of transformative institutional change. I thank my colleagues and
friends whose support, interest, and encouragement carried me through: Shane, Susie,
Ruth, Joan, Paula, David, Lauren, Leslie, Karen, Sr. Antoine Marie, Ghada, and so many
more!
There are many individuals in the cohort who deserve special thanks, not the least
of whom are Valerie Anderson, Phil Placenti, and my dissertation team. From them came
encouragement, the sharing of conceptual understanding, late night texts and emails, a
drive for excellence, and the motivation to continue the pursuit of our doctoral degrees,
one assignment, one class at a time.
My dear friends Ann, Christine, Lesley, and Carolyn…there are no words to
express how much I appreciate your never-ending support. “Post Choir” friends, you
know who you are! Without your encouragement, laughter, teasing, counsel, and always
unique perspectives, I could not have accomplished this undertaking.
Last but not least, my children, Jennifer, John and Kristen, Christy, and Kevin.
You never gave up on me or lost faith that I could, and would, succeed. I hope you take
inspiration from my experience and know that you are never too old to realize dreams.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 1
The Problem and Its Underlying Framework: Overview of the Study ........................... 1
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................ 3
Globalization ............................................................................................................... 4
Internationalization ..................................................................................................... 5
Comprehensive Internationalization ........................................................................... 6
Student Learning Outcomes ........................................................................................ 7
Global Learning .......................................................................................................... 7
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 8
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 11
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 12
Significance of the Problem .......................................................................................... 13
Limitations and Delimitations ...................................................................................... 15
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................... 17
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 17
Globalization and Internationalization .......................................................................... 19
Internationalization ................................................................................................... 19
Comprehensive Internationalization ......................................................................... 21
Internationalization and a Global Perspective .............................................................. 22
Value of Internationalization in Higher Education ....................................................... 24
Students ..................................................................................................................... 24
Faculty ....................................................................................................................... 25
Institutions ................................................................................................................. 25
Global Perspective .................................................................................................... 26
Learning Outcomes in Global Education Programs ..................................................... 27
Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................... 29
Liberal Arts Education .............................................................................................. 31
Global Perspective .................................................................................................... 33
Quality Assurance of Internationalization in Higher Education ................................... 36
Accountability ........................................................................................................... 36
Accreditation Agencies ............................................................................................. 37
Strategic Goals .......................................................................................................... 38
Process of Internationalization in Higher Education .................................................... 39
Approach to Comprehensive Internationalization .................................................... 41
Institutional Peer Review .......................................................................................... 44
Process of Analysis of Internationalization of a Higher Education Institution ............ 45
Institutional Barriers to Comprehensive Internationalization ................................... 46
Professional Development ........................................................................................ 47
vi

Leadership ................................................................................................................. 47
A Process Framework for Analysis of Internationalization Efforts Leading to the
Student Leaning Outcome of Global Perspective ......................................................... 48
Organizational Goals and Mission ............................................................................ 49
Causes of Performance Gaps .................................................................................... 50
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 57
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 57
Research Approach ....................................................................................................... 58
Sample and Population ................................................................................................. 60
Sample Size and Demographics ................................................................................ 61
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 61
Measurement Tools ................................................................................................... 62
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 64
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 65
Operationalization of Goal ........................................................................................ 65
Causes of the Gap ..................................................................................................... 66
Solutions to the Gap .................................................................................................. 67
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ................................................................................................ 71
Report of the Findings .................................................................................................. 72
Operationalization of the Goal .................................................................................. 72
Causes of the Perceived Performance Gaps ................................................................. 74
Knowledge and Skills Results ...................................................................................... 76
Knowledge and Skills Gap One ................................................................................ 79
Knowledge and Skills Gap Two ............................................................................... 80
Motivation Results ........................................................................................................ 82
Motivation Gap One ................................................................................................. 84
Motivation Gap Two ................................................................................................. 85
Organizational Results .................................................................................................. 86
Organization Gap One .............................................................................................. 90
Organizational Gap Two ........................................................................................... 91
Comparison of Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and Organization Results ............ 92
Analysis of the Question Type Combinations .......................................................... 93
Statistical Analysis of the Comparison of Knowledge and Skills, ............................... 95
Motivation, and Organizational Results ....................................................................... 95
Solutions to the Perceived Performance Gaps .............................................................. 96
CHAPTER V: SOLUTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ................................ 97
Knowledge and Skills Gap Solutions ........................................................................... 98
Gaps in Factual Knowledge .................................................................................... 100
Gaps in Conceptual Knowledge .............................................................................. 100
Gaps in Procedural Knowledge .............................................................................. 101
Gaps in Metacognitive Knowledge ......................................................................... 101
vii

Summary of Knowledge Gap Solutions ..................................................................... 102
Motivational Gap Solutions ........................................................................................ 104
Summary of Motivation Gap Solutions ...................................................................... 105
Organizational Gap Solutions ..................................................................................... 106
Summary of Organizational Gap Solutions ................................................................ 107
Recommendations for Implementation ....................................................................... 108
Factual Knowledge Implementation ....................................................................... 109
Conceptual Knowledge Implementation ................................................................. 109
Procedural Knowledge Implementation ................................................................. 109
Metacognitive Knowledge Implementation ............................................................ 110
Motivation Recommendations for Implementation .................................................... 110
Organizational Support Recommendations for Implementation ................................ 111
CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 114
Operationalization ................................................................................................... 115
Faculty Perceived Gaps ........................................................................................... 116
Solutions to Faculty Perceived Gaps ...................................................................... 117
Analysis of Framework ........................................................................................... 117
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ........................................................... 118
Recommendations and Implications ....................................................................... 120
Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 120
Level 1: Participants Reactions during Implementation ............................................. 121
Level 2: Change, Learning, and Motivation during Implementation ..................... 121
Level 3: Transfer of Learning and Motivation to Learning Experiences ............... 122
Level 4: Measurement of student Outcomes of a Global Perspective .................... 122
Limitations of Study ................................................................................................... 123
Future Research .......................................................................................................... 125
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 127
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 129
APPENDIX A :Marymount College Faculty Global Perspectives Competency Survey 136
APPENDIX B: Twenty Competencies Indicative of a Global Perspective Student
Learning Outcome, as Perceived by Marymount College Faculty (Descending Order by
Mean) .............................................................................................................................. 137
APPENDIX C: American Council on Education: Global Perspective Outcomes .......... 139
APPENDIX D: Faculty Perceptions Global Perspective Barriers Survey...................... 141
APPENDIX E: Competencies, Question Types, and Means .......................................... 147
APPENDIX F: Student Learning Outcomes for Global Perspective Competencies ..... 152
APPENDIX G: Student Learning Outcomes for Global Perspective Competencies .... 160

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Top Ten Competencies Indicative of a Global Perspective
Student Learning Outcome, as Perceived by Marymount College
Faculty (Descending Order by Mean)

72
Table 4.2 Knowledge and Skills Questions, Means, and Related
Competency (Descending Order by Mean)

77
Table 4.3 Motivation Questions, Means, and the Related Competency
(Descending Order by Mean)

83
Table 4.4 Organizational Questions, Means, and the Related Competency
(Descending Order by Mean)

87
Table 4.5 Comparison of Question Types, Means, and the Related
Competency

93

ix

ABSTRACT
A global perspective reflects the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors that students
should know or be able to do in order to succeed as citizens in a global environment
(Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007). The American Council on Education’s concept of
comprehensive internationalization provides an integrative approach that ties institutional
strategies and initiatives to global learning outcomes (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005).
Marymount College, a small liberal arts college in Southern California undergoing
transformative change to a four-year institution, established, as a new learning outcome,
that graduates achieve global awareness as measured by indicators that represent The
American Council’s concept. To achieve this outcome for graduates, Marymount
recognized that faculty must be prepared to provide learning experiences that meet the
goal. The purpose of this case study was to apply an innovation gap analysis process
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Smith & Ragan, 2005) to assess Marymount’s faculty perception
of their engagement and preparedness to incorporate learning experiences and new
pedagogy that will lead to the student achievement of global awareness.
Using quantitative methods, faculty at Marymount College participated in two
surveys. In first survey, 35 faculty identified the 10 most important characteristics of
global awareness drawn from The American Council’s framework. In the second survey,
46 faculty rated their knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs to
incorporate the most important characteristics they identified in their curriculum.
Using descriptive and correlational statistics, the results of the second survey
indicated that, relative to other constructs, faculty perceived that they possessed the
knowledge and motivation to teach the identified global awareness concepts; however,
x

they felt less supported by the organization to implement the curriculum. The results led
to analysis of the largest gaps in each category, which were then specifically addressed
for solutions and implementation plans, as well as a process for formative and summative
evaluation.
The major implication of the study is that when these issues were clarified,
Marymount was positioned to make critical decisions as to whether its student learning
outcomes will be successfully achieved as a result of teaching and learning experiences.
Another implication is that the study demonstrates that when innovation is carefully
planned, there exists a unique window of opportunity to set improvement processes in
place to achieve the organizational goal. More importantly, Marymount College is
positioned to close the self-perceived faculty gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational support. If these areas are analyzed, addressed, and closed now, they
may not become barriers to meeting the institutional learning outcome for baccalaureate
graduates to develop a global perspective. When students do not achieve a global
perspective, it may leave them ill prepared to live and compete in today’s global markets
and in a world of diminishing national borders. A well-developed global perspective may
influence students to live successfully in a diverse and changing society.

1

CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The Problem and Its Underlying Framework: Overview of the Study
In recent years, a trend in higher education has been seen in institutional interest
to develop international components to programs offered at colleges and universities.
This intensified interest in international and global issues is reflected in an increased
emphasis on student learning and the outcomes that are expected as a result of global
experiences. A college or university is called to identify why it values adding a global
perspective to its mission and programs. Liberal arts colleges experience pressure to
adapt to a changing society, and as a result, the traditional general education curriculum
is evolving to meet the diverse and changing needs of today’s world. One key component
of an expanding knowledge base is an understanding of global issues, which is
considered necessary for the graduate to function in societies that cross national borders
(King, Brown, Lindsay, & VanHecke, 2007).
Many colleges and universities are adding programs to meet organizational goals
for graduates to achieve a global perspective, or global awareness. A college is called to
identify indicators it may use to measure the development of a student’s global
perspective. Faculty must be prepared to provide learning experiences that meet the goal.
One example of a liberal arts college undergoing an internationalization process is
Marymount College, in Southern California. By using this college as a case study, a
better understanding of a process to assess faculty engagement and preparedness to
incorporate learning experiences that lead to the student achievement of global awareness
may be achieved. Through evaluation using an innovation Gap Analysis Process Model
2

(GAP or gap analysis) (Clark & Estes, 2008; Smith & Ragan, 2005), the findings from
this study may be studied by other liberal arts colleges seeking to internationalize and be
prepared to effectively measure student achievement of global perspective learning
outcomes.
While institutions of higher education have varying means of accomplishing
learning outcomes, many colleges and universities share a similar understanding of the
global perspective. These are often stated as outcomes reflecting knowledge, attitudes,
and behaviors that students should know or be able to do in order to succeed as citizens in
a global environment (Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007). When articulated as a specific
organizational learning goal, accreditation standards necessitate that an institution collect
and measure evidence that this global perspective is actually attained by the students.
The American Council on Education (ACE) is actively pursuing the development
of a framework they call “comprehensive internationalization”. This framework is based
on an integrative approach that ties institutional strategies and initiatives to global
learning outcomes. The approach provides a link between institutional actions and the
impact they have on student learning (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005). However, there is a
gap found in many institutions between the rhetoric of internationalization and the reality
of the activities and the outcomes that occur and can be actually measured (Olson et al.,
2005). Closing the gap requires a commitment on an institution-wide level. Asking why
the campus should internationalize, who should be involved in the process, how they
should proceed, and what resources are needed are only a few of the questions to be
addressed (Green & Olson, 2003). According to Childress (2010), faculty engagement is
a highly critical component of successful internationalization efforts. It is the faculty
3

who will ultimately include international perspectives into their curriculum, involve
themselves in international research, or participate in professional development
programs. When these issues are clarified, an institution will be positioned to make
critical decisions as to whether its student learning outcomes have been successfully
achieved as a result of teaching and learning experiences provided by the college or
university.
Marymount College is ready to expand its programming to provide meaningful
international and global experiences. Under review by the institution is how to measure
successful achievement of its organizational goal for students to develop recognition of
multiple perspectives and global awareness. This case study will explore the development
of an innovation model of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process to identify and
measure the achievement of the organization’s goal and the faculty’s knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational gaps that may exist as barriers to achievement of
the goal.
Background of the Problem
A global perspective is not developed solely through enrollment in a specific
course or participation in a study travel trip. Reliance on study travel for developing a
global perspective is no longer realistic for either non-traditional or traditional students.
Financial concerns and work schedules make study abroad unrealistic for many students
(Childress, 2010). The essence of a global perspective may be reflected by the synthesis
of liberal education learning domains, leading students to locate themselves both
historically and socially, with the ability to reflect on their role as responsible citizens.
They are able to commit to the concept that the world is more important than themselves,
4

and that they have a moral and ethical conviction to work to the common good of
humanity (Thomas, 2002).
Internationalization and globalization terminology is often used interchangeably
(Altbach, 2004). These key concepts need clarification for use in the context of higher
education and, most specifically, for clarity of ideas within this study.
Globalization
Globalization is driven by the current economy, national and international
politics, and sociological issues that push 21
st
century higher education toward greater
multinational involvement (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Globalization is the procedure by
which nations become more incorporated through shifting of goods, labor, capital, and
ideas (Bloom, Channing, & Chan, 2005). This is due to the knowledge investment by
global capital such as seen in higher education and advanced training. A “knowledge
society” now includes a service sector as well as a greatly increased reliance by many
societies on highly educated personnel and knowledge products necessary for economic
growth. Within higher education, globalization results in a greater integration of
research, increased usage of information technology, and the use of English for scientific
communication (Bloom et al., 2005). Globalization refers to the increased flow of
students and faculty between countries around the world and an increased number of
higher education partnerships and levels of collaboration between cross-border
institutions (Hudzik, 2011). This is a paradigm shift away from the concept that higher
education institutions are solely a local, regional, or national resource. Colleges and
universities are becoming global resources as a result of greater global connectivity
(Hudzik, 2011).
5

Internationalization
Internationalization occurs at the organizational and institutional level, with the
creation of a campus environment as seen in teaching, research, and outreach (Page,
2005). Knight (1993) described the concept of internationalization as a process of
integration between international and intercultural dimensions into an institution’s
teaching, service, and service functions. Knight (2003) later expanded her concept by
adding global dimensions into the purpose, function, and delivery of postsecondary
education. Altbach (2006, 2010) presented the concept of internationalization as a
primary response to globalization forces; the specific programs and policies that are
undertaken in order to deal with globalization.
Olson, Evans, and Shoenberg (2007) placed internationalization in the context of
multicultural knowledge of peoples and regions beyond the borders of the United States,
with an understanding of the relationships between nation-states and of the wide variety
in and among global trends and systems. Internationalization connects colleges and
universities with the changing local and global environments, providing service to society
that is relevant and meets the needs of students under changing realities (Hudzik, 2011).
Qiang (2003) provides a framework for internationalization that identifies current
approaches to the internationalization process. These approaches represent the stance
taken by senior leadership to promote and implement internationalization dialog and
action on a college campus. The approaches include an “activity approach”, which is
focused on student/faculty exchanges and international students. The “ethos approach”
leads to the creation of an organizational culture or climate that embraces and values
internationalization development. The “process approach” is seen through an infusion of
6

service, teaching, and research into the organizational processes. The fourth approach is
the “competency approach”. This approach calls for the institution to examine the skills,
knowledge, attitudes, and values of the faculty, students, and staff. The competency
approach recognizes the need for analysis and professional development for faculty and
staff to gain the skills and knowledge needed for both internationalization and to lead
students forward in the achievement of global perspective learning outcomes (Qiang,
2003). It is through the lens of Qiang’s competency approach that the context for this
study is established.
Comprehensive Internationalization
The American Council on Education seeks to advance the concept of
comprehensive internationalization as a process throughout higher education institutions.
Comprehensive internationalization is a framework with an integrative approach. It links
institutional inputs (mission, strategic plans, activities and programs) with the outcomes
of student learning. The impetus for the concept lies in the need for higher education to
prepare students to live and work in a world characterized by diminishing borders (Green,
2005). Comprehensive internationalization infuses an international or intercultural
dimension into the teaching, learning, research, and service functions of an institution. It
is designed to be a highly visible, strategic approach, evolving into the identity, or ethos,
of an institution. It involves all levels of the institutional organization.
According to the ACE, the process of comprehensive internationalization leads to
gradual institutional transformation. It is built on an institutional vision for
internationalization. There are clearly articulated goals, and a strategy is developed to
integrate the internationally and globally focused programs and activities provided
7

throughout and across the campus. In order to achieve comprehensive internationalization
on a campus, the institution must be committed to the process on all levels, from senior
leadership to faculty teaching and engagement down to individual departmental units.
Institutions must carefully examine, evaluate, and assess their vision, mission, goals, and
strategic plans. They need to look honestly and openly at inconsistencies, at barriers
creating gaps in successful internationalization, and recognize the opportunities to solve
the issues (Olson et al., 2005). Internationalization of the curricula will require faculty to
have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to infuse global perspective concepts into
courses. According to Childress (2010), “Faculty engagement in internationalization
must be proactively encouraged and supported by campus leaders overseeing the
implementation of internationalization plans” (p. 28).
Student Learning Outcomes
A general discussion on student learning outcomes and global learning will help
provide the context within the scope of global perspectives. Learning outcomes articulate
the expected knowledge, skills, and attitudes of students that are developed as a result of
a learning experience (Suskie, 2004). The institution judges whether it provides sufficient
opportunities to produce the intended learning and then assess if the evidence of actual
student learning matches the institutional expectations. The results drive the improvement
of existing programs, and create new ones if the results speak to poor student
achievement of the outcomes (Olson et al., 2005).
Global Learning
The concept of global learning may be broken into three types of learning: global,
international, and intercultural (Olson, Green, & Hill,, 2006). Global denotes the
8

movement beyond national borders into the international world. International is the focus
on the relationships between different nations. Intercultural focuses on the ability to
understand and appreciate cultural differences and interact within a diverse society.
Therefore, global learning is acquired through experiences that teach students to gain a
deeper understanding of world cultures and events. Through these experiences, students
are able to analyze global systems and develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that
lead them to global understanding and application to their lives (Olson et al., 2006).
These key concepts provide the background necessary to continue the discussion
of the types of indicators needed to measure student attainment of a global perspective
and to evaluate the ability of the faculty to integrate learning experiences into the
curriculum that help achieve the goal. Questions to be addressed include what
knowledge, attitudes, and skills do students need in order to be “globally competent”?
Which learning experiences, both inside and outside the classroom, foster that learning?
How do institutions know if the learning experience leads to successful outcomes for
students (Olson et al., 2005)? A critical component to this process that strengthens this
process is to evaluate if faculty are prepared to engage in such teaching (Childress, 2010).
Statement of the Problem
Accreditation agencies call for evidence of successful attainment of an
institution’s identified learning outcomes. Quality assurance in internationalization calls
for evidence of global perspective learning outcome achievement (Burke, 2004; Altbach
& Knight, 2007; Armstrong, 2007). Without indicators to assess student learning
outcomes representing a global perspective, it will be difficult to provide the evidence of
successful achievement of the outcome.
9

By utilizing an innovation gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008) it is
possible to examine a program in its conceptual stage and identify the goal of the
program. When the gaps that exist between concept and program implementation are
examined, an institution is able to identify the potential barriers to successful
achievement of the organizational goal. These barriers may involve a lack of knowledge
and skills in the faculty to infuse their curriculum with awareness of other cultures or
global concepts. If a lack of motivation exists among faculty, it may be evidenced by an
unwillingness to revise their course material or to infuse a sense of global awareness into
student learning experiences. The organization culture itself may need infusion with
processes leading to support of internationalization, such as release time to research and
update syllabi and course content, funding to provide library resource materials,
insufficient professional development, and travel funds for research and projects
(Childress, 2010).
In order to identify the key components needed to help students achieve a global
perspective, critical questions must be addressed. These include how the college will
define the goal, and then how will it measure the achievement of this goal, providing the
evidence that proves successful achievement of a global perspective student outcome.
Who should be involved in the assessment process and how the college will proceed are
essential components of the assessment (Green & Olson, 2003; Olson et al., 2005). When
global learning outcomes are developed, the institution must articulate that which
signifies competence and identify measures that demonstrate the learning (Olson et al.,
2006).
When indicators by which to measure global perspective learning outcomes are
10

not in place, and assessment of the successful achievement of the learning outcomes is
not undertaken, colleges may fall short in the accreditation requirements to link programs
and teaching to successful attainment of such student learning outcomes. Without careful
assessment of the institution in terms of internationalization dimensions at all levels of
the organization, a college may not know the direction and resources that are needed to
build successful programs leading to achievement of global perspectives by students
(Olson et al., 2005).
Marymount College is an example of a liberal arts college seeking to provide
learning experiences for its students that will lead to the development of a global
perspective. It has articulated an organizational goal that an outcome of a Marymount
baccalaureate degree will include the successful achievement of recognizing multiple
perspectives and global awareness. Marymount articulates five organizational goals for
student learning (institutional student learning outcomes): (1) Effective written, verbal,
and digital presentation skills; (2) Analysis using relevant conceptual, quantitative, and
technology tools; (3) Evaluation of competing options and reflection on values to support
reasoned and ethical decision-making; (4) Recognition of multiple perspectives and
global awareness; and (5) Experiential learning and collaborative skills for personal,
social, civic, and global responsibility (Marymount College, 2010-11; 2011-12). The
focus of this study is centered on the fourth outcome of multiple perspectives and global
awareness. Throughout the study, the phrase “recognition of multiple perspectives and
global awareness” will be used interchangeably with the term “global perspective” or
“global awareness”.
Similar to other liberal arts colleges, Marymount is in need of specific indicators
11

to measure successful achievement of its graduate’s achievement of global perspectives
and specify the type of evidence that will be collected and analyzed in order to
demonstrate student learning (Olson et al., 2005). By using Marymount College as a case
study, a process to assess faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
culture to determine how to move towards successful accomplishment of the
organizational goal for student development of a global perspective will be identified.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine a process by which a college may identify
and measure students’ successful attainment of a global perspective, using quantitative
research methods as well as recommendations from the research literature. Formative
evaluation, using an innovation model of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process,
will identify the process by which a liberal arts college can assess its faculty’s readiness
to provide learning experiences supporting campus internationalization and thereby
identify the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational gaps that may exist as
barriers to achieving an organizational goal of a student learning outcome that reflect a
global perspective. Marymount College has not yet operationalized its concept of a
learning outcome of “global perspective”. It does not yet have a comprehensive program
of internationalization. There is a 100% gap between the current status and meeting the
college goal for developing global perspective in students. The innovation gap analysis
process will help Marymount College evaluate basic questions regarding the specific
organizational goals for student achievement of recognition of global awareness and what
indicators would be used to measure this. As a college innovation, Marymount must
address the potential faculty knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational
12

challenges, or gaps (barriers), within the institution that may affect the successful
achievement of the organizational goal. By using Marymount College as a case study,
the broader issues experienced in other liberal arts colleges in the realm of measurement
of student learning outcomes may be addressed.
This study will consider the following in the gap analysis: What is the operational
definition of a global perspective? Are the barriers to successful student achievement of a
global perspective due to gaps in faculty knowledge and skills, faculty motivation, or in
the organizational culture? What are the potential solutions to address these causes and
therefore close the identified gaps? The specific research questions for this study will
seek to answer these questions. Based on the quantitative data gathered to operationalize
the goal, faculty perception as to the barriers that may create faculty gaps, and the
recommendations for solutions pulled from the current research literature, a process for
organizational evaluation of whether the faculty gaps have been closed may be suggested,
leading to a process for Marymount College to assess the successful achievement of a
global perspective by graduates.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are designed to examine the potential
gaps in faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture that
Marymount College, a liberal arts college undergoing transformative change,
must close in order to achieve its organizational goal to provide curriculum and
learning experiences for students that lead to recognition of multiple perspectives
and a global awareness by its baccalaureate graduates. Due to a shift in 2011 from
a two-year college to a four-year college, a 100% gap currently exists for
13

achieving this organizational goal. The first class of seniors graduates in May
2012. As such, the research questions for this study are:
1. What is the operational definition of and the measurable indicators for
“recognition of multiple perspectives and global awareness” as stated in
the organizational goal?
2. What are the gaps in faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
culture, which may affect the successful achievement of an organizational goal for
development of a global perspective for students at Marymount College?
3. What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in faculty knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the organization’s goal of
successful achievement of a global perspective by students at Marymount
College?
Through analysis of the data from the research questions, a process will be recommended
by the researcher by which Marymount is able to measure and evaluate successful
achievement of a global perspective by graduates earning a baccalaureate degree from
Marymount College.
Significance of the Problem
This study seeks to develop a process by which Marymount College may examine
its faculty’s role and readiness to meet the student learning outcome of development of a
global perspective. Liberal arts colleges, with missions historically grounded in teaching,
have become familiar with student learning outcomes and assessment due to shifts in
demands for accountability over the last two decades. Accreditation agencies, legislators,
policy makers, businesses, and parents are concerned that there is a lack of evidenced
14

learning of what is taught in college. This demand for accountability is leading
institutions of higher education to provide evidence by which student learning is
measured (Olson et al., 2005).
As higher education programs expand internationalization efforts, a clear
understanding of how experiences or programs lead to successful attainment of student
outcomes is needed. It is no longer sufficient to simply provide a study abroad program
or co-curricular activity. Through internationalization, the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes of students are enhanced. This may open career doors for graduates, allowing
them to be effective and responsible global citizens. Measurement indicators need to be
developed and in place for institutional assessment of successfully achieved outcomes.
To accomplish this, the faculty needs to have the knowledge and skills, as well as the
motivation, to provide appropriate learning experiences. In addition, the organizational
culture must be positioned to support the faculty role.
This study is significant since “Outcomes assessment involves gathering and
evaluating quantitative and/or qualitative information that demonstrates congruence
between the institution’s mission, goals, and objectives and the actual outcomes of its
educational activities” (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002).
Accreditation calls for institutions to focus on making the assessment of learning
outcomes a priority. Formative evaluation through a case study of one institution’s
organizational goal for student recognition of global perspectives using an innovation of
the GAP model (Clark & Estes, 2008; Smith & Ragan, 2005) will provide other liberal
arts colleges a process for assessment of its global awareness outcomes.

15

Limitations and Delimitations
The focus of this study is to operationalize Marymount College’s global
perspective goal and examine the barriers (gaps) among faculty that must be addressed to
help lead BA students to successful achievement of the global perspective learning goal.
The limitations of the study are that it is context specific and addresses the institution’s
overall vision and mission. As other institutions have unique visions and missions, this
case study cannot be generalized. Other institutions may find benefit in the application of
this study’s use of Clark & Estes (2008) gap analysis process for innovative changes
within its own programs.
The study is not intended to be one of summative evaluation. A limitation of the
study is in the narrowing of the number of factors addressed. Student engagement, staff
and administrative influence, research, and funding sources, are other important
components of the large picture, but reside outside the scope of this study.
Organization of the Study
Six chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with
the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion of globalization and
internationalization in higher education. Initial concepts of innovation gap analysis were
introduced. The background, purpose, research questions, and significance of the problem
were examined. Chapter II provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope
of the study. Topics of comprehensive internationalization, global perspective, learning
outcomes, quality assurance, the process of internationalization, the gap analysis process,
and evaluation lead the reader forward in gaining a deeper understanding of the scholarly
research in these areas. Chapter III details the gap analysis methodology and research
16

design for this study. In Chapter IV, the data and results are assessed and analyzed.
Chapter V provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps
as well as recommendations for an implementation plan for the solutions. Chapter VI
concludes the dissertation with a synthesis of the research results and recommendations
for summative evaluation of the implementation plan. Discussion of further research and
study limitations are addressed on this topic of using innovation gap analysis to develop
indicators to measure successful student achievement of a global perspective.
17

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
There is a trend in higher education for universities and colleges to add
international components to their programs. The economic, political, social, and
educational issues of the 21
st
century call for international solutions of interconnectivity,
intercultural, and multilingual understanding. From a historical perspective, the roots of
globalized education are not a new concept. In the early universities in Europe, students
came to study from across Europe in order to increase their knowledge for the good of the
state or the church (Wildavsky, 2010). This trend has continued into the present context
of higher education.
Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbey (2009) reported a fifty three percent increase in
enrollments in global education programs between the years 2000 and 2007. Today, the
scope of internationalization is different than in the past. The concept is one of
institutional imperative rather than a desirable extracurricular activity or program. The
institutional ethos, intended outcomes, and breadth of clientele have changed
dramatically. Colleges and universities need to identify what they expect students to
learn in order to develop a global perspective and to become contributing members of
local and global work environments (Qiang, 2003). Qiang (2003) calls for institutions to
build social and intercultural skills, multilingualism, and academic and professional
knowledge into student learning outcomes in order to better meet the demands of
globalization influences on society.
Armstrong (2007) asks that institutions of higher education identify the reasons
18

for adding a globalization perspective to its mission and programs. Not all universities
and colleges are focused on research or striving for world class rankings as a primary
mission. The institutional mission may be focused on student learning. Institutions must
link mission, strategic plan, and institutional student learning outcomes to the
globalization process. Regional and national standards of higher education accreditation
require quality assurance, calling for institutions to regulate the quality of the student
experience when engaged in cross-border education (Altbach & Knight, 2007). The
current standard in the accreditation process is to provide evidence for the successful
achievement of learning outcomes within the context of the institution’s mission and
goals. An institution of higher education is accountable to its constituents. In this light, it
must be able to measure what is promised to students, such as “developing a global
perspective”. This promise may be reflected through institutional student learning
outcomes, mission statements, program and course objectives, and co-curricular
objectives.
The purpose of this literature review is to examine scholarly research that
identifies the process of internationalization for institutions of higher education. This will
include a review of the concepts of globalization and internationalization, goals for
developing student global perspectives, and processes for analysis and evaluation of
measurement indicators that provide evidence for student achievement of a global
perspective. Through these means, an institution of higher education will be able to
determine the successful attainment of an institutional student learning outcome referring
to the student achievement of a “global perspective”.
19

Globalization and Internationalization
Internationalization and globalization terminology is often used interchangeably
(Altbach, 2004). Globalization is driven by the current economy, national and
international politics, and sociological issues that push 21
st
century higher education
toward greater multinational involvement (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Globalization is the
procedure by which nations become more incorporated through shifting of goods, labor,
capital, and ideas (Bloom, 2004). This is due to the knowledge investment by global
capital such as seen in higher education and advanced training. A “knowledge society”
now includes a service sector as well as a greatly increased reliance by many societies on
highly educated personnel and knowledge products necessary for economic growth.
Within higher education, globalization results in a greater integration of research,
increased usage of information technology, and the use of English for scientific
communication (Bloom, 2004).
Internationalization
Knight (1993) provided a landmark working definition of internationalization in
higher education. Internationalization is clarified as a total process, with an international
and intercultural dimension infused into teaching, research, and student and academic
support services. Knight (2003) later expanded her concept by adding global dimensions
into the purpose, function, and delivery of postsecondary education. Olson, Evans, and
Shoenberg (2007) put internationalization in a context of multicultural knowledge of
peoples and regions beyond the borders of the United States, with an understanding of the
relationships between nation-states and an understanding of the wide variety in and
among global trends and systems. Internationalization occurs at the organizational and
20

institutional level, with the creation of a campus environment as seen in teaching,
research, and outreach (Page, 2005).
Understanding rationales for the enhanced focus on providing an international
goal for the institution helps to clarify the concept of internationalization. Knight (1997)
developed four basic rationales for the internationalization of higher education. These
were based on political, economic, academic, and cultural/social rationales. The
academic rationale provides valuable understanding to the concept of internationalization
and reasons for which colleges and universities undertake these endeavors. Academic
standards for teaching and research, as well as for enhancing the quality of the program,
are an important premise. Internationalization is linked to the mission and strategic plan
of the institutions. Assessment of programs and the needs for support, technology, and
human services is a key element. The motivation for internationalization within this
rationale is seen as: achieve international standards in teaching and research; ensure that
research addresses international and national issues; address global interdependence
through scholarship and research; and prepare graduates to be national and international
citizens (Knight, 1997).
An institution may call its programs international, global, or study abroad, to
name just a few of the current terminologies in use. Armstrong (2007) suggests that the
terminology used by institutions to reflect their internationalization efforts is less
important than their need to clearly identify the reasons for which they want to globalize
their programs. This suggests that the purpose of a global learning program, regardless of
terminology, is found within the institution’s mission and student learning outcomes.
The successful achievement of the mission of a global experience, or perspective, lies
21

within the process of student learning rather than a programmatic title.
Comprehensive Internationalization
Comprehensive internationalization is a holistic paradigm to help educators and
leaders in higher education understand the process of increasing the level of international
understanding and programs both on and off campuses (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005). The
term “comprehensive internationalization” has been infused into the language of higher
education through the efforts of the American Council on Education. There is no one goal
or particular model to succeed with this process, but rather a concept that individual
institutions develop international programs consistent with strategic plans, missions,
programs, values, and resources (Hudzik, 2011). There are over 4,300 degree-granting
institutions in the United States and over 18 million students enrolled in institutions of
higher education in the U.S (Hudzik, 2011). There is no national system of education;
there is no one process for measurement of levels of internationalization.
Comprehensive internationalization is a concept regarding the process of infusing
international and comparative perspectives throughout all levels of a college or
university. It goes beyond the addition of study abroad experiences. Comprehensive
internationalization begins with the institution’s mission, goals, and values. It drives
leadership, faculty, staff and students to embrace a commitment (as seen through action)
to enhancing a global understanding (Huzdik, 2011; Green, 2002; Green & Olson, 2003).
Clarification of an institution’s mission, purpose, and program goals provides a
starting point for internationalization (Hudzik, 2011). Changes in the local and global
environment have shifted the focus in higher education. Many institutions are recognizing
a commitment to providing a more relevant service to stakeholders, faculty and students,
22

as well as to the larger society. Achieving a campus infused with internationalization
helps to connect the institution to the global marketplace of ideas, brains, and discovery.
Internationalization and a Global Perspective
The motivation for colleges committing to move towards a global institution vary.
There is no single justification for this step. The impetus may be based in a desire to
strengthen a reputation as a global university or to make an impact in a global
marketplace. The reason may be driven by the goal to provide a greater number of
opportunities for faculty to engage in teaching and research beyond their national
borders. Institutions may be driven to expand international direction in order to enhance
student experiences leading to greater skills, knowledge, and attitudes that lead to a
greater depth of global understanding and perspective (Huzdik, 2011).
Qiang (2003) identifies four approaches that are used by colleges and universities
in a move towards internationalization. The first is an “Activity Approach”, in which
curriculum, student/faculty exchanges, technical assistance, and the including of
international students is considered the means by which internationalization takes place
on a campus. Qiang suggests that this was the typical approach over the past decades and
leads to a fragmented approach. The relationships, impacts, and benefits between the
programs are not integrated. The “Ethos Approach” prevails when the institutional
culture or climate values and supports intercultural and international perspectives and
leads to organizational support of specific principles and goals. The “Process Approach”
is used to integrate, or infuse, an international/intercultural dimension into a wide range
of activities, policies, and procedures. This dimension becomes an integral part of
teaching, research, and service. Both program and organizational policies and procedures
23

must be emphasized. Qiang’s final approach is the “Competency Approach”. This
approach is most consistent to the emphasis of internationalization placed on the
development of skills, knowledge, attitudes, and values gained by faculty and staff, as
well as by students. This approach relies on the identification of those learning outcomes
that lead to student achievement of becoming successful citizens at both the national and
international level, and with the ability to contribute and enhance their contributions to
both the local and global work place.
The ACE is helping to lead the movement of comprehensive campus
internationalization, with the goals for students to gain the skills and knowledge to
function in a world of diminished borders and need for multicultural understanding
(Green, 2005). They are clear, however, that internationalization efforts will not look the
same at all institutions. The process of internationalization will be driven by strategic
initiatives of each college and university (Biddle, 2002). Each institution needs to
identify its concept of what is considered a global perspective. This may be represented
by a student who is able to view the world through a lens that understands the economic,
political, social, cultural, technological, and environmental issues at a global level.
Global citizenship recognizes the need for a person to be a contributing member of a
community from a local to global level. Equity, social justice, responsibility are the views
embraced by a global citizen (Otter, 2007). Global perspective leads to an understanding
of the connections between self and others throughout the world. Students have the
knowledge, skills, and values to embrace a diverse and changing society. They are
willing to strive to achieve a just and sustainable world, where resources are shared with
greater levels of equity (McKenzie, et. al, 2003).
24

The question of the value of internationalization at a higher education institution
must be addressed. It takes time, money, and often creates controversy within a college or
university. It leads one to ask, “Why internationalize? What are the goals and how does
it fit the mission? Why is it important to an institution?” Those questions will be
addressed in the following section.
Value of Internationalization in Higher Education
Green and Olson (2003) authored Internationalizing the Campus: A User’s Guide,
through the American Council on Education. They call for institutions of higher
education to examine the changing world environment and develop a vision of what
constitutes excellence in a global society. From this, a college or university can identify
what the institution values as critical student learning goals. One should not expect a
narrow view of this process. An institution will examine its finances, academic issues in
terms of teaching and curriculum, campus life, student support, the role of the
international student, and budget allocations, to name a few. The value they place on
internationalization will be translated into action on all levels of the institution.
Students
A student should learn the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that lead to the ability
to function in global society. This learning may be centered in areas such as knowledge
of world geography and interdependence of world events and issues; a proficiency in a
foreign language; a willingness to be open to new opportunities; and the ability
appreciate multiple perspectives (Green & Olson, 2003). In order to better equip students
to interact effectively in a global society, understanding of one’s own culture and its
interrelatedness to others is of value. The role of higher education, especially within a
25

liberal arts education, should equip students with these skills (Barker, 2000). A value of
internationalization may be seen in students who are equipped to think critically, develop
strong oral and written communication skills, appreciate different modes of inquiry, and
be ready to live and work in global settings (Green & Olson, 2003).
Faculty
Faculty have a critical role in the process of internationalizing a campus. Green
and Olson (2003) suggest that faculty need to review and evaluate the content, structure,
and outcomes of general education programs. They need to lead the inquiry as to whether
the academic programs are equipping students with the global competencies of
knowledge, attitudes, and skill that students will need in the future. Faculty have a
greater opportunity to enhance the quality of their teaching and research. Faculty will
impact their students by helping them prepare for a wider array of career opportunities as
well as to enhancing students’ abilities to live in an increasingly multicultural
environment in the United States.
Institutions
As an institution prepares for a greater level of internationalization on its campus
and in programs, staff and faculty will need to clearly identify the types of outcomes they
hope to achieve, driven by how they value the internationalization process. Institutions
must identify specific global knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students are expected to
develop, as well as criteria by which to recognize the achievement of these outcomes.
How this criterion will be measured, e.g., by rubrics of student work, career success, or
graduate school acceptance, will need to be determined (Olson et al., 2005).
Recent years have seen an increase in nonprofit, liberal arts colleges and
26

universities joining the international market of higher education. The goal to do so is
usually not based in finance but rather efforts to provide a new level of faculty research
opportunity, build knowledge capacity, as well as to help provide more opportunities
engage in intercultural experiences (Altbach & Knight, 2007). While the traditional
college may not move into the international market for the goals of profit-making, the
resulting competitiveness and prestige may lead to that result. American colleges often
state goals for its students to develop cross cultural perspectives. Providing study-abroad
programs, curriculum enhancement, foreign language opportunities, and coursework in
the disciplines of global or international studies helps to increase its institutional value
(Siaya & Hayward, 2003).
Government, business, and education sectors have all increased their demands for
workers to gain an increased level of expertise in international skills. This has
implications for the value of internationalizing a campus. Students of diverse ethnicity
and race need equal opportunity to obtain a college degree and better equip themselves
for the competitive global marketplace. Failure to provide this will impact the ability for
the United States to remain a higher educated, information-based society (Olson et al.,
2007).
Global Perspective
When institutions create mission or goal statements that students will “develop a
global perspective” or “become global citizens” they need to be prepared to provide
evidence that their programs are, indeed, graduating students who have achieved this
global perspective or some level of global citizenship. The challenge to colleges and
universities is to identify where this learning takes place and how to recognize its
27

attributes, rather than to focus on whether the program is called international, study
abroad, or global experience. The American Association of Colleges and Universities
(AAC&U) found through a survey of 300 executives in American corporations that over
72% of the respondents believed colleges needed to assure that students would learn to
deal with the changing focus on global work and learning communities, and to appreciate
the implications of these changes on future business and industry processes and policies
(Braskamp, Braskamp, & Merrill, 2009). Perhaps the value of a global perspective may
be measured by a student’s intercultural skills, as seen in their ability to meet, work and
live with others who have different cultural backgrounds and experiences.
When a student achieves the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable them to
understand world cultures and events; analyze global systems; appreciate cultural
differences, and apply this knowledge and appreciation to their lives as citizens and
workers, the value of the global or international experience is apparent (Olson et al.,
2007). If colleges and universities are able to measure a student’s ability to deal with
global issues, global developments, and implications of such for the future, the school
may be able to claim with integrity that its students have met the institutional learning
outcome of developing a global perspective (Braskamp et al., 2009). Based on this, it is
of value to review literature on the topic of specific learning outcomes that identify the
achievement of a global perspective.
Learning Outcomes in Global Education Programs
Ratings and rankings provide comparative data on inputs, activities, resource
outputs (including articles published), graduation rates, funding, resources used, and
number of classes taught. These performance indicators do not, however, provide
28

evidence as to whether or not students actually develop the knowledge and skills
promised by stated learning outcomes. In the absence of comparable learning outcome
assessment indicators or measurement tools that apply across institutions of higher
education, ratings and rankings are used. They do little to provide accurate measures or
evidence of student learning or of teaching quality (Nusche, 2007). The following topics
will address issues of student learning outcome assessment and identify specific
outcomes that measure student achievement of a global perspective.
In a discussion of achievement of the development of a global perspective, one
must first examine a range of literature pertaining to the general topic of learning
outcomes. When the ratings of colleges and universities are based solely on quantitative
criteria, measurement of student learning is often not included (Bogue & Hall, 2003).
This is particularly true in rankings of global universities. One cannot easily interpret the
direct educational benefit for a student based on reputation rankings. Bogue and Hall
(2003) question the effect of rankings on meaningful contributions to program and
quality improvement.
Assessment of student learning goes beyond the mere identification of learning
outcomes. In relationship to an international experience, assessment includes the practice
of gathering evidence that shows students have achieved specific competencies as a result
of the international educational experiences. According to Green and Olson (2003), this is
rarely accomplished by institutions. They recommend a framework of three questions to
guide institutional measurement of the student outcomes: (1) what indicators will be
measured to provide evidence of student achievement of articulated student learning
outcomes? (2) by which process will evidence be gathered at the course, program, and
29

institutional levels to determine student achievement of learning outcomes? and (3)
which campus experts will help formulate assessment strategies? Green and Olson’s
(2003) questions call for in-depth institutional analysis of the measurement process to
assure goal statements and promises are supported by actual evidence of successful
student achievement of the stated learning outcomes.
There is no one specific or universally agreed upon list of global perspective
learning outcomes. There is, however, a high level of convergence when lists between
institutions are compared. A well-written outcome allows for application by a range of
departments. Specificity may be applied when the outcome refers to specific course level
measurement indicators (Green & Shoenberg, 2006).
Learning Outcomes
A discussion about learning outcomes is central to this study, and therefore
warranted. Learning outcomes are measured through abilities or achievements. A
learning outcome is the knowledge, skills, or attitudes that are a result of learning
(Nusche, 2007). Institutions often try to assess learning outcomes in terms of inputs and
outputs. Inputs may be identified as resources the institutions uses in strategic
accomplishments, such as staffing of faculty and administration, buildings and
equipment, and funding sources. Inputs help produce specific outputs, such as
curriculum design and teaching experiences. Outputs are seen as a product that is
produced by the institution. They are often able to be counted, as in the number of
articles in publication by faculty, or number of international courses taught, number of
students in study abroad programs, or number of degrees awarded. In contrast, outcomes
are directly related to student learning and identify exactly what the student achieves.
30

This is different from measuring the intentionality of what a faculty or program hopes to
achieve (Allan, 1996).
Eisner (1979) identified outcomes as learning that is “essentially what one ends
up with, intended or not, after some form of engagement” (p. 103). Learning outcomes
are able to be observed, demonstrated, and measured (Spady, 1998). When institutions
clearly articulate learning outcomes, it implies that assessment and evaluation of quality
can be achieved. Higher education institutions should articulate expected student
outcomes. If this is not done in a measurable way, comparative assessment of learning
outcomes is not feasible (Nusche, 2007; Melton, 1996). There are many assessments that
can measure outcomes on a comprehensive level. It is up to an assessment team to
determine relevant measures that support the institution’s mission and goals (Nusche,
2007).
Learning outcomes may be written as cognitive outcomes (e.g., recall or
recognition of knowledge, development of intellectual skills and abilities), ranging from
domain-specific knowledge to the most general of reasoning and problem-solving skills
(Shavelson & Huang, 2003). Non-cognitive outcomes are seen in the development of
values or changes in beliefs (Ewell, 2005). This area is much more complicated to
measure than skills and knowledge. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) question that other
factors affect the control of measurement of the impact of a specific program on student
outcomes, such as social maturation, generational effects, and specific life events may
lead to the achievement of the outcome. Non-cognitive outcomes often need to be
measured through such qualitative means as student, faculty, and staff questionnaires and
surveys, and of future employer surveys (Nusche, 2007).
31

Liberal Arts Education
The overarching goal of many liberal arts colleges is found in mission statements
claiming to help students become wise or global citizens, to construct lives of substance,
or to become life long learners (King, Brown, Lindsay, & VanHecke, 2007). Boyer’s
(1987) landmark work in learning and development states that often the desired goal of a
college education is to educate men and women to not just pursue their own interests but
to fulfill their social and civic obligations. In the context of current globalization and
internationalization trends, this would align with the concept of developing a global
perspective.
The changing world affects the goals of liberal arts colleges, challenging them to
help students gain skills of a diverse and complex nature. The purpose of a liberal arts
education is to develop students able to meet the demands of a diverse and changing
contemporary society (King et al., 2007). To achieve this, multiple perspectives that are
not context-specific must be gained by students, preparing them to apply those skills to
new and changing contexts, knowledge bases, and emerging issues. The Wabash
National Study of Liberal Arts Education developed seven institutional outcomes for
liberal arts colleges. The fifth specifically applies within the context of a global
perspective. This outcome calls for a student to develop an intercultural understanding.
Outcome achievement is evidenced by critical thinking skills that lead to the ability to
make decisions in an intercultural context, the social skills to allow interaction with
others from international and diverse backgrounds, and the personal skills to be flexible
and open to new ideas and concepts (King et al., 2007).
32

King et al. (2007) recommends that in order to incorporate institutional learning
outcomes into all levels of the culture and organization of a college, one must take the
process beyond the mission and vision statement. The college must integrate the
outcomes into student learning and student experiences in order for students to gain an
appreciation for these goals and incorporate them into their personal long-term goals. The
American Association of Colleges and Universities created a cluster of learning outcomes
that they recommend need to take precedence in a liberal arts education. These outcomes
are clustered to include (1) knowledge of human culture and the natural world, (2)
intellectual and practical skills, and (3) individual and social responsibility. Institutions
develop unique outcomes to fit specific missions and goals, but many fall within these
three clusters. While application to the context of development of a global perspective
could be found in any of the three clusters, the AAC&U reports that only the first
outcome cluster is adequately measured in terms of outcome achievement and that the
second and third have a very limited number of indicators upon which to measure this
factor (King et al., 2007). The third cluster is represented by a sense of integrity that
leads to a desire or awareness to serve a larger society. There is a developing
commitment to the common good. There is a willingness to look beyond the self,
locating themselves historically and socially, with reflection on their place in the world.
This is particularly relevant to the development of a global perspective (Thomas, 2002).
The scholarly literature regarding learning outcomes is established and extensive.
Learning-centered colleges are defined as institutions that actively seek evidence of
student learning. Characteristics of this evidence are seen as clearly defined, measurable
institutional learning outcomes, with on-going, systematic cycles of outcome assessment.
33

Learning experiences (e.g., curriculum, teaching, co curricular, and study abroad) as well
as organizational efforts (e.g., leadership, recruitment, collegial efforts, and policies) are
all measured as indicators. Specific guidelines and policies for learning outcome
assessment are in place. The assessment of the outcomes involves both the determination
of which outcomes to measure as well as the actual process and method of assessment
(Dowd, 2005). A brief review of learning outcomes was provided, and will now be
applied specifically to outcomes representing a global understanding or perspective.
Global Perspective
It is reasonable to make the determination that key components of learning
outcome measurement also apply to international education programs. The articulated
learning outcome is often stated to develop a sense of global perspective. The current
literature regarding learning outcomes for global perspectives or understanding is
consistent. The common threads are seen in goals for knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Following is an overview of the types of learning that may be evidenced within these
three goals.
The characteristics of a student who has attained a global perspective may be
identified by specific knowledge h/she has gained. Individual colleges may interpret
evidence of this achievement through demonstration of (a) knowledge of global issues,
trends, and systems; (b) knowledge of other cultures, including beliefs, practices, values,
perspectives, and products; (c) knowledge of world geography and historical forces
shaping current world systems and events; or (d) knowledge of the interconnectedness of
world systems (e.g., sustainability and social justice).
34

The student who has attained a global perspective may be identified by the
specific skills. These skills may include: the ability to speak and understand a foreign
language; technical skills (e.g., technology, research); communication skills for effective
interactions with other cultures; critical thinking and problem solving skills regarding
diverse cultural frames of reference; intercultural professional etiquette; and coping and
resiliency in unfamiliar environments.
Global perspective attitudes may be identified by understanding of one’s own
culture within a global and comparative context; the acceptance of a diversity of values,
beliefs, ideas, and world views; appreciation of the language, religion, arts, and
philosophy of other cultures; tolerance of cultural ambiguity and differences; a
willingness to seek out international opportunities; the ability to appreciate multiple
perspectives; and self-awareness of one’s own identify and culture (Green & Olson,
2003; Olson et al., 2005; Olson et al., 2007).
The Global Intercultural Experience for Undergraduates program at University of
Michigan provides a framework for global perspective. The program goal is for students
to develop at an optimal level of cultural sensitivity, continuous learning, and maturity to
deal with a multicultural environment. There are four dimensions, or outcomes, that call
for measurement of effectiveness: (1) preferences for thinking and interacting, (2)
intercultural relations, (3) intrapersonal awareness, and (4) global awareness. The
outcomes of these four areas are measured along a continuum, from a “monoculture
perspective” to an “integrated global perspective”, which is the goal. Indicators of
successful achievement of these outcomes include such criteria as the ability to adopt
other perspectives, the extent to which a student engages with other students from
35

different cultures from one’s own, the degree of one’s openness to and understanding of
cross-cultural differences, to name a few (Miller & Fernandez, 2007). The outcome of
these dimensions is reflected through student engagement and perspective. For this to
occur, there is a responsibility at the institutional level.
Hudzik (2011) provides indicators for measurement of learning outcomes on an
institutional level. These include evidence of the number of students achieving
identifiable knowledge competency in global or comparative studies; programmatic
impact on students (e.g., knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, skills, careers); students’ capacity
to learn from and with others from different cultures; and the number of students
completing and meeting the measurable requirements of international certificates.
In order for colleges to assist students achieve the institutional student learning
outcomes in a global experience, relating the co-curricular and student life experiences
may well be an influence. Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) make the connection that
institutional practices and the student experience on the campus will impact the student
outcomes of engagement and learning. Braskamp, Trautvetter, and Ward (2008) provides
a theory leading to greater understanding of the relationship between the co-curriculum
and the academic curriculum and how it affects the connections students make between
in-class theory and out-of-class experiences. However, the topic of student engagement in
the learning process, while of great value, is outside the scope of this study.
It is important to provide discussion of how an institution guarantees its students
will be provided with quality experiences leading to successful achievement of global
perspective learning outcomes. The following section will review literature regarding
quality assurance and accreditation as related to internationalization of higher education.
36

Quality Assurance of Internationalization in Higher Education
The rapid growth of higher education institutions entering a global market has led
to questions and demands for higher levels of quality assurance and standards, for both
new types of providers as well as for traditional colleges and universities. It is necessary
to define quality assurance within the context of higher education. An institution has the
responsibility to measure key elements of its organization. This includes all elements of
teaching and learning, of standards, norms, and performance. The college develops
benchmarks and identifies outcomes in order to be accountable to stakeholders. A quality
culture of higher education is based on a foundation of quality assurance (Adelman,
2009). There is a need for regional, national, and international agencies and institutions
to integrate quality assurance plans. The European Association for Quality Assurance in
Higher Education, the World Bank, and UNESCO are among several international
organizations calling for standards of quality assurance within the international market of
higher education (Altbach et al., 2009).
Accountability
External accountability for promises made to students, parents, and other
stakeholders has become a critical factor in the realm of higher education (Burke, 2004,).
In 2002, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education stated that
accountability in higher education is strongly advocated but poorly understood.
Autonomy within a college or university has often been considered the critical value,
rather than the proof of services supplied as promised. Accountability is considered an
obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.
Accountability holds an institution responsible for performance (Clark, 2004). This
37

concept is at the root of justification for assessment of achievement of the institution’s
student learning outcomes. Higher education institutions have the responsibility to
continuously collect, analyze, and assess data that aligns student achievement of goals in
order to support the achievement of accountability goals (Clark, 2004).
An institution must assure its constituents that it is working to achieve the stated
mission goals, to review its performance, and account for outcomes of resources and
services as well as ensure the quality of its programs and services (Burke, 2004). The
Joint Committee on the New California Master Plan of 2002 stressed the need for
collaborative goal setting within an institution in order to determine what is meant by
performance. It calls for the identification of the expectations for effectiveness of a
program (Burke, 2004). This sets the stage for the process of measurement of program
effectiveness. Burke (2004) reminds educators that prestige and reputations do not
guarantee academic excellence. The key to such excellence is instead found in
accountability of performance, results, and mission centeredness.
Accreditation Agencies
Accountability, in the context of mission centeredness and performance, is
regulated by accreditation agencies. The role of accreditation ensures a level of quality
for students’ academic experiences, leading to the achievement of institutional learning
outcomes (Altbach & Knight, 2007).There are accrediting agencies that set the regulatory
guidelines at national levels, often specific to the type of institution, their mission, and
their curriculum. Regional accreditation involves a comprehensive review of all aspects
of operation within an institution. The core purpose of regional accreditation is within
the scope of the review. When the scope is “accountability-centered”, specific areas are
38

assessed, such as graduation rates or measurement of student learning outcomes (WASC,
2010). The key issue of interest to the accrediting body is evidence of student learning.
Strategic Goals
The strategic goals of an institution must stand up to the scrutiny of evaluation for
its dimensions of quality and relationship to the mission. Armstrong (2007) suggests that
the missions of many institutions of higher education have evolved over time without
direction or accounting for limitations of space, geography and history. As a result, a
well-defined mission is imperative in either the internationalization or globalization
process. The mission of an organization, as well as its values, characters, and traditions
describes the culture of a college (Braskamp et al, 2006).
Regional and national standards of higher education accreditation require quality
assurance, calling for institutions to regulate the quality of the student experience when
engaged in international education (Altbach & Knight, 2007). The Western Association
of Schools and Colleges (WASC) provides a good example of the focus on measurement
of learning outcomes. The WASC focus on the Educational Effectiveness Review
requires colleges and universities to measure how effectively students are learning, and
whether this is good enough; how effectively institutional learning occurs and is
translated into improvement; how effectively plans have been followed and goals met;
and how effectively program review and other quality assurance systems function
(WASC 2010). Regional accreditation makes clear and consistent measurement of
student learning and the effectiveness of promised educational programs the pivotal
criteria for new and continued accreditation. Expectations specific to student learning
requires evidence of published student learning outcomes, with defined levels of
39

proficiency; assessment and program review plans; analysis of student learning; proof of
faculty support; and resources for assessment and improvement of student learning
(WASC 2010). The Middle States Commission on Higher Education, another regional
accreditation agency, provides methodological recommendations that include direct and
indirect methods and stress the value of drawing reliable evidence from both (Green &
Olson, 2003).
Process of Internationalization in Higher Education
There is no single or correct pathway to move a college to a state of
comprehensive internationalization. The literature validates that institutions will vary in
their processes, based on resources, missions, goals, and objectives. The 2008 NAFSA
Task Force on Internationalization calls for a broad context of understanding, in which
the academic community is actively involved with creating global networks and
partnerships. International, intercultural, and global dimensions are integrated and
infused through the culture and values of the institution (Hudzik, 2011). The wide range
of internationalization processes and types of engagement may be seen as student
mobility through study abroad, the presence of international students on campus, or in the
integration of international or multicultural perspectives into the curriculum. Colleges
may focus in research, language expertise, and global studies majors. Some may form
global partnerships, joint degrees, and branch campuses around the world. Where each
institution fits within a broad frame of reference must be determined by where it sees
itself within a global higher education system (Hudzik, 2011).
The starting point for institutions to identify its goals falls within the context of
definition of terminology and goals. The college campus is a physical location of
40

classrooms, laboratories, and an overall environment of learning and discovery. Campus
internationalization calls for alignment of campus policies and programs to components
of internationalization (Hudzik, 2011). The focus is placed on on-campus courses and
curriculum, the role of international students in the campus environment, institutional
policies and services in support of internationalization, and the campus intellectual
environment for global connections.
Comprehensive internationalization may be used as the organizing paradigm by
an institution, either throughout the campus or within a smaller unit or department. The
research literature of the American Council on Education calls for comprehensive
internationalization to pervade the college or institution. It affects all staff, faculty,
policies, and programs at some level. As the internationalization broadens, greater levels
of challenging change will occur (Olsen et al., 2005).
Green, Luu, and Burris (2008) recognize the lack of institutional strategies for
internationalization. Gaps often exist between the institutional rhetoric and the reality of
what it means to have internationalization as integral to the institutional identity. Each
individual institution should frame its scope and organization process of comprehensive
internationalization. This will be dependent upon the mission and resources. Guiding
strategic considerations at the institutional level will need to be addressed. These include:
(1) the intellectual drivers and motivations for comprehensive internationalization; (2) the
level of linkage between institutional mission and goals and internationalization; (3)
identification of the comprehensive internationalization stakeholders; and (4) the strength
and scope of institutional leadership’s commitment to comprehensive
internationalization. When an institution takes the time and effort to include stakeholders
41

in the process, a higher level of successful internationalization can occur, leading to more
effective ability to meet student learning outcomes.
In terms of the specific programs, institutions will need to address how
encompassing the process will be. In order to make these determinations, the people and
the processes to accomplish comprehensive internationalization must be addressed.
Questions such as: (1) who will be responsible and assessed for contributions to
comprehensive internationalization; (2) will key sectors support the process of
internationalization; (3) what role will faculty and academic governance play; (4) will
key university support units assist with academic and nonacademic student needs; (5) will
accreditation bodies approve; will they impose unworkable conditions; (6) are there
outside entities that must approve decisions (e.g., government funding authorities); (7)
how is leadership and support organized for comprehensive internationalization; (8) are
the roles of senior international offices and officers clearly defined; and (9) has the
institution made a commitment to strategic allocation of resources (Green et al., 2008).
When these questions are addressed within a college or university, involving campus-
wide discussion, the organization will be ready to design an approach to comprehensive
internationalization.
Approach to Comprehensive Internationalization
The approach to comprehensive internationalization is clearly articulated:
“…impact all, involve all, and become a core feature of institutional missions, values,
and ethos” (Kudzik, 2011, p. 23). When a campus becomes internationalized on a
comprehensive scale, every dimension of the institution is responsible for successful
achievement and maintenance of the paradigm. This occurs through careful
42

consideration of the institutional strategy for the implementation plan. Human resource
factors such as how people and processes will interact and support each other need
analysis for successful implementation. When factors have been evaluated and strategies
are in place, then the institution is ready to make decisions as to how to move forward
(Hudzik, 2011).
In 2001, the American Council on Education undertook a wide scale institutional
survey to examine internationalization processes on different college and university
campuses. They surveyed comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges, and
community colleges. Based on the descriptive data gathered, they created an
“internationalization index” to measure the levels of internationalization in six
dimensions. The measurements within these dimensions provide a method by which an
institution is identified as being “highly active” or “less active” in their approach to
campus-wide internationalization (Green & Siaya, 2005; Green, 2005).
A review of the results of the ACE surveys provides strategies that may lead to
higher levels of internationalization within the college or university campus. This
analysis will look specifically at those results for the 187 liberal arts colleges surveyed.
Those institutions with high levels of activity are considered to be engaged on all levels
in the comprehensive internationalization process. The levels of activity (high activity or
less active) were found to occur in six key dimensions: articulated commitment,
academic offerings, organizational infrastructure, external funding, institutional
investment in faculty, and student programs (Green & Siaya, 2005). A comparison below
shows examples of the differences between highly active and less active institutions in
four of the key dimensions:
43

Articulated commitment. 97% of the highly active liberal arts colleges
highlighted international education in recruitment literature and 97% also had policies in
place to enable students to study abroad without causing a delay in graduation. In
contrast, of the less active schools, 49% articulated programs in recruitment literature and
68% enabled on-time graduation.
Organizational infrastructure. Within this dimension, 100% of the highly active
institutions had an office specifically designated to administer international educational
programs. 72% of the less active institutions resourced such an office. A campus-wide
task force exclusively for international education existed at 75% of the highly active
institutions and at 26% of the less active.
Institutional investment in faculty. This dimension reflected marked differences
between highly active and less active institutions. 84% of the highly active schools
earmarked funds for faculty to lead study abroad programs; 37% of the less active
institutions did so. 80% of the highly active institutions provided funds for faculty
development to travel abroad for meetings and conferences; 29% of the less active
provided this form of faculty support.
Student programs. A large difference was seen in funding for regular, on-going
international activities on campus. 88% of the highly active institutions earmarked such
funding; 37% of the less active did so. 71% earmarked funds for students to study or
work abroad as opposed to 27% of the less active institutions. 83% of the highly active
institutions offered international festivals and events on campus as opposed to 44% of the
less active programs (Green & Siaya, 2005).
The results of this survey support the American Council on Education’s concepts
44

of comprehensive internationalization. Similar surveys were conducted with
comprehensive universities and community colleges. The results of those surveys found
commonality in the six dimensions and supported the concept that successful
internationalization occurs on multiple levels of institutional structure and organization.
Institutional Peer Review
When an institution compares its own internationalization practices to those of
peer colleges, they are able to examine the strategies that may lead to higher levels of
internationalization. Further case studies of specific practices in internationalization
provide support of the centrality of strategies that highly active liberal arts colleges
employ in order to increase their level of internationalization. These include the
Promising Practices project, the Global Learning for All project, and the
Internationalization Laboratory project, all sponsored through the American Council on
Education. The above findings from the ACE’s surveys and projects lead to several key
conclusions regarding a comprehensive internationalization process for liberal arts
colleges. The first is the importance of the articulation of international programs. When
a liberal arts college articulates a formal commitment to internationalization, it is more
likely to reflect those commitments through actual policy and practices. On-campus
activities and events are central to highly active colleges in the realm of
internationalization. The ability for students to study abroad without delaying graduation
and supporting faculty in international pursuits is pivotal. The fact that 100% of highly
active institutions resourced and supported an office specifically for the support of
international education is a clear indication of commitment to a comprehensive
internationalization process on their campus (Green & Siaya, 2005).
45

In looking at assessment and internationalization processes, it may be concluded
from the literature review that it is not enough to just establish a goal or mission
statement, but the institution must also analyze their process of internationalization in
terms of student learning outcomes and then evaluate success of the program as seen
through student learning.
Process of Analysis of Internationalization of a Higher Education Institution
An important component of creating a process of analysis in an organization is to
carefully and honestly examine the potential challenges and barriers that exist in moving
a college or university to a greater level of internationalization. Institutional goals and
processes must be evaluated in order to build programs that will ultimately lead to
successful achievement of the student learning outcomes. There are various models in
the literature from which an institution may select a framework. The institution should
examine all dimensions of intercultural and global initiatives and programs in current
place on their campus. The next step is to analyze whether these activities are actually
achieving the goals for internationalization (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005). The process of
analysis must address two basic questions: 1) examination of how the institution would
be changed if it were comprehensively internationalized, based on its vision for such; and
2) the current state of internationalization, and how the institution made that
determination (Olson et al., 2005).
Green, Luu, and Burris (2008) provide four examples of indicators of
internationalization, located within the areas of institutional support (e.g., mission
statements, organizational structure, staffing, funding); academic and co-curricular
requirements and programs (e.g., foreign language requirements, study abroad programs);
46

faculty policies and opportunities (e.g., criteria for promotion, tenure, travel); and finally
international students (e.g., enrollments, programming, support services, recruiting
strategies, and financial support).
In order to meet the needs of institutions in a state of change, as is experienced in
the addition of mission goals for global perspective outcomes of many colleges, Dixon
(1994) recommends that one must have a clear vision, goals, and ways to measure
progress. Change in organizations must come about from a systematic analysis of the
causes for the gap between the institution’s identified goals and the actual
accomplishment of those goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Institutional Barriers to Comprehensive Internationalization
Several key potential barriers to achieving comprehensive internationalization are
found when an institution relies on the status quo and the faculty. James Duderstadt
noted that the greatest problem among institutions of higher learning is the failure to
respond to the globalization of higher education markets. Colleges have been lulled into
complacency of the future based on past performance. This includes allowing the
institution to lose sight of looking forward by settling on standards of the status quo
(Hudzik, 2011). There has been an absence of consequences for failure to meet
articulated learning outcomes. State appropriations are often based on headcount instead
of measurable outcomes (Hudzik 2011). It is not uncommon for colleges and universities
to lack adequate information to drive a strategic response to changing market conditions
(Tucker, 2010).
The role of faculty may pose additional challenges. Faculty often controls the
curriculum and drives the research. They award student grades. They help determine the
47

criteria and standards for promotion and tenure. Faculty are a powerful governance body.
Some faculty may see internationalization (especially within the curriculum and degree
requirements) as interference with academic freedom. An institution must have the
support of the faculty in order to have a successful process of internationalization. Lack
of faculty support will impact the ability of an institution to achieve a highly active level
of comprehensive internationalization (Hudzik, 2011).
Professional Development

Elmore’s (2002) research in organization improvement suggests that professional
development, accompanied by incentives, helps solve institutional barriers to change. In
order to increase the quality of the student’s educational experience, the institution must
develop strategies for investing in the building of the knowledge and skills of the
educators. Professional development must allow for engagement of faculty and staff
ideas, values, and energy into the learning process, otherwise instead of a process of
building capacity, the professional development becomes an exercise in the building or
demanding of compliance. If respect for professional development is missing, there is a
loss of faculty and staff commitment to learning necessary new knowledge and skills
needed for effectiveness.
Leadership
Analysis of the internationalization process must review the commitment of the
institution’s leadership. Green and Shoenberg (2006) stress the role of leadership in the
provision of strategic support. Presidents, chief academic officers, deans, department
chairs, faculty leaders, and chief student affairs officers are all essential to the process of
48

internationalization. Analysis includes assessment of such pivotal issues as creation of a
climate in which internationalization is the norm; development of clear and focused
institutional strategy that is broad enough for schools and departments to develop specific
strategies and approaches; connection of institutional discussions and strategies to larger
national issues and trends; creation of energy and momentum through focused attention
and campus-wide communication; supporting the faculty learning process by connecting
with other institutions; the encouragement of, and reward for, departmental focus on
internationalization; support of faculty activities that promote internationalizing teaching
and learning; support of faculty promotion, tenure, and reward processes that advance
internationalization; the fostering of discussions of internationalization as integral to all
aspect of the curriculum; and the facilitation of ties within the community (Green &
Shoenberg, 2006).
A Process Framework for Analysis of Internationalization Efforts Leading to
the Student Leaning Outcome of Global Perspective
If gaps exist in terms of meeting goals and strategic plans for change within an
institution, successful achievement of the student learning outcomes may be at risk.
Clark and Estes (2008) provide a process model framework that can be used to identify
the gaps in performance leading to successful internationalization. The Gap Analysis
Process Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) is based on five stages in the analysis and solving
of performance problems. These stages are:
Stage 1: Identify measurable organizational goals.
Stage 2: Identify quantity and quality estimates of the gaps between goals and current
performance.
49

Stage 3: Develop a strategy for analyzing the contribution of each of three causes
(knowledge and skills, motivation, organizational culture) for every gap.
Stage 4: Plan and implement a system-wide and individual gap-closing solutions.
Stage 5: Assess and tune solutions for continual improvement.
An in depth discussion of these stages will be provided in Chapter 3, Methodology.
This quantitative research study, based on formative evaluation, will use Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis process to examine each of the five stages listed above.
Organizational Goals and Mission
Using the Clark and Estes (2008) model of goal development, institutions of
higher education are able to identify globalization goals that are concrete, challenging,
and current in order to meet with successful achievement of the goals. The GAP
framework addresses questions related to an organization’s performance goal. The
performance goal(s) must be clearly identified and analysis made to determine where the
institution is in relationship to the goal. The institution must identify the size of the gap
and once that is achieved, measure the causes of the gap. When the causes are clear,
solutions may be developed that effectively narrow or close the gap. Implementation of
the solutions and measurement of successful implementation may then be initiated.

The institutional mission rests at the beginning of the gap analysis process as it
leads institutional change (Braskamp et.al, 2006). It identifies a road map for meeting
their articulated student learning outcomes (DeJong, 1992). An institution’s mission
statement guides faculty, administrators, and students to better understand what the
institution is striving to accomplish (Braskamp et al., 2006). Missions vary between
50

institutions and may be based on religious, ideological, or philosophical beliefs regarding
the potential to learn, about teaching, and about learning (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, &
Associates, 1991). An institution that is striving to meet its student learning outcomes has
its organizational goals rooted in its mission declarations (Kuh et al., 1991).
Organizational goals are measurable milestones, as they identify what is
important to an institution. The goals provide the basis for accountability to students, as
well as to faculty and other stakeholders. When goals are clear and both leadership and
departments accept responsibility for accountability, they are then able to define success.
Motivation drives goals. An institution must identify its motivation for
internationalization in order to set organizational goals. These goals may be found in
areas of student leaning and other student-centered outcomes (e.g., employment), revenue
and markets, research and scholarship, service and engagement and global bridge
building, and advancing institutional reputation, among others (Hudzik, 2011).
Causes of Performance Gaps
A key aspect of the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008) is assessment of
the factors that may be creating the gap. These factors fall into three areas: knowledge
and skills, motivation to achieve the goals, and organization barriers. These three areas,
though interacting, are separate. In order to successfully attain organizational goals, or
learning outcomes, the factors must be aligned. To bring change or innovation to an
institution, or meet institutional goals, analysis of these three factors must occur (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and skills. What are the knowledge and skill needs of the educators at
the institution in order to help students achieve learning outcomes? It must be assessed if
51

the faculty have the knowledge and skills to meet the organizational goal. What process
is needed to provide the necessary knowledge and skills will depend on whether the gaps
are in prior knowledge or with experience in novel problem solving. Professional
development and training, at the staff, faculty, and/or administrative level may be needed
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Motivation. Motivation is an internal, psychological process that helps drive
people to accomplish goals. Institutions need to examine whether the faculty, staff, and
administration have the motivation to proceed towards an organization goal, especially if
there is a lack the knowledge and skills to do so (Clark & Estes, 2008). Three basic
motivational indexes will need assessment: active choice, persistence, and mental effort.
Active choice is considered to occur when a person takes action to pursue a goal.
Persistence is seen when a person continues to strive to meet the goals when challenges
arise. Mental effort is seen when solutions to challenges are developed and new ways to
approach goal attainment are found (Clark, 1999). If gaps exist in faculty, staff, and
administrator motivation, movement towards comprehensive internationalization and the
development of global perspective as a student learning outcome may be jeopardized.
Organizational culture. Organizational barriers may block successful
achievement of an institutional goal. A review of literature in the concept of
organizational culture is necessary in order to analyze the institutional challenges. Culture
refers to the shared values, character, mission, and identity of an organization or group of
people (Tisdell, 2003). On the college campus, culture is developed through a collective
shaping of values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions. These norms provide the campus
with a frame of reference and guides the behaviors of faculty, staff, and students,
52

individually and within groups. The meaning of events and actions are interpreted
through the lens of the organizational culture (Kuh,1993). Organizational culture is a
concept that is created through the group solving of problems and shared experiences.
The group experiences eventually lead to shared assumptions as to organizational
processes for problem solving and change. Over time and with practice, these norms are
eventually considered valid and passed onto new community members. The community’s
frame of reference in the interpretation of events and actions are based on the
organization’s cultural values and history (Schein, 2004).
The ethos of a campus is described through its culture. Institutional culture
includes the college or university vision for the future, and thereby has an effect on
creating and sustaining a campus environment to meet its desired goals. It defines the
social norms and the accepted ways of daily operations on the campus. Culture is
impacted by the underlying mission and focus of the institution (Braskamp, et al., 2006).
In the managerial literature, there is often the implication that an effective organization
thrives on strong culture, as this is seen to drive effective performance (Schein, 2004).
Culture is to an organizational group what personality is to an individual. When
change is considered, an understanding of the organization’s culture helps lead to a
greater appreciation of the difficulties involved in the change process. An institution’s
group members (faculty, staff, and students) share a history that leads to a stabilizing
sense of group identity. These cultural factors help provide meaning and predictability on
the campus. Culture will influence the entire institution. It is pervasive and affects all
levels of operation (Schein, 2004).
Leadership and culture are difficult to separate. The group learning process is a
53

complex one and creates the organizational culture. When change must occur, for
example in the move to a comprehensive internationalized campus, it is a leadership
function to recognize how it will impact the college culture. The idea of change often
creates a threat to the stability of the organization due to fears by the group for survival
(Schein, 2004).
The research of Qiang (2003) provides support for the organizational culture
concepts of Schein. Institutions must differentiate between the organizational and
academic elements in internationalization. The activities must be integrated and mutually
reinforcing as they are central to the mission of the college or university. An institution’s
culture, policies, planning, and organization processes all influence the scope of
internationalization. Qiang (2003) views the organizational elements of
internationalization in terms of governance processes (e.g., commitment by senior
leadership, active involvement of faculty and staff, clearly articulated institutional level
goals and mission statement), operational processes (e.g., adequate financial support and
resource allocations, appropriate organizational structures, departmental planning,
budgeting, and program review institution-wide, clearly identified communication
systems), and support services (e.g., registration process, academic advising, fundraising,
student housing).
NAFSA: Association of International Educators recognizes that successful
comprehensive internationalization in higher education requires an organizational culture
that gives it strength, purpose, adaptability, and sustainability. A comprehensive
internationalized culture is shaped by institutional leadership and sustained by efforts to
extend its saliency throughout the organization. An institutional culture that supports
54

international engagement is an essential prerequisite for successful campus
internationalization that leads to the successful meeting of organizational goals, mission,
and student outcomes (Hudzik, 2011).
In the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008), identification of gaps within
the institutional culture must be identified in order to ultimately lead to successful
meeting of an organizational goal such as student achievement of a global perspective.
Conclusion
Internationalization of higher education is destined to remain a pivotal issue in
education. The scope and direction of higher education is sure to continue its trend
towards a global market (Altbach and Knight, 2007). Issues of quality control will remain
key topics of discussion. The efforts of internationalization will call for the development
of reliable and valid measurements of inputs, outputs, and evidence of successful
achievement of student learning outcomes.
In creating a framework for using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
process to provide formative feedback for initiating a process of internationalization as an
institutional innovation, Green (2002) provides pivotal questions that may guide
assessment of institutional strategies and student learning outcomes. These include
analysis of whether global learning is articulated as a goal of undergraduate education at
the institution, the extent that the institution has developed leaning goals associated with
the global and international dimensions of undergraduate education, measurements for
evidence of student achievement of those goals, and a clearly articulated strategy to
accomplish the goals. Other questions will need to be addressed in the areas of student
programming and the co-curriculum, as well as in the academic curriculum. Institutions
55

need to identify the evidence that indicates the global content, global perspective, and
different ways of knowing are it considers to be essential components of the student
experience. These are the factors that will help lead its students to successful attainment
of the learning outcome for development of a global perspective.
Marymount College, a liberal arts college in Southern California, has recently
transitioned from a two-year associates college to a four-year baccalaureate college.
Teaching and student learning is pivotal to the mission of the college. Different programs
of internationalization are under development. There are five specific organizational
goals (outcomes) for student learning; the fourth calls for “Recognition of multiple
perspectives and global awareness”.
This active research study, using Marymount College as a case study, is
designed to use an innovation approach to gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Smith & Ragan, 2005) in order to examine the gaps (barriers) in faculty
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture that Marymount
College must close in order to implement curriculum and learning experiences for
its graduates to achieve the organizational goal of recognition of a global
perspective. Due to the transformative institution change taking place at
Marymount, a 100% gap currently exists for achieving its global perspective
organizational goal. The first class of seniors will graduate in May 2012. As such,
the research questions for this study are:
1. What is the operational definition of and what are the measurable
indicators for “recognition of multiple perspectives and global
awareness” as stated in the organizational goal?
2. What are the gaps in faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture that may affect the successful achievement of an
organizational goal for development of a global perspective for
56

students at Marymount College?
3. What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in faculty knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the organization’s
goal of successful achievement of a global perspective by students at
Marymount College?

Through the analysis of the data from the research questions, a process based on
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) levels of evaluation will be recommended by which
Marymount College will be able to measure and evaluate the achievement of the
organizational goal for successful achievement of a global perspective by students at
Marymount College.
Chapter III will provide the description of the gap analysis methodology to be
used in the process of formative evaluation.

57

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
The organizational and human performance research used in other domains such
as business and industry informed the framework for the methodology in this study. One
such method is an innovation model of the Clark and Estes (2008) and Smith & Ragan
(2005) Gap Analysis Process Model (GAP). This study serves as a practical application
of gap analysis by Marymount College, an institution undergoing transformative change.
This chapter describes the specific methodology approach used for data collection
and analysis of the research questions, within the framework of an innovation model of
the Clark and Estes (2008; Smith & Ragan, 2005) gap analysis process.
Research Questions
The purpose of the study was twofold. First, was to determine how faculty
operationalized Marymount College’s student learning outcome for achievement of a
“global awareness” as an institutional goal. The second purpose of the study was to then
identify the potential gaps that could prevent successful achievement of the institutional
goal for student achievement, as related to faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and
the organizational culture and organizational support. These are the gaps that Marymount
College must identify and address as barriers that may have the potential to prevent
achievement of its organizational goal to implement curriculum, programs, and learning
experiences that lead to student development of a global perspective. Due to the 2011
transformative change in moving from a two-year associate degree granting institution to
a four-year baccalaureate degree granting program, a 100% gap currently exists for
achieving this organizational goal. The institution graduates its first class of seniors in
May 2012. As such, the research questions for this study were posed to address the
58

following critical questions for Marymount College:
1. What is the operational definition of and the measurable indicators for
“recognition of multiple perspectives and global awareness” as stated in the College’s
institutional student learning goal?
2. What are the faculty perceived gaps (barriers) in their knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture and organization support, which
could affect the successful achievement of an organizational goal for development
of a global perspective for students at Marymount College?
3. What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in faculty
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the
organization’s goal of successful achievement of a global perspective by students
at Marymount College?
Through the analysis of the data gained from the research and the review of the
scholarly literature, recommendations for a process of measurement and evaluation of the
successful achievement of organizational goal of development of a global perspective by
students at Marymount College was presented.
Research Approach
The strategic elements of gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) address
measurement, diagnostic analysis, solutions, and evaluation. If gaps exist in terms of
meeting the goals and the strategic plans for change within an institution, successful
achievement of the student learning outcomes may be at risk. The GAP methodology
seeks to identify and quantify three major causes of performance problems: knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organization/culture/context (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
59

2011). Data analysis helps to identify solutions to close the performance gap. The
specific research approach utilizing gap analysis diagnoses the reasons and issues at hand
for the difference between a current status and goal.
An innovation model of the Gap Analysis Process Model (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Smith & Ragan, 2005) was appropriate for this case study. An innovation model may be
used when there are changes within an organization or educational system that leads to
the need to develop new learning goals. This model calls for the institution to first
determine the nature of the innovation (Smith & Ragan, 1999). In this case, the
transformative change to a four-year college created a significant change in the
organization’s goals. New institutional student learning outcomes were developed for all
baccalaureate graduates, with the first class of seniors scheduled to graduate in May
2012. The organizational goal for graduates to develop “intercultural perspectives and
global awareness” had yet to be operationalized or a process of assessment developed.
The case study methodology was used in this study. A case study delves deeply
into a single case or unit to provide analysis and interpretation (Merriam, 2001; Yin,
2009). The lens for this study focused on the views of the researcher, participants,
readers, and reviewers of the study (Creswell and Miller, 2000). Quantitative research
methods, through a survey instrument and descriptive statistics, captured data to
operationalize the goal of “achievement of global awareness” and identify and measure
the faculty perceived causes of the performance gaps.
The stages of the Clark and Estes (2008) Process Model are:
Stage 1: Identify measurable organizational goals.
Stage 2: Identify quantity and quality estimates of the gaps between goals and current
60

performance.
Stage 3: Develop a strategy for analyzing the contribution of each of three causes
(knowledge and skills, motivation, organizational culture) for every gap.
Stage 4: Plan and implement system-wide and individual gap-closing solutions.
Stage 5: Assess and tune solutions for continual improvement.
This study applied the first two steps in detail to Marymount College, in order to
operationalize the organization goal and then to identify the barriers that exist among
faculty in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture and
support. Based on the quantitative data obtained from the measurements in Stage 2,
solutions for Stage 3 that are appropriate for each cause and informed by the research
literature is presented in Chapter V, as well as an implementation plan for Stage 4.
Recommendations for evaluation, Stage 5 of gap analysis, are presented in the final
chapter.
In the following sections, the sample and population, instrumentation, process of
data collection, and the data analysis are presented. The analysis of the data suggests
solutions that, when implemented, should achieve the organizations goal to help students
achieve the learning outcome of a global perspective.
Sample and Population
The design of the research study determines the unit or units of analysis to be
studied, the sample size and sampling strategies (Patton, 2002). Faculty are the unit of
analysis, therefore, the primary focus of data collection was on the population of 33 full
time faculty and 71 adjunct faculty at Marymount College.
To achieve the goal of the gap analysis, this case study used two types of
61

purposeful sampling. Criterion sampling was used to invite participants that meet specific
criterion, in this case, all faculty at Marymount College. In addition, this study utilized
typical case sampling. According to Patton (2002), this type of sampling uses
cooperative participants who are able identify the typical. This study utilized two
anonymous faculty surveys. Participation in the surveys was by choice and no
identification of respondents collected. Participation in the first survey was not required
for participation in the second.
Sample Size and Demographics
This specific case study consisted of a sample size that included all Marymount
College faculty (full-time and part-time) who chose to participate. Some staff members
(at all administrative levels) teach in an adjunct faculty role. The total possible population
for survey participation was 104 faculty members. All participants were over 18 years of
age and participation was voluntary. The researcher, with over 35 years of full time
employment at Marymount College, took on the perspective as active-participant
researcher. The researcher did not participate in the surveys. Demographic information
was not collected due to the small population. With demographics data, anonymity could
not have been maintained.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation of this research study was informed by the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis process. The conceptual framework guided the selection of
instruments.

62

Measurement Tools
The measurement tools for this study included two quantitative surveys, created
by the researcher. The first was to provide the faculty the opportunity to identify ten
competencies they believed represented global perspective student learning outcomes for
its Marymount College graduates. The second survey was developed to provide
Marymount faculty the opportunity to rate their self-perceptions as to: (1) their
knowledge and skills to incorporate the competencies into their learning curriculum; (2)
the degree to which they valued the competency, or were sufficiently interested in it to
adapt specific teaching strategies or information into their curriculum; and (3) their
perception of Marymount College’s organizational support (culture, context, capital) in
providing teaching and learning experiences leading to successful attainment of the
competences leading to a global perspective by its graduates. Following is detailed
information regarding the survey instruments, as related to each research question.
Research Question 1: What is the operational definition of and the measurable
indicators for “recognition of multiple perspectives and global awareness” as stated in
the organizational goal?
Operationalization of an organizational goal called for definition and
measurement. Marymount College had not yet formally operationalized the global
perspective outcome. A survey instrument, “Marymount College Global Perspective
Competency Survey” (GPC Survey), was developed (Appendix A). It utilized a four-
point Likert scale for quantitative measurement. Faculty participants were asked to rank
twenty global perspective competencies on a scale from “Not Important,” “Somewhat
Important,” “Important,” to ”Highly Important” in terms of what faculty considered the
63

most important student learning outcomes for Marymount BA graduates. The
competencies were derived from the American Council on Education’s recommendations
for international and intercultural student competencies, as shown in Appendix B (Olson,
Green, & Hill, 2005). In quantification of the importance of the twenty competencies, all
of which were indications of student achievement of a global perspective in terms of
student knowledge, skills, and behaviors, Marymount faculty provided input to measure
the current status of the goal, providing data for Research Question #1. The researcher
sorted faculty responses to the twenty competencies by means and identified the top ten
competencies by importance. These ten competencies were then used to guide the follow
up survey, ”Faculty Perceptions of Knowledge, Motivation, & Organizational Support for
Global Perspective Outcomes” (Faculty Perceptions Survey) (Appendix C) to provide the
data for the second research question.
Research Questions 2: What are the faculty perceived gaps (barriers) in their knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture and organization support, which could
affect the successful achievement of an organizational goal for development of a global
perspective for students at Marymount College?
The “Faculty Perceptions Survey” instrument addressed the second research
question, examining the causes of the gap (the potential barriers). The survey consisted
of the top ten competencies identified by faculty in the GPC Survey. A four-point Likert
scale asked faculty to rate self-perception of their knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture in terms of helping students achieve the specific competencies
through faculty engagement. The quantification of the faculty perceptions in these three
concepts were measured by a scale of: “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Agree,” and
64

“Strongly Agree.” The data analysis of these concepts identified faculty perception and
confidence in their ability to incorporate facets of global perspectives into their course
curriculum, their value and interest in such inclusion, and their perception of the
institutional support to accomplish this.
Research Question 3: What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in faculty
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the
organization’s goal of successful achievement of a global perspective by students at
Marymount College?
Solutions to the identified gaps as a result of the data analysis are presented as
recommendations in the fifth chapter of this study. If the gaps were identified as
occurring with the realm of faculty knowledge and skills, the research may call for
support of faculty with information, training, and education. Motivational gaps may
indicate a barrier in the areas of faculty active choice, persistence, and mental effort. If
faculty identifies barriers within the organizational structure, there may be need for new
work processes or material resources (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Data Collection
Following the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
approval, the GPC Survey was administered via email to all 104 of Marymount full time
and adjunct faculty beginning January 5, 2012, through Qualtrics (USC, 2012) software.
The data collection time period was extended until January 20, as the start of the spring
semester created an overload of faculty responsibilities.
Upon completion of the sorting of the data to identify the top ten competencies
indicative of a global perspective, the follow-up Faculty Perceptions Survey was
65

administered, beginning February 16 and ending February 26, 2012. This survey
provided the data to identify faculty gaps in terms of their perceived knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture and support. Confidentiality was maintained
through the Qualtrics instrument. There was no identification of respondents through the
Qualtrics software. Qualtrics provided the links to the two surveys and responses were
collected through the software
The University of Southern California’s IRB protocol was followed. All subjects
were over 18 years of age. To preserve confidentiality survey results were stored within
the web-based Qualtrics system. Results did not identify the respondents. Downloaded
data was coded and kept in a secure location within a password-protected account.
Demographic information was not collected in order to maintain anonymity within a
small college population.
The gap analysis process of examining the causes of potential gaps in
achievement of an organizational goal would meet the point of using user-driven research
to gather evidence and determine whether the goal has the potential of being met or not.
The following section will review the data analysis process that was used in this gap
analysis.
Data Analysis
The data analysis calls for the researcher to organize the data in alignment with
the research questions.
Operationalization of Goal
Research question #1. What is the operational definition of and
measurable indicators for “recognition of multiple perspectives and global
66

awareness” as stated in the organizational goal?
In the process to operationalize the institutional learning outcome of a global
perspective, descriptive statistics were utilized to analysis the results of the Global
Perspective Competency Survey. The use of a four-point Likert scale allowed for the
ranking of responses from least important to the most important, to provide the means
and frequencies regarding how the faculty at Marymount College perceive their
understanding of a global perspective. Faculty ranked twenty competencies, adapted
from the America Council on Education’s (Olson et al., 2005) recommendations for
global competencies (Appendix B). Based on the survey results, the top ten competencies
indicating a global perspective were used in the gap analysis process. The decision to
select only the top ten competencies did not negate the importance of the next ten. The
top ten were selected as a matter of convenience to keep the second survey manageable.
Causes of the Gap
Research question #2. What are the gaps in faculty knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational culture which may affect the successful
achievement of an organizational goal for development of a global perspective for
students at Marymount College?
The Faculty Perceptions Survey also utilized a four-point Likert scale of
“Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Agree,” to “Strongly Agree,” allowing faculty to rate
their perceived knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture/support in
terms of providing learning experiences for students within the specific ten competencies
identified in research question one. The survey addressed the questions specific to
Marymount College faculty to draw the quantitative data and evidence needed to identify
67

the potential barriers to successful achievement of a global perspective. The competed
survey results were analyzed around frequencies and means. While a means in the area of
+3 indicated an “agree” or “strongly agree”, the goal was an absolute 4. Scores in a +/-1
or 2 were indicative of lack of agreement. It is important to note that the scores for each
competency, seen as means, are not absolutes. They are relative to each other as faculty
self-perceptions.
A Cronbach’s Alpha was obtained for each set of ten questions in the areas of
“Knowledge and Skills,” “Motivation,” and “Organizational Culture and Support.” Each
competency was tied to three questions, each representing one of the concepts. A strong
Cronbach’s alpha (greater than 0.50) provides evidence of the reliability of the internal
consistency between questions within the three concepts. According to Salkind (2006,
2008), this is an important data tool that provides evidence of reliably particularly when
there is no one right or wrong answer.
A One Sample T-test was also analyzed to determine whether the means of any of
the three concepts showed any significant difference when compared with the others.
Significance levels were pooled and a Bonderroni adjustment was analyzed to determine
if significance was found (or not found) between each of the three concepts (e.g.,
knowledge and skills to motivation; motivation to organizational culture and support;
knowledge and skills to motivational support.)
Solutions to the Gap
Research question #3. What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in
faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the
organization’s goal of successful achievement of a global perspective by students at
68

Marymount College?
The potential solutions are derived from the evidence obtained through the
quantitative measurements used to determine the causes of the gap. Solutions were
aligned to the causes and derived through research of the scholarly literature in such
fields as gap analysis, faculty engagement, internationalization, and global learning
outcomes. Following is a brief overview of solutions to closing a gap through innovation
gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and skills. Knowledge and skills gaps require learning. If the analysis
of the data for the knowledge and skills pointed to a need for factual, conceptual,
procedural, and/or metacognitive knowledge, the research based evidence of Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001) and Clark and Estes (2008) were used to make appropriate
recommendations.
Motivation. If the causes of the gap were within the context of motivation, and the
researcher identified that needs existed to increase active choice, persistence, or mental
effort, the CANE (Commitment and Necessary Effort) model (Clark, 1999) provided
recommendations for solutions. Analysis of the causes may provide evidence that faculty
and staff are not starting something or not persisting once they start. They may not value
the institutional outcome of student achievement of multiple perspectives and global
awareness. A motivation gap requires building of value and confidence. The CANE
Model provides solutions for increasing the staff and faculty sense of value, self-efficacy,
and mood, when motivational gaps exist in the meeting of the organization learning
outcome.
Organization/Culture. The Faculty Perceptions Survey provides quantitative
69

evidence as to whether the faculty perceives the causes of the gap to be due to
institutional policy and procedures or culture. If so, then questions must be addressed,
such as: Are organizational policies and procedures aligned with the goal? Are there
conflicting procedures for ways to reach same goal? Are mixed and conflicting messages
sent about goal priorities? Is the process for achieving the goal adequate? The data
gathered brought these types of institutional issues to the surface, shedding light on
organization solutions needed to help students meet the learning goal.
Conclusion
How Marymount College will measure and evaluate the achievement of the
organizational goal for successful achievement of a global perspective will be discussed
in Chapter VI, with recommendations based on Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four
levels of evaluation. This process of evaluation is based on formative and summative
evaluation (Patton, 2002). Marymount College has developed an electronic portfolio for
use in student assessment. Reflection occurring throughout a student’s four years may be
analyzed in-depth during the student’s senior capstone courses, using rubrics developed
to assess the ten global competencies, as identified by the Global Perspective
Competency Survey. This will provide the summative evidence of whether graduates of
Marymount College have met the learning outcome of development of global awareness.
This research study’s methodology is unique to an Innovation Process Model for
Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008; Smith & Ragan, 2005)). The instrumentation calls
for in-depth analysis of a process. The methodology of this study delves into the
operationalization of the organizational goal, followed by addressing the components of
each research question in terms of the causes of the gap, and finally recommends possible
70

solutions. Recommendations for the evaluation and measurement of the success of the
solutions lead to identification of those indicators that will enable Marymount College to
assess the successful student achievement of the institutional learning outcome of
“recognition of multiple perspectives and global awareness”. The following chapters
analyze the results, providing quantitative detail, of the various measurements and then
discuss the possibilities for summative evaluation after Marymount College graduates its
first BA students.

71

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
Marymount College has articulated an organizational goal for graduates to
achieve a global perspective. According to Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg (2007), this goal
is reflected in a learning outcome for knowledge and skills, attitudes, and behaviors that
students should learn or be able to do in order to succeed as citizens in a global
environment. Faculty provide the learning experiences leading to student achievement of
this goal. The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model was used as the
framework for this study.
Quantitative research methods, through the Global Perspectives Competency
Survey, the Faculty Perceptions Survey, and descriptive statistics, captured data to
operationalize the goal of “achievement of global awareness” and to identify and measure
the faculty self-perceived causes of possible performance gaps. The American Council on
Education provided criteria for identification of the achievement of a global perspective
that may be used to benchmark success (Olson et al., 2005).
Data analysis suggested the perceived gaps (barriers) in faculty knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture that may need to be closed in order to help
its graduates to achieve the organizational goal of recognition of a global perspective.
This methodology positions Marymount College, which is undergoing transformative
change, to make critical decisions as to whether its global perspective student learning
outcomes are successfully achieved as a result of the teaching and learning experiences
provided by the college.
Once the causes of the gaps are identified, potential solutions will be discussed in
Chapter Five. These solutions will be obtained from the evidence gained through the
72

quantitative measures that identified the causes of the gaps and from scholarly literature
in the fields of faculty engagement, student learning outcomes, internationalization, and
global learning outcomes.
Report of the Findings
Operationalization of the Goal
Research Question One. What is the operational definition of and the
measurable indicators for “recognition of multiple perspectives and global
awareness” as stated in the organizational goal?
Faculty identified, through a quantitative survey of twenty items, the most
important ten competencies that represent the student learning outcomes indicative of
achievement of a global perspective by Marymount College graduates. The results of the
competency survey did not identify the lower rated ten competencies as necessarily
unimportant to the faculty. As such, a limitation of this study must be clearly recognized
that the remaining ten competencies may well be of value.
The use of a four-point Likert scale survey allowed for faculty participants to
rank twenty competencies, adapted from the research literature and the America Council
on Education’s recommendations for global competencies (Olson et al., 2005). The scale
ranged from “Least Important,” “Somewhat Important,” “Important,” and “Most
Important” (Appendix A). The responses were then sorted by means to identify the ten
highest ranked competencies, indicating how the faculty at Marymount College perceived
their understanding of a global perspective.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. The top ten competencies
are shown in Table 4.1.
73

Table 4.1
Top Ten Competencies Indicative of a Global Perspective Student Learning Outcome, as
Perceived by Marymount College Faculty (Descending Order by Mean)

Competency M SD
12 3.83 .453 Ability to demonstrate respect for cultural differences.
11 3.74 .561
Ability to demonstrate tolerance for unfamiliarity with new
ideas
regarding cultural differences.
10 3.71 .519
Ability to demonstrate openness towards new
opportunities, ideas, or ways of thinking.
2 3.66 .482
Ability to understand the interdependency of concepts such
as world events, conditions, & issues.
4 3.60 .497
Ability to understand and evaluate one's culture in
relationship to the rest of the world.
16 3.54 .611 Ability to use critical thinking skills to evaluate the
integration of new concepts.
13 3.49 .612 Ability to differentiate between multiple perspectives.
1 3.46 .611 Ability to identify regions of world geography on a map.
14 3.44 .705 Ability to evaluate self-awareness about one's own identity
and culture.
18 3.40 .604 Ability to critique cultural issues objectively.

In the analysis of the means of all twenty competencies, there is more variability
at lower end of the scale. In the lowest set of competencies, there is a difference of 0.88
in the range of the means. In the range of the top ten competencies, the difference
between the means drops to 0.43. As such, there appears to be general agreement within
the faculty about the ten most important student competencies for a global perspective.
Due to the possibility that the results of the competency survey do not identity the bottom
ten competencies as necessarily unimportant to the faculty, the results for all twenty
competencies are found in Appendix B.

74

Causes of the Perceived Performance Gaps
Research Question Two: What are the gaps in faculty knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture which may affect the successful
achievement of an organizational goal for development of a global perspective for
students at Marymount College?
In this section, an analysis of the data collected on connection with
Question 2 is discussed. In general, the analysis reveals that the faculty has
greater challenges with the organizational culture and support (grand means of
2.88) than with their knowledge and skills (grand means of 3.15) and motivation
(grand means of 3.47) to include a global perspective in their curriculum. This
indicates that in order to close the gaps, Marymount College will need to examine
the level of institutional commitment it is willing to invest to meet this outcome.
Faculty will benefit from professional development opportunities that lead to
increased knowledge and skills, and have the motivation to accomplish this.
After the concept of “Global Perspective” was operationalized through the results
of the first survey, Marymount faculty were asked to participate in the follow-up Faculty
Perceptions Global Perspective Barriers Survey (Appendix C). This survey utilized a
four-point Likert scale calling for a response of “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,”
“Agree,” and “Strongly Agree” on thirty items. Faculty were asked to rate the top ten
competencies in terms of their own perceived knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture/support that were needed to incorporate learning experiences into
their curriculum. To capture the data, ten specific questions regarding knowledge and
skills, ten to motivation, and ten to organizational culture and support were asked about
75

each competency. For example, Knowledge Question #7, Motivation Question #7, and
Organizational Question #7 were related to Competency #1: “Ability to identify regions
of world geography on a map.”
The survey results were analyzed around the means. The means is the
average of the total of all the scores (Salkind, 2006). The mean of the knowledge
and skills items was obtained, as were the means of the motivation items and the
organizational items. The scale for the survey ranged from 1 to 4, with 4
representing “strongly agree.” It is important to note that these gaps (any mean
less than 4.00) are not absolutes. They are relative to individual faculty self-
perceptions. The innovation GAP model identifies what faculty perceives
themselves to need, not an actual measurement of their knowledge, motivation, or
organization. The closer a mean is to a 4.00, the lower the gap, or put another
way, the smaller the mean, the greater the challenge faculty perceives to achieving
the organizational goal. A mean in knowledge and skills lower than a 4.00 may
indicate a faculty perception of a challenge in the area of knowledge and skills
needed to teach and incorporate the competency. A lower mean in a motivational
area may indicate a faculty perception of a lack of interest or value in the
competency. A lower mean in organizational culture may represent a faculty
perception that the leadership is not providing the level of institutional support or
resources needed to meet the goal. There are no established benchmarks to other
institutions or prior Marymount assessments. The literature did not identify other
colleges or universities conducting a gap analysis using the Clark & Estes (2008)
framework, especially through an innovation model.
76

The population size was N=47. The grand means of each of the ten knowledge
and skills items, the ten motivation items, and the ten organizational items were
calculated for their Cronbach's Alpha. According to Salkind (2006), the purpose of
establishing the Cronbach’s Alpha is to provide internal consistency reliability, or rather
the evidence that a set of survey items are consistent with one another. This is often used
when there is no right or wrong answer on a test or survey (Salkind, 2006). If data
analysis evidenced low coefficients, then the concepts would be considered not reliable
and therefore a limitation of the study. In this study, it provided data to assess the
reliability of each of the sets of question types (knowledge and skills, motivation,
organizational culture) in terms of their concept reliability. The correlation coefficient
indicates a very strong relationship when the alpha is between 0.8 and 1.0. An alpha of
0.6 to 0.8 indicates a strong relationship. An alpha of 0.5 is the “cut off”; lower than 0.5
leads the researcher to question the reliability of the items (Salkind, 2006; 2008).
The data from this survey has been analyzed using two methods. The first
analysis reflects the comparison of the means of each competency within
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture question types. The
second analysis compares the grand means of the question types of knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to each other.
Knowledge and Skills Results
Table 4.2 provides the question type, related competency, and the means for that
question type for the knowledge and skills survey items. Question #7 and #9 have the
lowest mean (2.47 and 2.65, respectively) and thus indicate the greatest gap within this
domain. Within the knowledge and skills questions, one sees more variability at lower
77

end of scale. As they move to the top (Competency #14, #10, and #11), the faculty
perceptions of their strengths in this area are more clustered. The Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient of .863 for knowledge and skills items leads to the conclusion that the
reliability of these items is very strong. It provides evidence that the items used to
identify knowledge and skills gaps are consistent with one another and that they represent
the same interest (Salkind, 2008).
Table 4.2
Knowledge and Skills Questions, Means, and Related Competency (Descending Order by
Mean)

Question

Competency

Means
3 I have the practical skills to create a classroom that
promotes a respectful sharing of ideas and beliefs.
11 3.54
2 I know how to provide a culturally tolerant classroom
environment, welcoming new and opposing ideas.
10 3.52
6 I am able to differentiate between multiple perspectives
while applying this skill to my course lectures and
discussion.
14 3.44
8 I am able to differentiate between multiple perspectives
while applying this skill to my course lectures and
discussion.
13 3.26
10 I have the knowledge and skills to advance student
understanding of the diversity of values, beliefs, ideas,
or world views.
4 3.20
4 I incorporate and discuss global topics such as world
events, conditions, and issues within my class(es).
2 3.20
5 I am able to examine cultural issues objectively in my
courses.
18 3.17
1 I know how to incorporate different ethnic and cultural
practices into my curriculum.
12 3.02
9 I help students connect the root causes of basic global
problems, e.g., population control, poverty, or disease.
16 2.65
7 I provide examples of physical or cultural geography
from different regions of the world as part of my course
content, locating these regions with visual
representation (hard copy maps or technological
access.)
1 2.47

78

When knowledge gaps are identified, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) provides a
useful framework to help validate the cause of the gaps and then provide solutions for the
type of training needed. Construct validity is established when there is a criterion against
which to measure. A self-report tool ideally should be measured against several criteria
(e.g., observational tools, interviews) to provide the greatest level of validity (Salkind,
2006; Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). As such, the discussion in Chapter 6 recommends that
faculty assess their factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge against
several criteria to further validate the knowledge gaps (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Using the Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) taxonomy for four knowledge
dimension questions, a series of questions can be addressed within each dimension.
Following are representative questions regarding the dimensions:
Factual knowledge. (Basic elements of global awareness/global perspectives): Do
faculty need to learn more about global perspectives? Do faculty know the current and
appropriate terminology of global perspective topics?
Conceptual knowledge. (Interrelationships, concepts): Do faculty need to learn to
incorporate global concept knowledge into current course content? Do faculty understand
the interrelatedness of world events to current student, community, state, and national
issues?
Procedural knowledge. (How to do a process, or a step-by-step task): Do faculty
need to learn how to develop new courses? Do faculty know how to create assignments
linked to global perspectives? Do faculty know how to create global perspective rubrics
for grading?
Metacognitive knowledge. (Self-awareness of one’s knowledge, ways of thinking,
79

and processing of information): Do faculty have current research sources for global
perspective topics? Do faculty research global issues in relationship to their course
curriculum?
Utilizing the above types of questions for the Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
knowledge dimension taxonomy, the two competencies with the greatest gaps in
knowledge and skills are discussed.
Knowledge and Skills Gap One
The first critical gap is found in Question Type #7, for Competency #1: “I
provide examples of physical or cultural geography from different regions of the world as
part of my course content, locating these regions with visual representation (hard copy
maps or technological access.” The following questions could be asked of faculty in
order to identify the specific gaps within this competency.
Factual knowledge. Do you know the geographical information related to your
course content? Do you know about the technology for Global Information Systems
(GIS)? Do you know where the information is located?
Conceptual knowledge. Do you know the purpose of the GIS technology? Do you
know the levels of GIS dimensions? Do you know how to incorporate it into your course
lectures?
Procedural knowledge. Do you know how to access GIS on the classroom and
office computers? Do you know how to use the technology of GIS? Do you know how to
teach your students how to use the GIS system?
Metacognitive knowledge. Do you review the literature on GIS before your class
lectures? Do you spend time practicing locating relevant knowledge related to your
80

course content on the GIS system in preparation for lectures?
The gap related to this competency indicates a need for the knowledge and skills
in factual, conceptual, and procedural skills to be most critical. Gaps in these knowledge
realms must be closed in order to successfully help students achieve this competency.
Faculty identified the need for students to develop a strong sense of geography and to
gain the ability to locate world regions on a map. Yet, there was a perception by faculty
that they needed the knowledge and skills to incorporate geography into their curriculum.
It may also reflect a perception by faculty that this skill is not pertinent to their course
(i.e., perhaps a math course). A more in depth analysis to discover the exact cause of the
perception would be of value.
Knowledge and Skills Gap Two
The second critical gap is found in Question Type #9, for Competency #16: “I
help students connect the root causes of basic global problems, e.g., population control,
poverty, or disease.”
The cause of this gap may vary dependent on the disciple taught by the specific
faculty member. Classes in global studies, economics, or sociology, for example, may
perceive they need a greater level of research and application of theory in their
coursework. However, faculty who teach courses in general education, English, or math
may be lacking the conceptual knowledge in the root causes of global problems. The
faculty may not perceive how to incorporate this information into their courses,
especially if they do not see the relationship between the competency and the specific
courses they teach. The following questions may be addressed to identify the cause of the
gap. Faculty self-assessment will isolate the specific causes of the gap for individual
81

faculty members.
Factual knowledge. Do you know the root causes of basic global problems? Do
you know the facts of population, poverty, or disease in various societies?
Conceptual knowledge. Do you relate the root causes of basic global problems to
other curricular content? Do you understand the interrelatedness of world events to
current student, community, state, and national issues?
Procedural knowledge. Do you know how to develop course assignments related
to global problems? Do you know how to find the information needed to support this
topic? Do you know how to develop a rubric to grade an essay asking students to discuss
the relationship of poverty in another population to its effect on the local community in
the US?
Metacognitive knowledge. Do you research articles and sources to provide the
information needed to incorporate global root problems into your course content? Do you
utilize the librarians and/or library system to search for sources of information?
This competency indicates a need for the knowledge and skills to teach students
critical thinking skills, which fall within a metacognitive learning process. Indications are
present with a gap in this competency that show a need to enhance teaching skills in
analytic and critical thinking, and to provide of curriculum sources that lead to higher
levels of critical thinking among students. Gaps in factual, conceptual, and
metacognitive knowledge must be closed in order to successfully help student achieve
this competency.
Solutions to gaps in knowledge dimensions will be provided in the discussion of
Research Question Three, based on the appropriate assessments for each knowledge
82

dimension (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Self-assessments may serve as a guide for
faculty to assess their factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge.
Motivation Results
Table 4.3 provides the question type, related competency, and the means for that
question type, for the motivation survey items. Question #7 and #4 have the lowest
means (2.98 and 3.28, respectively). Task value influences the achievement behaviors of
choice, persistence, and mental effort needed to complete a task (Eccles and Wigfield,
1995). Two task values identified in the motivation question types indicate that the
largest gaps were found in that of intrinsic value (interest) and in utility value. Intrinsic
value is seen as the enjoyment that comes from doing a task. Utility is the value one puts
on the success of the task. The Cronbach’s Alpha of .807 is a very strong indicator of
reliability and provides evidence of consistency that the same underlying construct exists
between the motivation questions.

83

Table 4.3
Motivation Questions, Means, and the Related Competency, (Descending Order by Mean)

Question

Competency

Means
2 I value having a discussion in my class, based on a
curiosity and openness toward new ideas and ways of
thinking.
10 3.85
8 I encourage an openness of perspective within my
classroom environment.
13 3.72
1 I believe that incorporating different ethnic and cultural
experiences into my curriculum could help students to
better appreciate other cultures.
12 3.65
6 I believe that the more students know about other cultures,
the better they will understand their own culture.
14 3.65
9 I want my students to become interested in analyzing and
evaluating critical issues.
16 3.65
10 I believe students can understand their own culture more
fully if they have studied another culture.
4 3.59
3 When I learn about other cultures, it helps me to better
tolerated ambiguity or the unfamiliar when
communicating with students from other cultures.
11 3.54
5 I value helping my students learn about other cultures
through discussion with people from other cultures.
18 3.40
4 I place value on the integration of world knowledge
(e.g., world events, issues, and/or conditions) into my
curriculum.
2 3.28
7 I enjoy relating course topics to the physical or
cultural regions of the world.
1 2.98

Clark’s (1999) CANE (Commitment and Necessary Effort) model provides a
framework for diagnosis of the commitment of effort needed to lead change. Mental
effort, choice, and persistence drive the solutions to close the gaps. The current literature
in the field of global awareness addresses the importance of faculty attitudes toward
international learning, personal knowledge and skills, and cognitive competence as
factors in helping students become more globally aware (Ellingboe, 1998; Green &
Olson, 2003). Faculty who do not value internationalization or the enhancement of their
curriculum with global perspective may be unwilling to take advantage of international
education opportunities (Green & Olson, 2003, p. 73). Faculty attitudes towards global
84

curriculum will impact their interest, their perceived value, and their willingness to do the
work needed to make curriculum revisions (Green & Olson, 2003).
Faculty who do not value adding global understanding to their coursework may
view an expectation for such as a threat to their academic freedom or as interference with
the content of their discipline. This could result in a lack of willingness to participate in
professional development within this context (Childress, 2010). Faculty with little or no
experience in international travel or teaching may not have the same level of value or
interest in embracing a student learning outcome for global awareness. Faculty who have
few interactions with people from other cultures, either internationally or within the
United States, “…may lack an understanding necessary to integrate international and
inter-cultural perspectives into their teaching and research (Bond, 2003; Green & Olson,
2003).”
The items representing motivation gaps help identify whether the faculty perceive
themselves as valuing Marymount’s organizational student outcome of development of a
global perspective. Results may be indicative of faculty needing to become more
invested in the goal, and interested in incorporation of the goal into their curriculum.

Motivation Gap One
In the review of Table 4.3, the most critical gap is related to Competency #1,
Question 7, and is seen in intrinsic value: “I enjoy relating course topics to the physical
or cultural regions of the world.” This question asked for faculty perception of their
interest, or enjoyment, in the competency. Based on the framework of Clark’s (1999)
CANE model and research of Eccles and Wigfield (1995) in the constructs of intrinsic
85

value and enjoyment, it would appear that the gap of insufficient value and enjoyment
could very well indicate that the faculty may choose to not incorporate these
competencies into their course curriculum.
The cause of this gap may relate to the self-perceived lack of knowledge and
skills, as indicated in Table 4.2. When faculty do not have confidence in their ability to
use new geography technology, or see the connection of it to their course content, it is not
unrealistic to expect that their motivation to include the competency might be low.
Motivation Gap Two
The second critical motivation gap is found in Question Type #4, for Competency
#2: “I place value on the integration of world knowledge (e.g., world events, issues,
and/or conditions) into my curriculum.” In this question, the researcher is looking for
indicators of utility value. If faculty do not appreciate the usefulness of their students’
achievement of competency in this area, they may not value incorporating world
knowledge concepts into their curriculum. According to Eccles and Wigfield (1995) and
Clark and Estes (2008), value is the primary, underlying construct for choice. A factor in
achieving a global perspective calls for the integration and understanding of a perspective
beyond a “localized awareness”. A gap in faculty motivation to incorporate world issues
into their curriculum and pedagogy could seriously jeopardize achievement of the
institutional goal.
Finding appropriate solutions to these motivation issues could prevent the
identified gaps from increasing. The significance of an innovation gap analysis process
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Smith & Ragan, 2005) is to identify the potential barriers that exist
and may adversely affect the successful achievement of the institutional goal. This
86

motivation analysis points to the need for Marymount faculty to see both the value and
enjoyment (interest) in the incorporation of a global awareness into their curriculum.
With identification of the gap and the cause of the gap, Marymount College is provided
with an early opportunity to prevent a serious gap from forming.
Organizational Results
The third area of the gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) addresses organizational
culture and support. Results of the survey identified that there were gaps in both the
college culture as well as in capital investment for classroom resources. Question #2 and
#4 are combined in the discussion of the results, due to their similarity. Their means of
2.52 and 2.24, respectively, identify cultural gaps in the faculty’s sense of divisional
support. Question #7, with a mean of 2.49, shows that faculty perceive a gap in the
capital the College needs to invest in order to provide the map resources (and related
technology) to teach geographical concepts. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .892 indicates
extremely strong reliability within the items representing faculty perception of the
organizational culture and support.

87

Table 4.4
Organizational Questions, Means, and the Related Competency (Descending Order by Mean)

Questions

Competency

Means
5 I have access (e.g., announcements, emails) regarding
programs held by the College and colleagues on
global topics.
18 3.43
3 Marymount College offers programming (e.g., films,
events, speakers) for students that helps increase
familiarity with people from other cultures.
11 3.17
9 The College curriculum provides a range of courses
that meet degree requirements which lead to building
multiple knowledge domains.
16 3.07
6 Marymount College provides ideas for increasing
intercultural and global awareness through faculty and
student programming.
14 3.04
10 The College supports multicultural perspectives by
inviting guest speakers to campus.
4 3.04
1 Events with an international or intercultural focus are
a consistent program goal at Marymount College.
12 3.04
8 The College offers programs that encourage the
international and domestic students to engage in
dialogue or sharing of ideas.
13 2.74
2 Marymount College provides opportunities for my
division to share in dialogue with colleagues or
guests with different perspectives from my own.
10 2.52
7 I am provided with current digital or traditional
map resources, or access to such, within my
classroom.
1 2.49
4 I am encouraged by my division chair or colleagues
to incorporate the interdependency of concepts
such as world events, conditions, or issues into my
classes.
2 2.24

Gaps identified within the area of organizational culture, context, and capital need
to look to the research of experts such as Schein (2004), Clark and Estes (2008), Rueda
(2011), and Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001). Organizational culture filters and affects
the meeting of organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational culture is a
reality of an institution that develops over years. It is the “normative understanding” of
88

how the organization should work. The culture evolves historically and has shared ways
of thinking and perceiving and reacting to challenges and conditions (Gallimore and
Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011).
Marymount College’s transformative institutional change in the move from two-
year to four-year college changed its culture and context dramatically. The college had
historically served a population of students with academic goals to transfer to four-year
institutions. Over 90% of the students transferred primarily to the University of
California, California State University systems, and California private institutions,
including those with high levels of selectivity. Enrollment in 2009 had experienced a
significant and potentially unsustainable drop in student numbers, due to the changing
nature of private, liberal arts two-year colleges in the United States. The Board of
Trustees approved the change in vision and goals to a four-year institution as a move to
increase enrollment and ensure continued growth of the college.
The WASC application to transform to a baccalaureate school was filed in August
2009 and full WASC approval granted in February, 2010, for enrollment of its first class
of juniors in fall 2010. In fall 2011, enrollment increased over 40% from fall 2009 (560
to 940 students) and the college opened a second offsite campus in the nearby community
of San Pedro, due to a lack of space on the current campus, with a community conditional
use permit limiting the cap on daytime enrollment. The average admit grade point
average increased in fall 2011 from 2.57 to a 2.85, and at the time of this research, looks
to be rising for fall 2012. In 2011-2012, over 30% of the students were awarded Pell
Grants, signifying extremely low family incomes. The College now qualifies as a
89

Hispanic Serving Institution (30% Hispanic). The administrative goal is to double
enrollment by the fall 2013 (to over 2000 students).
The culture at Marymount College has changed as a result in changes of
enrollment, size, demographics, and processes. “…culture exists (and is created) in
settings, those occasions where people come together to carry out joint activity that
accomplishes something they value” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 48). There are
also changes with faculty. Previously, as a community college (albeit a private
institution), faculty priority was focused on teaching and academic advising. As a
baccalaureate institution, faculty priority includes teaching, advising, service, and
research. Faculty expectations are changing. Instead of serving only freshmen and
sophomores, it now also serves juniors and seniors. There may be varied opinions within
the faculty as to what they value, however, faculty and staff are working to build and
succeed in creating a new Marymount College, drawing on its unique background and its
new mission as one of two Catholic four-year coeducational colleges in the Los Angeles
region.
Organizational culture is a critical component of successful achievement of the
global perspective student learning outcome. While faculty, staff and students all have an
important role in the creation of campus culture, faculty engagement is essential.
According to Childress (2010), faculty engagement “…must be proactively encouraged
and supported by campus leaders overseeing the implementation of internationalization
plans” (p. 28) in order for successful outcome achievement to occur. The analysis of the
following two organization question types and their related competencies identifies
90

potential gaps in the organizational structure that could affect the achievement of the
student outcome for a global perspective.
Organization Gap One
As can be seen in Table 4.4, the lowest mean was related to competency #2, with
question type #4. It is of significance to note that in review of the competencies, the tenth
was similar to the second, and both related to the role of the discipline division. As such,
they will be combined in the discussion. “I am encouraged by my division chair or
colleagues to incorporate the interdependency of concepts such as world events,
conditions, or issues into my classes,” and “Marymount College provides opportunities
for my division to share in dialogue with colleagues or guests with different perspectives
from my own.”
This potential gap is related to the cultural and contextual changes that have come
from transformative change. When Marymount was a two-year community college,
divisional focus tended to rest in the “nuts and bolts” of organizational issues, e.g., course
schedules, information from Academic Affairs, hiring adjunct faculty, due dates of final
grades, and other such procedural responsibilities. Divisions were not necessarily
domain specific, except within Business. With the move to a four-year college, divisions
are taking on a new direction. Division chairs have new roles with greater decision-
making power. Divisions are moving towards incorporation, expectation, and
recognition of research. Advising is moving to faculty advisors within the divisions and
programs once BA majors are declared. The concept of greater responsibility for
learning to meet domain specific outcomes as encouraged and supported through the
division or by the division chair is new to Marymount College. This is a potential
91

organizational gap that needs to be addressed. The division has greater responsibly for
faculty engagement in the achievement of a global perspective and other learning
outcomes.
Organizational Gap Two
The second organization gap is reflected through Question Type #7, Competency
#1: “I am provided with current digital or traditional map resources or access to such,
within my classroom.” The cause of this gap may be related to capital. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), gaps will occur when necessary equipment and resources are not
adequately funded. When physical resources are not provided, faculty may perceive that
the institution does not value the goal or is unwilling to invest in the goal. This may
create the barrier for faculty to incorporate the competency into their curriculum.
Enhancement of educational technology is a strategic goal at Marymount. Faculty
identified that knowledge of the world is an important competency for students to obtain.
Technology has moved capacity far beyond the traditional hard copy maps. Trying to
equip all classrooms with hard copy, current maps is limiting. Technology, such as
Global Information Systems (GIS), can provide the web-based technology for in-depth
ability to refer to world geography on a regular basis in the classroom.
The intent of the surveys was to provide the quantitative data leading to evidence
of critical gaps in learning experiences that might prevent successful student achievement
of a global perspective. Solutions to close these gaps will be discussed in Chapter Five.
Following is a discussion of the comparison between the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organization results.
92

Comparison of Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and Organization Results

A comparative analysis of the means among the faculty’s survey responses
for knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization provide further granularity
to enable solutions to be focused and prioritized for each competency.
Table 4.5 represents the analysis of a comparison of the competencies and
question types. The researcher looked for significant differences in the means of
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to determine the
most significant gaps relative to each other when comparing the three question
types as perceived by faculty. The greatest gaps appear in the areas of knowledge
and skills and organizational support. Motivation to incorporate learning
experiences to meet the global perspective goal is stronger overall than the other
two. A grand means was obtained for each of the question types of knowledge
and skills (3.15); motivation (3.47); and organizational culture (2.88).
Table 4.5
Comparison of Question Types, Means, and the Related Competency

Competency Knowledge/Skills
Means
Motivation
Means
Organization
Means
Relative Gaps in Competency Combinations
12 3.02 3.65 3.04 Knowledge/Skills; Organization
11 3.54 3.54 3.17 Organization
10 3.52 3.85 2.52 Organization
2 3.20 3.28 2.24 Knowledge/Skills; Motivation; Organization
4 3.20 3.59 3.04 Knowledge/Skills; Organization
16 2.65 3.63 3.07 Knowledge/Skills; Organization
13 3.26 3.72 2.74 Knowledge/Skills; Organization
1 2.47 2.98 2.49 Knowledge/Skills; Motivation; Organization
14 3.44 3.65 3.04 Knowledge/Skills; Organization
18 3.17 3.40 3.43 Knowledge/Skills; Motivation; Organization
Grand
Means
3.15 3.47 2.88
93

Analysis of the Question Type Combinations
The following is a general overview of the most significant combinations
of question types for knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization
perceived competencies by Marymount faculty. They are listed in descending
order from the highest mean. The researcher selected 3.50 as the means that
indicated a significant gap to be addressed.
Competency #12. Ability to demonstrate respect for cultural differences.
Motivation is high in value and interest to learn. Faculty indicate that they need to build
their knowledge and skills as well as perceiving a need for greater levels of
organizational support.
Competency #11. Ability to demonstrate tolerance for unfamiliarity with new
ideas regarding cultural differences. Faculty perceive both their knowledge and skills
and motivation is strong, but that there is a need to build organizational support.
Competency #10.. Ability to demonstrate openness towards new opportunities,
ideas, or ways of thinking. The motivation, or interest and value, is high, as is the sense
that knowledge and skills are strong, but faculty feel poorly supported by the
organization.
Competency #2.. Ability to understand the interdependency of concepts such as
world events, conditions, and issues. There are fairly significant gaps existing in among
all three question types.
Competency #4. Ability to understand and evaluate one’s culture in relationship
to the rest of the world. There is a need to build knowledge and skill experiences, but the
faculty is strongly motivated to do this and will need organizational support.
94

Competency #16. Ability to use critical thinking skills to evaluate the integration
of new concepts. This is a very interesting result. The faculty appears to perceive their
knowledge and skills to teach students critical thinking skills low. This is a metacognitive
learning process. Their motivation is very strong and the organizational support to build
this skill is seen as stronger than their knowledge and skills.
Competency #13. Ability to differentiate between multiple perspectives. The
faculty perceptions of their interests, or values, in this competency are the highest of all
the areas, but knowledge and skills do not have the same strength, and the organizational
support is perceived as low.
Competency #1. Ability to identify regions of world geography on a map. The
means are low (below 3.00) for all question types. Faculty identified low knowledge and
skills, low motivation or interest, low organizational support. This is an especially
interesting combination, as this competency was rated in the top ten, yet rated poorly in
all three question types.
Competency #14. Ability to evaluate self-awareness about one’s own identity and
culture. This competency was somewhat more balanced across the three question types.
Gaps in knowledge and skills need closing motivation is strong, and organizational
support is needed.
Competency #18. Ability to critique cultural issues objectively. Interestingly,
faculty are somewhat low in their perception to teach, or include in their curriculum and
learning experiences, the ability teach student how to do objective critique with cultural
issues. Motivation to succeed or learn this is strong, as is perception of the organizational
support.
95

In summary, Table 4.5 provides an analysis of the comparisons of the
competencies and question types and shows that, in general, the faculty perceive a strong
sense of motivation to succeed in the incorporation of the competencies into the
curriculum, as seen in their interest and value of the competencies. However, their
perception of their knowledge and skills and their perception of the organizational
support is lower in relationship to their motivation.
Statistical Analysis of the Comparison of Knowledge and Skills,
Motivation, and Organizational Results
The question was addressed to determine if there is a statistical difference
between the grand means of the ten knowledge and skills questions, the ten motivation
questions and the ten organizational culture and support questions. The results of the
analysis showed a grand means for knowledge and skills of 3.15, for motivation of 3.47,
and for organizational culture and support of 2.88. The strongest of the three concepts is
that of faculty motivation (3.47), and then lessens as to how faculty perceive their
knowledge and skills to incorporate global perspective content into their curriculum
(3.15). The faculty perceived Marymount’s organizational culture and support as the
lowest of the concepts (2.88).
A One Sample T-test was used to ask, “Are the means between the three concepts
significantly different?” Pooled significance levels and use of a Bonferroni adjustment in
the level of significance to account for multiple pair wise, no significant difference was
found between knowledge to motivation scales (p = .175), however, a significant
difference between the means of both the motivation and knowledge and skills scales to
the motivation and organizational culture and support scales (p = .043 and p = .042,
96

respectively) was found.
These data would indicate that the faculty perceive their motivation and their
knowledge and skills to incorporate global perspective learning experiences into their
curriculum as strong. However, they may not perceive that Marymount College is ready
to provide the organizational culture and support needed to help faculty meet this
institutional student learning outcome.
Solutions to the Perceived Performance Gaps
Research Question Three: What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in
faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the
organization’s goal of successful achievement of a global perspective by students at
Marymount College?
The potential solutions are derived from the evidence obtained through the
quantitative measurements used to determine the causes of the gap and the research
literature. Solutions are aligned to the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture and support gaps. Scholarly literature in such fields as gap
analysis, faculty engagement, internationalization, and global learning outcomes were
reviewed for theoretical frameworks. These solutions and recommendations for
implementation and evaluation are presented and discussed in detail in Chapter Five.

97

CHAPTER V: SOLUTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
In the move to a four-year institution, Marymount College developed an
organizational goal for graduates to achieve a global perspective. This goal is articulated
as an institutional student learning outcome, indicative of the attitudes, behaviors, and
knowledge that graduates will achieve as a result of their educational experience at
Marymount. There was a need to determine if gaps existed between the rhetoric of the
goal and faculty readiness to provide learning activities leading to outcomes that can be
actually measured.
The structure for this chapter is based upon the analysis of the results of data from
the first two research questions. Questions were posed and data collected through two
quantitative surveys searching to answer the first two research questions. The first
research question operationalized the concept of global perspective. Until this was
accomplished, Marymount College could not plan for curricular changes, teacher
training, and educational experiences, nor the tools and rubrics that will be necessary to
measure student achievement of a global perspective. The second research question
identified the self-perceived gaps in the faculty’s knowledge and skills and motivation to
incorporate global perspective curriculum into their teaching process and to suggest
whether the organizational support and culture was in place to support this process.
The final research question asks, “What are the potential solutions to address the
gaps in faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve
the organization’s goal of successful achievement of a global perspective by students at
Marymount College?” The discussion of this question addresses the remainder of the
Clark & Estes (2008) GAP process. The final three steps of this process draw on the
98

scholarly research to look for implications for practice in areas of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational culture. Current and landmark scholarly research in the
field of global perspective development and faculty engagement provides research-based
solutions to close the gaps, make recommendations for implementations of the solutions,
and provide a process for evaluation of the effectiveness of the solutions. Ideally, this will
help ensure that students will be posed to gain a sense of global perspective through the
academic experiences at Marymount College.
According to Childress (2010), faculty engagement is critical in the infusing of
global perspectives and internationalization concepts into the curriculum. Ultimately, it
is the faculty who offer the opportunities that will help and guide students in the types of
learning experiences that help meet the competencies. Student learning is directly
impacted by faculty decisions as to whether global awareness learning will become part
of their curriculum. Faculty attitudes will lead to whether they accept adding and
modeling the knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes that students are expected to gain.
Faculty needs both the knowledge and skills and the motivation and attitude to infuse
their curriculum with concepts of global perspectives. “Faculty need an awareness of
their discipline’s literature as it relates to other cultures and societies and a clear
understand of the objectives for internationalizing their course “ (Childress, 2010, p. 28).
Knowledge and Skills Gap Solutions
When gaps in knowledge and skills are present, it is helpful to turn to the
knowledge dimensions of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). Once gaps have been
identified as to whether they lie within the domains of factual, conceptual, procedural, or
metacognitive knowledge, solutions may be recommended. According to Mayer (2011),
99

the instructional objective will guide, or determine, the type of cognitive processes that
will be needed to for the learning to take place. An instructional objective is the type of
change that is expected to occur in the learner as a result of the lesson (or teaching
session). It consists of three parts: What one learns; how they will use it; and how the
learner’s performance will be interpreted (Mayer, 2011).
Mayer (2011) further distinguishes between performance and learning. Learning
is an actual change in knowledge. Performance is the ability for the new learning to be
applied to a specific task. In the effort to arrive at appropriate solutions to the causes of
gaps within knowledge and skills, it will be necessary to identify the type of cognitive
process that is needed to meet the instructional objective (Mayer, 2011). The solutions for
knowledge gaps must be appropriate to the type of learning needed. A faculty who needs
procedural instruction to develop a syllabus with global perspective assignments aligned
to student learning outcomes (procedural knowledge domain) will need a different
approach than for the learning of how to grade reflective essays through the use of rubrics
(conceptual knowledge domain) (Rueda, 2011).
Using Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) as the framework, the following are the
six cognitive processes that will guide the most appropriate solutions for the learning
needed (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011) based on faculty’s assessment of their specific
knowledge and skills gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008):
Remember: Retrieve relevant knowledge from long term-memory.
Understand: To construct meaning from instruction
Apply: To use a procedure or specific steps to complete a task.
Analyze: To break material into smaller parts and determine how the parts are
100

interrelated.
Evaluate: To make judgments based on specific criteria or standards.
Create: To make a new structure or pattern by putting elements together in a
functional whole.
In addition, solutions for gaps in knowledge dimensions, related to global
perspectives will depend upon which type of knowledge is needed.
Gaps in Factual Knowledge
The factual knowledge realm in the context of this study includes the basic
elements of global awareness, global education, or global perspectives. According to
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), factual knowledge includes both terminology and
specific detail. Solutions to close a gap in factual knowledge will call for job aids, a self-
help tool to provide information (Clark & Estes, 2008). The faculty member may have
related expertise but lacks sufficient relevant past experiences to transfer the knowledge
or skills to the ten competencies. Clear instructional objectives will help define the facts
that need to be learned in this domain (Mayer, 2011). Providing information to faculty
about theories, definitions, and basic concepts will be an appropriate solution for factual
knowledge gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Gaps in Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual gaps may occur until faculty recognizes the relationship of global
perspectives across disciplines (e.g., how global perspectives relate to math content,
science, history, English, philosophy, business, arts and media). Building their knowledge
in conceptual information will be needed. Education may one of the effective solutions
for faculty lacking conceptual knowledge about global perspectives. They may not be
101

equipped to anticipate or solve new challenges if they do not have the understanding of
the relationships of global perspectives to their field of expertise. Education provides the
capacity to increase conceptual knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) describe conceptual knowledge as complex and organized. Conceptual
understanding is needed to transfer prior learning to new situations. Clark and Estes
(2008) recommend that job aids are an effective solution when faculty have a related
expertise but may not have relevant past experiences in the specific topics of global
awareness.
Gaps in Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge is the knowing how to do something, whether complex
tasks or simple processes (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Faculty with procedural
knowledge gaps need assistance in how to apply the knowledge of global perspective
(e.g., how to create assignments that align to the goals, how to create rubrics to measure
global perspective understanding, how to select textbooks, webinars, or other tools that
will help support content and pedagogy). Solutions for gaps in procedural knowledge call
for training. Faculty most likely already have the routine procedures, but may need more
experience and related expertise. Training provides the opportunity to gain information,
and becomes more effective when combined with guided practice and feedback (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Gaps in Metacognitive Knowledge
The metacognitive knowledge dimension refers to awareness of one’s own
cognition and the control over one’s ability to process new information (Mayer, 2011).
The gaps may exist in this area as some faculty may not recognize important connections
102

between their curriculum and disciplines and the importance of global perspectives, or
they may recognize the need to gain better methods to increase the critical thinking skills
of their students. Many of the faculty are involved with increasing their expertise within
their fields through their own research endeavors. When knowledge becomes automated
with expertise, it may become challenging to share that knowledge with others, or explain
what it means to others. Solutions for gaps in metacognitive knowledge domains may be
driven by the need for faculty to learn to transfer their knowledge to students in effective
ways (Feldon, 2007). Clark and Estes (2008) recommend that education is a necessary
solution for creating and evaluating novel and future challenges.
Summary of Knowledge Gap Solutions
The perceptions of the faculty identified that one of the gaps was related to the
question “I help students connect the root causes of basic global problems, e.g.,
population control, poverty, or disease.” Solutions for this gap rest within all four of the
knowledge domains. Connecting root causes of problems calls for new conceptual
knowledge. It may require the faculty member to research the different types of global
problems as it relates to their curriculum, calling for metacognitive knowledge. Faculty
may need procedural knowledge of how to align assignments with learning outcomes or
reconstruct a syllabus to include these topics. Basic facts of global problems need clarity.
It is potentially a complex gap, calling for solutions including information, job aids,
training, and education.
The second largest gap was found in the maps and geographical concepts. “I
provide examples of physical or cultural geography from different regions of the world as
part of my course content, locating these regions with visual representation (hard copy
103

maps or technological access).” The solutions to this gap rest primarily in the realms of
conceptual and procedural knowledge domains and may be closed with information and
training on how to use and apply new geographical technology, for example the Global
Information System technology. Guided practice and feedback will help meet specific
instructional objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Marymount College may want to consider innovative solutions that are derived
from providing the opportunity for faculty to pre-and post-test for their own needs within
the learning dimensions. Pre-tests in the form of surveys of specific questions related to
each competency would be beneficial. Faculty input as to which realm of cognitive
processes they need to build skills, e.g., Memory, Understanding, Application, Analysis,
Evaluation, or Creation (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Mayer, 2011), would help guide
the organizational level of specific support needed for planning. Post-test data will be
provided by through syllabi review at the end of each semester, looking at measurement
of course student learning outcomes aligned with assignments or exam questions related
to specific global competencies. ePortfolio reflection questions with common scoring
rubrics across the curriculum would provide invaluable institutional data on student
learning. Providing guided workshops will help with the transfer of prior knowledge to
new leaning.
To summarize, solutions for the two most critical knowledge and skills gaps
identified in the second research question calls for faculty to be provided with
information, job aids, training, and education (Clark & Estes, 2008), dependent upon
which knowledge domain is addressed.
104

Motivational Gap Solutions
Three indexes of motivation are often cited in discussion of motivational
processes. These are choice, effort, and persistence. The amount of energy one is willing
to expend on activity will be dependent upon these indexes (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). When one selects a new skill or chooses to learn a
new concept by free choice, there is a higher level of motivation to achieve the
knowledge or skill. A high level of energy or willingness to exert the effort to learn new
knowledge and skills is an indication of motivation. Persistence to accomplish a goal is
the final motivational index. The process to measure such indexes can take the direction
of direct observation, ratings by others, and self-reports, e.g., questionnaires, interviews,
and dialogues (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
Expectancy-Value Theory of Motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995) falls within
the construct of a social cognitive motivational model. It may provide insight that leads to
recommendations for gap closure when faculty motivation is low. This landmark
motivation theory involves three different types of values that will affect faculty
motivation to learn new skills, and therefore close any gaps in motivation: (1) Does the
goal provide intrinsic interest value? Is the faculty interested in mastering new skills,
learning new knowledge, and increasing their expertise within the concepts of global
perspective teaching? (2) Skill value: When the new challenge falls within a special skill,
will the faculty be more willing to accept change and learn new skills? (3) Utility value:
Faculty will ask, “How important is this to me? How will it benefit my work at
Marymount College? My research? How will it benefit students at Marymount College?”
Building utility value will help faculty be willing to work for the learning goal when they
105

see personal and institutional benefit, and therefore help close a motivational gap that
could negatively impact successful achievement of the learning outcome for students.
Summary of Motivation Gap Solutions
Solutions for the two most critical motivation gaps identified in Research
Question Two fall within the realm of intrinsic interest value and utility value. In analysis
of the item “I enjoy relating course topics to the physical or cultural regions of the
world,” the gap falls within intrinsic interest value. With a gap of insufficient value and
enjoyment of cultural and physical geography, especially as it relates to specific course
content, faculty may not choose to not incorporate these competencies into their course
curriculum (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Clark, 2004). Solutions are needed to increase
faculty interest in mastering new skills and developing a higher level of expertise within
the concepts of global perspective teaching.
The second motivational gap was seen in faculty response to “I place value on the
integration of world knowledge (e.g., world events, issues, and/or conditions) into my
curriculum.” Solutions for this gap rests in the domain of utility value. Recognizing the
need to increase their education in the realm of global concepts may guide faculty interest
in building new knowledge. Metacognitive learning drives the need to acquire the current
research-based knowledge in the field of global perspective through educational
opportunities. Gaps can be closed as faculty learns how to solve, change, or anticipate the
challenge.
The solutions presented for closing potential gaps in faculty motivation to
incorporate global perspective topics into their learning experiences and curriculums have
been presented. Involving the faculty in the decision making aspects will help drive their
106

motivation to embrace the global perspective goal and to build their understanding of the
utility value of such awareness. According to Childress, 2010, “In terms of personal
attitude, faculty needs a desire and willingness to change their courses” (p. 28).
Motivational challenges become a change process. Engaging faculty involvement is of
great importance, if faculty are to embrace the changes (Green & Shoenberg, 2006).
Organizational Gap Solutions
Causal analysis has indicated faculty perception that Marymount College is
missing organization work processes and material resources to support
internationalization efforts. Faculty may have a challenging time meeting the goal to help
students achieve their global perspective (Clark & Estes, 2008). The institution has
undergone (and is currently still undergoing) extensive transformative change in its
mission and program. The culture and context of Marymount College has changed. It is
important to look at faculty knowledge and skills and motivation to identify how to
provide the organizational support needed (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The analyses of organizational means were consistently low, relative to those of
knowledge and skills and motivation means. Looking to the landmark research of Dixon
(1994) for organizational support that leads to successful change, and applying these
solutions to Marymount College, will be of benefit for Marymount in closing potential
gaps in faculty perception of organizational support for global perspective initiatives: (1)
Clearly articulate visions and goals, and the process by which to measure progress
towards meeting these goals; (2) Align the organization’s structures and processes to
meeting the goal; (3) Keep open lines of communication with all those involved in the
process and changes (e.g., collaborative work with Faculty Senate, academic divisions,
107

division chairs, Curriculum Development and Review Committee); (4) Involve senior
staff and President’s Cabinet so that faculty do not expend time and energy in changes
and directions not supported by administration; and finally, (5) Ensure that faculty has the
knowledge and skills and motivation to accomplish the institutional learning outcomes
for global awareness as well as for other outcomes.
Summary of Organizational Gap Solutions
Solutions for two of the gaps are tied, as they are both related to academic
divisions. “I am encouraged by my division chair or colleagues to incorporate the
interdependency of concepts such as world events, conditions, or issues into my classes,”
and “Marymount College provides opportunities for my division to share in dialogue with
colleagues or guest with different perspectives from my own.” The role of academic
divisions is a change in the Marymount faculty culture resulting from the move to BA
level institution. Institutional level solutions are provided through research literature in
the field of global study and internationalization: (1) Encourage faculty support of
internationalization by working with divisional priorities and support within disciplines
(Green & Olson, 2003); (2) Through academic divisions, increase the exposure to and
training in how to integrate global perspectives into curriculum, especially in disciplines
that are more singular or domestic (Green & Schoenberg, 2006); (3) Division chairs may
encourage and provide opportunities specifically for global perspective understanding
(Childress, 2010); (4) Division chairs may help develop and encourage interdisciplinary
collaboration, increasing faculty motivation to focus on international teaching, research,
and services projects (Ellingboe, 1998; Childress, 2010).
108

A second faculty perceived gap in organization support falls within the concept
of capital, “I am provided with current digital or traditional map resources or access to
such, within my classroom.” According to Clark and Estes (2008), when institutions do
not provide necessary equipment or resources, gaps in achievement of goals will occur.
The low mean score of this question type indicates that the faculty may perceive that the
institution, while articulating the global perspective goal, may lack of sense of value in
the goal. This may create the barrier for faculty to incorporate the competency into their
curriculum. The solution lies in the allocation of capital. Following are research based
solutions to close the perceived gaps in organizational capital: (1) Provide financial
resources with the support of senior administration, including faculty incentives for
engagement (Ellingboe, 1998), with strategic allocation of funding to provide the
resources necessary to meet the goal (e.g., GIS technology system) (Clark & Estes,
2008), (2) Provide financial resources that support faculty development, leading to
increased perception of organizational value (Bond, 2003).
Recommendations for Implementation
Solutions are derived from theories; implementation plans describe how the
solutions work together across the gaps in order to close the gaps. The implementation
process leads to evaluation. Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation (2006) is
recommended as an effective process by which to evaluate the implementation plans.
Based upon the solutions suggested by the research literature to close the gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture/support, and revealed through the
validation for the causes, specific recommendations for implementation at Marymount
College are made.
109

Factual Knowledge Implementation
Develop job aides for resources: e.g., YouTube sites, webinars, people on campus
skilled and prepared to help, library resources.
Post related research and information on the college’s learning management
system (LMS), known to students and faculty as the my.marymount learning site.
Conceptual Knowledge Implementation
Provide faculty with landmark and current research articles in global perspective
education related to root causes of basic global education problems.
Create small group discussions for faculty members to conceptualize how their
past experiences are relevant to the achievement of this goal.
Provide handouts on the purpose of the GIS technology.
Offer workshops on the usage and dimensions of GIS dimensions with examples
of the range of its possibilities.
Offer small group guided demonstrations of ways the GIS dimensions can benefit
course content as reference.
Procedural Knowledge Implementation
Provide workshops in divisions with guided practice with feedback to make
syllabi revisions .
Practice group evaluation of essays for global perspectives.
In domain discipline groups, develop assignments and grading rubrics that align
student learning outcomes with global perspective competencies,
Provide teaching demonstrations with hands on practice to log into and navigate
110

the GIS system.
Provide guided workshops to demonstrate how to teach students to use the GIS
system.
Provide practice session with technology and discipline domain specialists (e.g.,
global studies faculty) to help faculty learn to locate relevant knowledge related to
their course content on the GIS system.
Metacognitive Knowledge Implementation
Provide professional development workshops that focus on developing student
critical thinking skills.
Provide faculty programs with speakers bringing a global understanding of the
interconnectedness of different cultures.
Motivation Recommendations for Implementation
Utilizing an innovation approach and thereby preventing a gap in meeting this
competency may be found in the recommendation of solutions to increase intrinsic
interest and value. Motivation is often built into an activity. When faculty works as a
group to develop needed skills or knowledge, group efficacy may help increase interest
and value. As such, the following activities are recommended: (1) Provide workshops led
by colleagues to highlight examples of how they incorporated geographical principles
into their course content; (2) Provide workshops with faculty within discipline domains to
share specific methods of incorporating geographical principles into their discipline (e.g.,
Media Arts, Sciences); (3) Work in teams to brainstorm ideas to meet competencies and
build team and self-confidence, while developing common goals; (4) Involve faculty in
111

development of alignment of assignments and student learning outcome and development
of rubrics for grading in this topic.
Implementation recommendations for increasing utility value, and thereby prevent a
gap in meeting this competency, may be found activities such as: (1) Provide faculty
opportunities to attend workshops, professional conferences, and webinars, individually
and in teams; (2) Provide workshops with Career Services staff to help faculty see the
relationship between student achievement of a global perspective and future career
opportunities; (3) Offer forums and discussion groups, held with colleagues, to
specifically discuss topics related to global perspectives and world issues and provide the
opportunity to work across divisions for interrelatedness of ideas; (4) Provide workshops
with faculty to lead idea building for infusing a sense of social justice into students; (5)
Provide faculty workshops on how to incorporate service learning projects in which the
student is introduced to issues beyond local community concerns; (6) Provide faculty
workshops to help faculty develop assignments and grading rubrics aligned with this
competency.
Organizational Support Recommendations for Implementation
The faculty perception of organizational support was low in comparison to
knowledge and motivation. The closing of this gap lies in the implementation of
activities and workshops that provide opportunities for faculty to share knowledge and
ideas. Institutional support may be seen through encouragement of activities such as:
Development of joint research projects among domestic and international
colleagues.
112

Divisional support of international travel for scholarly purpose, and upon return,
incorporation of new leaning about global perspectives and knowledge into
curriculum.
Faculty knowledge and utilization of existing international research among
campus colleagues encouraged through interest groups (Childress, 2010). Develop
sharing and learning communities with dedicated time for discussion of new
global ideas, both within and across programs and divisions.
When the faculty-perceived gaps in organization support falls within the concept
of capital, the most effective solution to prevent the widening of this gap, and thereby
potentially causing a negative impact on student achievement, is to make an institutional
commitment to fund the materials needed for infusing global perspectives into
curriculum. In terms of supporting the faculty in the infusion of geographic concepts, it
is recommended that Marymount College (1) Provide access to GIS systems on all
classroom computers; (2) Provide training and support to faculty to incorporate GIS
technology into their curriculum; (3) Replace outdated hard copy map resources in
classrooms in which geography classes are traditionally taught; (4) Provide student
access to GIS systems..
NASULGC’s Task Force on International Education (2004) report that
“Institutional recognition and support are a vital factor in increasing faculty international
involvement” (p. 8). Strategic incentives, through institutional policies, will facilitate the
faculty engagement of infusing their curriculum with global perspectives. They make
recommendations for institutional support of global awareness and internationalization
that could be effectively implemented:
113

Provide funding for international research. Enthusiasm of returning faculty will
infuse other faculty and colleagues. Look to private foundations, strategic
partnerships with other institutions both in US and overseas, and other funding
sources to provide funding for international research (Engberg & Green, 2002;
Childress, 2010).
Provide grants for pedagogical and curricular support in the development of new
classes with international focus and for techniques to infuse global perspectives
into current courses, including a curriculum development fund (Childress, 2010).
Provide faculty with “adequate time to prepare course modifications; release time
in summer or during the academic year to revise curriculum; sufficient library
resources; travel funds to conduct research abroad” (Childress, 2010, p. 28).

This chapter provided potential solutions to the causes of the gaps in faculty
readiness to incorporate global perspective competency development into their
curriculum. The solutions were derived from the evidence obtained through the
quantitative measurements and the research literature. Recommended plans for
implementation of solutions to the gaps were also presented. The following chapter
provides a synthesis of the research results and offers recommendations for summative
evaluation of the implementation plan, addressing the final stage of Clark & Estes (2008)
gap analysis process. Discussion of further research and study limitations conclude the
chapter.

114

CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION
In the move to baccalaureate level coursework, Marymount College established
new institutional student learning outcomes. One of these outcomes reflects recent trends
in higher education to develop an increased emphasis on global issues and experiences.
Marymount is adapting to changing demographics within a society that is becoming more
diverse. Graduates will live and compete in a world that forces them to interact with
businesses and cultures beyond their national borders. If these students are to succeed in
a global community, Marymount’s curriculum and programs need to provide students
with a knowledge base that leads to development of a global perspective.
While institutions of higher education have varying means of accomplishing
learning outcomes, many colleges and universities share a similar understanding of the
global perspective. These are often stated as general outcomes reflecting knowledge,
attitudes, and behaviors that students should know or be able to do in order to succeed as
citizens in a global environment (Olson et al., 2007). When articulated as a specific
organizational learning goal, as in the case with Marymount College, accreditation
standards necessitate that an institution collect and measure evidence that this global
perspective is actually attained by the students. In order to accomplish this, a very clear
understanding of the goal is imperative.
The gap analysis approach (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) lends itself well to
problem solving in educational settings. As compared to other potential ways to measure
student learning, the establishment and analysis of goals is a critical component in gap
analysis. The innovation approach to gap analysis (Smith & Ragan, 2005) applied in this
study addressed Marymount’s desired goal for student outcomes pertaining to global
115

perspectives and enabled the researcher to identify barriers and challenges that may
prevent achievement of the goal. Strategies to collect data and analyze each gap were
presented, leading to a plan for implementation of solutions as well as a process to assess
and evaluate for continuous improvement.
The focus of the study was on Marymount’s faculty. Faculty must be prepared to
provide learning experiences that meet institutional learning goals. By using Marymount
College as a case study, a better understanding of a process to assess faculty engagement
and preparedness to incorporate learning experiences that lead to student attainment of
global awareness was achieved. The findings from this study may be useful to other
liberal arts colleges seeking to internationalize. Further, the process used in this study
may be adapted to analyze their own preparedness to effectively measure student
achievement of global perspective learning outcomes.
Operationalization
The first requirement of this study was to operationalize Marymount’s global
awareness goal. Utilizing the American Council on Education’s (Olson et al., 2007)
competencies representing the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values of a global
perspective, a faculty survey was created. The Marymount College faculty identified the
ten global perspective competencies they most valued as representative of student
learning.
Using the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), a follow-up survey was
constructed around the ten competencies to examine faculty’s self-perceptions of the
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational resource required to teach the
concepts of global perspectives. Results of this survey led to analysis of the largest gaps
116

in each category, which were then specifically addressed for solutions and
implementation plans.
Faculty Perceived Gaps
Overall, the results of the survey showed that the faculty at Marymount perceived
they had the knowledge and skills to incorporate the global perspective competencies into
their curriculum. Moreover, when examining the motivation constructs of choice,
interest, and value, faculty perceptions were indicative that they valued the global
competencies and were generally self-efficacious in ability and interest to incorporate the
competencies into the curriculum. With respect to organizational support and culture, the
faculty felt less supported by the College and indicated the need for a greater number of
resources to be provided.
As an example, with respect to the competency “Ability to demonstrate tolerance
for unfamiliarity with new ideas regarding cultural differences”, faculty perceived that
they had the practical skills needed to create a classroom that promotes a respectful
sharing of ideas and beliefs. They indicated that they valued learning about other cultures
and wanted to learn to better tolerate ambiguity and the unfamiliar. However, they felt
that the College needed to provide a higher level of opportunities and programming for
students to increase their familiarity with people from other cultures.
Another example is found in the competency “Ability to differentiate between
multiple perspectives”. The data indicated a very strong faculty perception of their
interest and value in the concept. It was rated with the highest motivational mean of all
ten competencies. However, faculty also acknowledged that their knowledge and skills
did not have the same strength and that the organizational support, represented by
117

programs that encourage the international and domestic students opportunities to engage
in dialogue or sharing of ideas, was weak.
Solutions to Faculty Perceived Gaps
The solutions of gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
support focused on two key areas. The first recommendation was that faculty examine
their syllabi with greater granularity using Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) knowledge
dimensions to identify possible gaps in their teaching of factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge of global perspective outcomes. Organizational solutions
primarily focused on cultural context and capital. Divisional support, multicultural
programming, resources, professional development, and research were needs perceived
by faculty. Very few motivational solutions were needed, and those solutions emphasized
faculty collaboration in the sharing of ideas, knowledge, skills, and research.
Analysis of Framework
The complexity of this study called for the use of a number of frameworks, as
specific domains for analysis were identified. One overarching framework of this study
within the realm of global education was that of the American Council on Education.
This included global perspective competencies, internationalization processes, and
structures and cultures in higher education.
The second major framework was the gap analysis process model for problem
solving (Clark & Estes, 2008). There are several essential components of this model.
First, an analysis of the organizational goals must be completed to provide a clear and
concrete direction for the organization to achieve its purpose. Then, every stakeholder is
identified who must achieve his or her own goals in order for the organizational goal to
118

be achieved. Causes for gaps in goal achievement must be identified and validated, so
that solutions based on the literature and research in learning, motivation, and
organization theory can be recommended and evaluated.
Innovation gap analysis (Smith & Ragan, 2005) provides an effective and useful
approach to problem solving when an institution undergoes transformative change, as in
the case of Marymount College. When innovation is carefully planned, there exists a
unique window of opportunity to set improvement processes in place. The innovation
gap analysis framework used in this study helped Marymount undertake a process by
which faculty and administration analyzed their goal for student achievement of a global
perspective in a proactive, rather than reactive, approach to problem solving. Through
formative evaluation, it was possible to identify Marymount College’s faculty self-
perceptions of the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational gaps that may
exist as potential barriers to achievement of global awareness by its graduates. While this
study applied the gap analysis process specifically to Marymount’s global awareness goal
for students, other colleges could adapt the process to analyze and implement solutions to
help faculty meet its own institutional or departmental student learning goals.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) approach provides both advantages and
disadvantages to problem solving. One advantage of using such an approach is that
causal analysis can be drawn from faculty perceptions of their knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organization support. A path, or direction, may then be selected to
provide additional causal analysis and research-based solutions that can be found in the
literature for solving such problems.
119

Another strength of the gap analysis process is in its ability to be adapted to
various purposes. When an organization adapts its mission to changing trends which, in
turn, requires the setting of new goals, Smith and Ragan’s (2005) innovation approach
calls for the formation of goals in conjunction with the stakeholders and an analysis of
the challenges or barriers that the stakeholders might encounter in achieving the
organization’s goal. In the case of this study, a goal for student achievement of a global
perspective was articulated by Marymount College and an innovation approach was
undertaken to identify the challenges that exist for faculty in the implementation of plans
to meet the goal. Briefly stated, the analysis of faculty perceptions of their knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational resources helped to identify the resources
needed to meet Marymount’s institutional goal.
On the other hand, potential weaknesses in the application of gap analysis (Clark
& Estes, 2008) are the time and resources required for a full analysis of the organization’s
mission or goal. All stakeholders in an organization must be identified and their
departmental goals aligned to those of the institution in order to achieve the
organization’s goals. In the case of Marymount College, such a full gap analysis would
require a fairly lengthy time period and allocation of resources. By necessity, it would
include not just the faculty but also the students, staff, and administration. A full gap
analysis at Marymount would call for the creation of survey instruments for all
stakeholders. Data from multiple sources would be triangulated to increase validity.
Syllabi, educational policies, and student services would be among a number of the items
that would be reviewed, increasing both time and resources.
120

A cost-benefit analysis of using the gap analysis framework for problem solving
(Clark & Estes, 2008) must include both the time and resources available to conduct gap
analysis and the value of the tangible and intangible benefits. For Marymount College,
the tangible benefits of this study may include positive WASC reports and more effective
faculty instruction that contributes to student achievement of a global perspective. The
intangible benefits may include the reputation of Marymount College and the satisfaction
that the organization attains by helping its students to meet the challenges of succeeding
in a global society.
Recommendations and Implications
This study yielded to recommendations for Marymount College in terms of
implications for practice. One of the most critical was the need for faculty to be engaged
in the process of transformative change in order to meet institutional learning goals.
Faculty must be prepared with the knowledge and skills and motivation to create new
curriculum and pedagogy. They need the support of the institution to provide leadership,
funding and professional development for global perspective and internationalization
initiatives to be met (Childress, 2010). Additional data is also needed to identify and
close potential gaps to address the specific areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational support revealed by this study. From this, further recommendations for an
implementation plan to close gaps may be constructed.
Evaluation
The final stage of gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) is to evaluate and measure
the success of the implementation plan in closing the gaps. In this innovation application,
the evaluation process to measure and evaluate student achievement of a global
121

perspective is a recommendation for the future. Innovation gap analysis begins with
formative research and puts the processes in place for eventual summative evaluation of
the institutional goal. In the case of Marymount College, the evaluation plan will measure
the effectiveness of the recommendations for faculty. If faculty successfully increase their
knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational support is provided, then
student success in gaining a global perspective outcome should be achieved.
If the recommendations of this case study are adapted, Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels
of Evaluation (2006) may be used to evaluate the success of the implementations. The
four levels of evaluation are described and applied to Marymount’s implementation of the
recommendations made in this study.
Level 1: Participants Reactions during Implementation
This evaluation level measures motivational influences, such as interest, value,
self-efficacy, and mood during the implementation of the recommendations to answer
questions such as: Do the faculty like the activities associated with the recommendations.
Are they interested? Do they value the activities? Do they feel confident that they can
apply what they are learning?
Methods. Post workshop feedback forms and ongoing periodic faculty feedback
using both open-ended and Likert scale items. Successful implementation of the
recommendations will be indicated by positive feedback.
Level 2: Change, Learning, and Motivation during Implementation
This evaluation level measures effectiveness during and immediately after the
implementation activities and answers questions such as: Is the system effective while it
is being implemented? Rueda (2011) asks, “Did the solution result in changes in the
122

learning (knowledge and skill), motivation (attitudes), and organizational gaps identified
earlier?
Methods. Marymount College carefully monitors and assesses the performance of
faculty during and immediately after the workshops and other implementation activities.
If the implementation of the recommendations is successful, faculty will demonstrate that
they know how to incorporate the components of a global perspective in their curriculum
and to use the GIS system.
Level 3: Transfer of Learning and Motivation to Learning Experiences
This evaluation level measures the application of new learning to novel workplace
situations and answers questions such as: Does faculty continue to incorporate the
components of a global perspective in their curriculum and classroom teaching?
Methods. Marymount College monitors the performance of faculty during
teaching and analyzes course syllabi to identify components that foster students’ global
perspective. Faculty annual performance reviews reflect research and curriculum
changes reflecting a global perspective. The college monitors faculty attendance at
lectures by outside speakers and professional development sessions. Successful
implementation of the recommendations will be reflected faculty teaching and
participation in College activities that foster students’ global perspective.
Level 4: Measurement of student Outcomes of a Global Perspective
This evaluation level measures outcomes and impacts the implementation has on
the organization’s global goal and responds to such questions as: Has the transfer
(solution) contributed to the achievement of the organizational goal with respect to
student outcomes for a global perspective?
123

Methods. Use a time series research design to collect data over time for analysis
of growth in key measures. Begin collection of artifacts and reflections during first year
in “signature classes” and “signature co-curricular events” in ePortfolios to capture
baseline. Ask common reflective questions throughout identified courses within each
major. Senior Capstones classes to include reflection essay in ePortfolio addressing the
development of a global perspective, with evidence. Rubrics developed to assess
evidence of successful student achievement of a global perspective. Assess organizational
goal with students now and every year. If Levels 1, 2, 3 demonstrate on faculty increases
in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational support, then student success in
gaining a global perspective outcome should be achieved.
It is recommended that Marymount College utilize empirical research to support
changes. This includes the research of global perspective and internationalization, the
research of curricular change, development of rubrics, assessment, student learning
outcomes, and syllabi. Marymount faculty are intelligent stakeholders, invested in the
culture (past, current, and future) of the college. Solutions to gaps in knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture/support may be better accepted by faculty
when grounded in empirical research (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Limitations of Study
There are several limitations to the study. It is important to recognize that the
results from the first survey, which asked faculty to rank all 20 competencies, do not
indicate a lack of faculty value in the lower ranked ten competencies. There is no
comparable data to a wider population outside of Marymount that could be used as a
benchmark for the survey. The data is based solely on the perceptions of faculty who
124

participated in the surveys. While an approximately 40% survey return rate seems high,
the population represents less than half of all faculty.
The researcher made the intentional decision to apply the gap analysis process
only to Marymount College faculty. The full Clark & Estes (2008) gap analysis would
have included all stakeholders, including staff and students, as well as faculty. Time and
resources precluded this inclusion.
This study is not benchmarked against similar institutions with respect to
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational support. What appears to be a
lower scale (e.g., faculty perception of organizational culture and support) may actually
rate very high if compared to such data analysis from another institution. The scores are
relative only to self-perceptions of the participating Marymount College faculty, based on
the four-point Likert scale survey developed by the researcher.
Differentiation between full time and adjunct faculty may have been of value. A
number of full time staff also teach in an adjunct faculty role. It is not known how the
variety of perceptions may have been affected by the staff role (e.g., the college president
and the Provost both teach in an adjunct capacity). This may have skewed the
organizational culture and support data, as staff have a major role in providing the
support. In contrast, staff adjuncts may have felt safe in stating that the support is not
meeting the needs and interests of the faculty due to the study’s research design that
assured anonymity.
Another limitation is related to identification of demographic information.
Unfortunately, the collection of demographic data may have caused a loss of anonymity
among the participants, due to the small college faculty population. Ethnicity, length of
125

time of employment, division, discipline specialty, gender, and full-time status would
have voided the participants’ anonymity. Qualitative measures may have captured this
information and provided more in-depth analysis of specific needs.
Finally, it should be noted that the research shows the limitations of self-report
instruments to accurately assess participant knowledge and skills. According to Patton
(2002), there are few valid and reliable instruments to measure particular phenomena or
outcomes, such as perceptions. Multiple measures, including qualitative measures such as
interviews with faculty (Appendix E) and document review of syllabi (Appendix F),
would strengthen the validity and reliability.
Future Research
This research study has modeled a process of innovative problem solving, with
identification of potential barriers before they negatively impact the achievement of an
organizational goal. The researcher recommends a number of areas for future research
that would result in benefit to Marymount College. This includes a full gap analysis
process, content analysis, research design, curriculum development, and evaluation.
A full gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) of the global perspective learning goal
would include analysis of the perceptions of all Marymount College stakeholders:
administrators, staff, students, and faculty. Due to time constraints, the current research
analysis focused solely on faculty engagement in meeting the goal. A better picture of the
institutional challenges that exist in the implementation of the innovation would be
presented with a more in-depth analysis.
Content analysis may help to further granulate to the individual faculty needs.
Construct validity is established when there is a criterion against which to measure. A
126

self-report tool ideally should be measured against several criteria (e.g., observational
tools, interviews) to provide the greatest level of validity (Salkind, 2006; Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006). To further validate these gaps in the four knowledge dimensions, the
researcher would have to go back to ask the faculty to assess their factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge against several criteria.
Development of qualitative measurement tools to support the solutions of the gap
analysis process would be valuable, enabling the researcher to gather qualitative data
though the use of focus groups, interviews, and qualitative surveys. This would provide
answers to questions such as: “What do faculty need? What do faculty want?” As an
example, Appendix E provides a bank of interview questions that could be used in such a
study. Appendix F provides a Syllabi Review Checklist that could be used for a content
analysis of syllabi. Additional formative assessment calls for an examination of the
alignment of assignments, exams, lecture topics, and learning activities to global
perspective outcomes.
Additional research could pose questions regarding curriculum planning over a
four-year cycle of the freshman through senior years. Marymount may benefit from
addressing questions such as: Is the achievement of various competencies more
appropriate for specific courses, or for lower division coursework versus upper division
coursework? Would students achieve specific competencies more effectively during
specific developmental stages of social and cognitive growth? Can the gap analysis
process be applied to identify the best curricular fit of each competency? What does
research tell us about the development of threads throughout the curriculum to identify
where each competency would have most impact? Is it possible to apply specific
127

competencies to a range of courses, e.g., all freshman English courses? Are there
“signature courses and assignments” for most effective capture of global perspective
reflection? These are curricular questions that would possibly enhance student
achievement of the goal.
A critical area for further research also lies within the evaluation component. If
Marymount were to implement a Level 4 evaluation now that captures current student
levels of global awareness, they would gain valuable baseline data. Marymount would
then be in position to measure student awareness again after the implementation plan has
been in effect for two years. This would provide the summative evaluation data to
determine if the innovation solutions presented to Marymount College led to successful
student achievement of the organizational goal for global awareness.
Conclusion
In the move by institutions of higher education to expand internationalization
efforts, accreditors and stakeholders often call for a clear understanding of how
experiences or programs will affect the student learning outcomes. This case study may
be used as an example to inform other institutions of higher education of how to prepare
their students to develop a global perspective that will aid them in becoming better
prepared to live and compete as informed, global citizens. It provides a process for the
assessment of needs of faculty that stand to be met in order to achieve institutional goals.
The process need not be applied solely to the global perspective goal, but rather presents
a procedure that may be utilized in assessment of achievement of other student learning
outcomes. The decision to use Marymount College as a case study was intentional. This
provided a unique opportunity to examine, through the use of innovation gap analysis
128

(Clark & Estes, 2008, Smith & Ragan, 2005), a process to determine how to identify the
barriers among the faculty that could potentially affect the future successful achievement
of a global perspective by their graduates. Marymount chooses to commit to a continuous
process of improvement. At the time of this research, the first class of Marymount
College seniors had yet to graduate. The College expects to provide substantive evidence
for WASC accreditation review in 2014 that they have a measurement process in place
for the determination of whether their graduates have, in fact, gained a global perspective
through their learning experiences while enrolled at Marymount.
This study provided the means for faculty to examine their perceptions as to their
ability to provide educational experiences leading to student development of a global
perspective, and thereby allow the researcher to offer viable recommendations to close
the identified gaps that might prevent students from achieving this institutional goal. The
potential barriers to student achievement were not due to lack of faculty ability or faulty
leadership, but rather due to significant transformative change by the institution.
Marymount College has a unique window of opportunity to close the self-
perceived faculty gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational support. If
these areas are analyzed, addressed, and closed now, they may not become barriers to
meeting the institutional learning outcome for baccalaureate graduates to develop a
global perspective. When students do not achieve a global perspective, it may leave them
ill prepared to live and compete in today’s global markets and in a world of diminishing
national borders. A well-developed global perspective may influence students to live
successfully in a diverse and changing society.

129

REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (2009). The Bologna Process for U.S. eyes: Re-learning higher education in
the Age of Convergence. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education,
21(1).

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal
world. In National Education Association, The NEA 2005 almanac of higher
education (pp. 63-74). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Altbach, P. G. (2010). Why branch campuses may be unsustainable? International
Higher Education, The Boston College Center for International Higher
Education, 58, 2-3.

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education:
Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4),
290-305.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education:
Tracking an academic revolution; A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009
World Conference on Higher Education (UNESCO, Ed.). Paris, France: United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York: Longman.

Armstrong, L. (2007). Competing in the global higher education marketplace:
Outsourcing, twinning, and franchising. New Directions for Higher Education,
140, 131-138.

Barker, C. (2000). Liberal arts education for a global society. Retrieved from Carnegie
Corporation, New York website: http://estudiosdediseno.com/items/libarts.pdf

Biddle, S. (2002). Internationalization: Rhetoric or reality? ACLS Occasional Paper, No.
56. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.

Bloom, D. e. (2004). Globalization and education: An economic perspective. In Suarez-
Orozco, M. M. & Quin-Hilliard, D. B. (Eds) Globalization: Culture and
education in the new millennium. Los Angeles, CA: University of California
Press.

130

Bloom, D., Canning, D., & Chan, K. (2005). Higher education and economic
development in Africa, World Bank, Washington, D. C.

Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education:
Improving policy, enhancing performance. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Bond. S. (2003). Untapped resources: Internationalization of the curriculum and
classroom experience. Canadian Bureau for International Education Research, 7,
1-15.Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience. New York:
NY: HarperCollins.

Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., & Merrill, K. C. (2009). Assessing progress in global
learning and development of students with education abroad experiences.
Frontiers, 18, 101-118.

Braskamp, L. A., Trautvetter, L. C., & Ward, K. (2006). Putting students first: How
colleges develop students purposefully. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company,
Inc.

Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of
accountability (pp. 1-24). CA: Jossey-Bass.

Characteristics of excellence in higher education: Eligibility requirements and standards
for accreditation. (2002). Philadelphia, PA: Middle States Commission on Higher
Education.

Childress, L. K. (2010). The twenty-first century university: Developing faculty
engagement in internationalization. New York: Peter Lang.

Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and work: A two-stage
process of goal commitment and effort. In J. Lowyck (Ed.), Trends in Corporate
Training. Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven Press.

Clark, R. E. (2004). See the forest, tend the trees: Analyzing and solving accountability
problems. UrbanEd, 20-22.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, INC.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000, Summer). Determining validity in qualitative
inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

DeJong, A. J. (1992). Making sense of church-related higher education. In D. S. Guthrie
& R. L. Noftzger (Eds.), Agendas for church-related colleges and universities
(pp. 19-27). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

131

Dixon, J. R. (1994). Business process reengineering: Improving in new strategic
directions. California Management Review 31, 93-108.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess community college performance. Lumina, Foundation for Education.

Eccles, J., and Allan Wigfield (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of
adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, 215-225.

Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of
school programs. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.

Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait. In J. A.
Mestenhauser & B. B. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education
curriculum: Internationalizing the campus (pp.198-228). Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx
Press.

Engberg, D., and Green, M. F. (2002). Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in
comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.

Ewell, P. (2005). Applying learning outcomes concepts to higher education: An
overview. Prepared for the University Grants Committee.

Feldon, D. F. (2007). Implications of research on expertise for curriculum and pedagogy.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 91-110.

Gallimore, R., and Goldenberg, Claude (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.

Green, M. F. (2002). Internationalizing undergraduate education: Challenges and lessons
of success. In Promising Practices (pp. 9-21). Washington, D. C.: American
Council on Education.

Green, M. F. (2005). Internationalization in U. S. higher education. Washington, D. C.:
American Council on Education.

Green, M. F. (2005). Measuring internationalization at comprehensive universities.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.

Green, M. F., & Olsen, C. L. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.
132

Green, M. F., & Shoenberg, R. (2006). Where faculty live: Internationalizing the
disciplines. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.

Green, M. F., & Siaya, L. (2005). Measuring internationalization at liberal arts colleges.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Green, M. F., Luu, D., & Burris, B. (2008). Mapping internationalization on U. S.
campuses. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.

Green, M., & Olson, C. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.

Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action.
Washington, D. C.: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

King, P. M., Brown, M. K., Lindsay, N. K., & VanHecke, J. R. (2007). Liberal art student
learning outcomes: An integrated approach. About Campus, 2-9. doi:10.1002/
abc.22

Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four
levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Knight, J. (1993). Internationalization management strategies and issues. International
Education Magazine, 9, 6, 21-22.

Knight, J. (1997). Internationalization of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J.

Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalisation. International Higher
Education, 33, 2.

Kuh, G. D. (1993). Cultural perspectives in student affairs work. Washington, D.C.:
American College Personnel Association.

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges:
Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the
classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Marymount College (2010). Marymount College 2010-2011 college catalog. Palos
Verdes, CA: Marymount College.

Marymount College (2011). Marymount College 2011-2012 college catalog. Palos
Verdes, CA: Marymount College.

Mayer, R.E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.

133

McKenzie, A., Bourne, D., Evans, S., Brown, M., Shiel, C., Bunney, A., & Annette, J.
(2003). Global perspectives in higher education. London: DEA.

Melton, R. (1996). Learning outcomes for higher education. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 44(4).

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2003). Student learning assessment.
Options and resources. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher
Education.

Miller, A. T., & Fernandez, E. (2007). New learning and teaching from where you’ve
been: The global Intercultural experience for undergraduates. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, (111), 55-62.

National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges Task Force on
International Education (2004). A call to leadership: The presidential role in
internationalizing the university. Retrieved September 28, 2005, from
http://.nasulgc.org/CIP/Task%20Force/Call_to_leadership.pdf

Nusche, D. (2007). Assessment of Higher Education Outcomes (Working Paper No. 15).
Retrieved from Oganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) website: http://www.oecd.org/document/51/
0,3343,en_2649_35961291_40119475_1_1_1_1,00.html

Olsen, C. L., Green, M. F., & Hill, B. A. (2005). Building a strategic framework for
comprehensive internationalization. Washington, D. C.: American Council on
Education.

Olson, C. L., Evans, R., & Shoenberg, R. F. (2007). At home in the world: Bridging the
gap between internationalization and multicultural education. Washington, D. C.:
American Council on Education.

Olson, C. L., Green, M. F., & Hill, B. A. (2005). Building a strategic framework for
comprehensive internationalization. Washington, D. C.: American Council on
Education.

Olson, C. L., Green, M. F., & Hill, B. A. (2006). A handbook for advancing
comprehensive internationalization: What institutions can do and what students
should learn. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.

Otter, D. (2007). Globalization and sustainability: Global perspectives and education for
sustainable development in higher education. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.),
Internationalizing higher education (pp. 42-53). London: Routledge.
134

Page, M. R. (2005). Internationalization of higher education: Performance assessment
and indicators. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 5, 99-122.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade
of research, vol. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual
framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248-265.

Qualtrics (2012). University of Southern California, Information Technology Services.
www.usc.edu/its/qualtrics

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York: Teachers College Press.

Salkind, N. J. (2006). Tests & measurements for people who (think they) hate tests and
measurements. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishers.
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publishers.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. New Jersey: Pearson.

Shavelson, R. J., & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly to the frenzy to assess
learning in higher education. Change, 35(1).

Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U. S. campuses.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.

Smith, P. L., and Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. 45-46.

Spady, W. (1998). Paradigm lost: Reclaiming America’s educational future. Arlington,
VA: American Association of School Administrators

Suskie, L. (2004). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Boston: MA:
Anker Publishing Company.

135

Thomas, N. (2002). In search of wisdom: Liberal education for a changing world. Liberal
Education, 88(4), 28-33.

Tisdell, E. J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tucker, R. (2010). Four barriers to innovation. Retrieved February 26, 2011, from Inside
Higher Ed website: http://insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/04/aei

Umbach, P.D. & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college
faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2),
153-184.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (2010). The Institutional proposal and
beyond: For institutions with capacity and preparatory visits in fall 2011 and
spring 2012, resource book. www.wascsenior.org

Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race: How global universities are reshaping the
world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

136

APPENDIX A :Marymount College Faculty Global Perspectives
Competency Survey
To operationalize Marymount’s definition of a global perspective, please rate the importance each
of the following student competencies as an outcome of students’ achievement of a global
perspective. (Research Question #1). Use the following scale:
Not Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important
1 2 3 4
1. Ability to identify regions of world geography on a map.
2. Ability to understand the interdependency of concepts such as world events,
conditions, and issues.
3. Ability to evaluate historical forces that have shaped the current world system.
4. Ability to understand and evaluate one’s culture in relationship to the rest of the
world.
5. Ability to effectively communicate in a foreign language.
6. Ability to analyze intercultural communication concepts.
7. Ability to demonstrate international business etiquette.
8. Ability to evaluate self-understanding of one’s values in relationship to worldviews.
9. Ability to recall key events in world history.
10. Ability to demonstrate openness towards new opportunities, ideas, or ways of
thinking.
11. Ability to demonstrate tolerance for unfamiliarity with new ideas regarding cultural
differences.
12. Ability to demonstrate respect for cultural differences.
13. Ability to differentiate between multiple perspectives.
14. Ability to evaluate self-awareness about one’s own identity and culture.
15. Ability to apply computer literacy skills to research international topics.
16. Ability to use critical thinking skills to evaluate the integration of new concepts.
17. Ability to demonstrate resiliency skills in unfamiliar situations.
18. Ability to critique cultural issues objectively.
19. Ability to reflect, via an electronic portfolio, with personal examples of the one’s
understanding of a global perspective.
20. Ability to reflect, with specific examples, changes in one’s knowledge, skills, or
attitudes as an outcome of a study travel course.
(Adapted from Working Group on Assessing International Learning, FIPSE: (ACE project,
multi-institutional) (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005)

137

APPENDIX B: Twenty Competencies Indicative of a Global Perspective
Student Learning Outcome, as Perceived by Marymount College
Faculty (Descending Order by Mean)

Twenty Competencies Indicative of a Global Perspective Student Learning Outcome, as
Perceived by Marymount College Faculty (Descending Order by Mean)

Competency
Mean SD
12 Ability to demonstrate respect for cultural differences.
3.83 .453
11
Ability to demonstrate tolerance for unfamiliarity with new
ideas regarding cultural differences.
3.74 .561
10 Ability to demonstrate openness towards new opportunities,
ideas, or ways of thinking.
3.71 .519
2 Ability to understand the interdependency of concepts such as
world events, conditions, and issues.
3.66 .482
4 Ability to understand and evaluate one’s culture in relationship
to the rest of the world.
3.60 .497
16 Ability to use critical thinking skills to evaluate the integration
of new concepts.
3.54 .611
13 Ability to differentiate between multiple perspectives.
3.49 .612
1 Ability to identify regions of world geography on a map.
3.46 .611
14
Ability to evaluate self-awareness about one’s own identity and
culture.
3.44 .705
18
Ability to critique cultural issues objectively.
3.40 .604
8
Ability to evaluate self-understanding of one’s values in
relationship to worldviews.
3.34 .684
3
Ability to evaluate historical forces that have shaped the current
world system.
3.31 .631
20
Ability to reflect, with specific examples, changes in one’s
knowledge, skills, or attitudes as an outcome of a study travel
course.
3.14 .810
17
Ability to demonstrate resiliency skills in unfamiliar situations.
3.06 .736
6
Ability to analyze intercultural communication concepts.
2.83 .707
9
Ability to recall key events in world history.
2.80 .933
138

15
Ability to apply computer literacy skills to research
international topics.
2.66 .802
7
Ability to demonstrate international business etiquette.
2.65 .774
5
Ability to effectively communicate in a foreign language.
2.51 .887
19
Ability to reflect, via an electronic portfolio, with personal
examples of the one’s understanding of a global perspective.
2.46 .886

139

APPENDIX C: American Council on Education: Global Perspective
Outcomes
International/Intercultural Competencies
Knowledge
Knowledge of world geography, conditions, issues, and events.
Awareness of the complexity and interdependency of world events and issues.
Understanding of historical forces that have shaped the current world system.
Knowledge of one’s own culture and history.
Knowledge of effective communication, including knowledge of a foreign language,
intercultural communication concepts, and international business etiquette.
Understanding of the diversity found in the world in terms of values, beliefs, ideas, and
worldviews.
Understand his culture within a global and comparative context (that is, the student
recognizes his culture is one of many diverse cultures and that alternative perceptions and
behaviors may be based in cultural differences).
Demonstrates knowledge of global issues, processes, trends, and systems (that is,
economic and political interdependency among nations, environmental-cultural
interaction, global governance bodies, and nongovernmental organizations).
Demonstrates knowledge of other cultures (including beliefs values, perspectives,
practices, and products).

Attitudes
Openness to learning and a positive orientation to new opportunities, ideas, and ways of
thinking.
Tolerance for ambiguity and unfamiliarity.
Sensitivity and respect for personal and cultural differences.
Empathy or the ability to take multiple perspectives.
Self-awareness and self-esteem about one’s own identity and culture.
Appreciates the language, art, religion, philosophy, and material culture of different
cultures.
Accepts cultural differences and tolerates cultural ambiguity.
Demonstrates an ongoing willingness to seek out international or intercultural
opportunities.
Skills
Technical skills to enhance the ability of students to learn about the world (i.e., research
skills)
Critical and comparative thinking skills, including the ability to think creatively and
integrate knowledge, rather than uncritical acceptance of knowledge.
140

Communication skills, including the ability to use another language effectively and
interact with people from other cultures.
Coping and resiliency skills in unfamiliar and challenging situations.
Uses knowledge, diverse cultural frames of reference, and alternate perspectives to think
critically and solve problems.
Communicates and connects with people in other language communities in a range of
settings for a variety of purposes, developing skills in each of the four modalities:
speaking (productive), listening (receptive), reading (receptive), and writing (productive).
Uses foreign language skills and/or knowledge of other cultures to extend his access to
information, experiences, and understanding.

Prepared by Laura Siaya, former Assistant Director for Research, ACE Center for Institutional
and International Initiatives, for the ACE Internationalization Collaborative Annual
Meeting, March 17-17, 2001 (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005, p. 20)
Working Group on Assessing International Learning, FIPSE: (ACE project, multi-institutional)
(Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005)

141

APPENDIX D: Faculty Perceptions Global Perspective Barriers Survey
To what extent would you agree to the following statements, regarding your teaching,
leading to student achievement of a global perspective?

Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Agree (3) Strongly Agree (4)
I know how to incorporate
different ethnic and cultural
practices into my
curriculum. (1)

   
I believe that incorporating
different ethnic and cultural
experiences into my
curriculum could help
students to better
appreciate other cultures.
(2)

   
I know how to provide a
culturally tolerant
classroom environment,
welcoming new and
contradictory ideas. (3)

   
I value having a discussion
in my class, based on a
curiosity and openness
toward new ideas and ways
of thinking. (4)

   
I have the practical skills to
create a classroom that
promotes a respectful
sharing of ideas and
beliefs. (5)

   
When I learn about other
cultures, it helps me to
   
142

better tolerate ambiguity or
the unfamiliar when
communicating with
students from another
culture. (6)

I incorporate and discuss
global topics such as world
events, conditions, and
issues within my class(es).
(7)

   
I place value on the
integration of world
knowledge (world events,
issues, and conditions) into
my curriculum. (8)

   
I am able to examine
cultural issues objectively
in my courses. (9)

   
I value helping my students
learn about other cultures
through discussion of with
people from other cultures.
(10)

   
With awareness of my own
identity and culture, I am
able to better discuss world
issues and events with my
students. (11)

   
I believe that the more
students know about other
cultures, the better they
will understand their own
culture. (12)

   
I provide examples of
physical or cultural
   
143

geography from different
regions of the wold as part
of my course content,
locating these regions with
visual representation. (13)

I enjoy relating course
topics to the physical or
cultural regions of the
world. (14)

   
I am able to differentiate
between multiple
perspectives while
applying this skill to my
course lectures and
discussion. (15)

   
I encourage an openness of
perspective within my
classroom environment.
(16)

   
I help students connect the
root causes of basic global
problems, such as
population control,
poverty, or disease (to
name a few). (17)

   
I want my students to
become interested in
analyzing and evaluating
critical issues. (18)

   
I have the knowledge and
skills to advance student
understanding of the
diversity of values, beliefs,
ideas, or world views. (19)

   
I believe that students can
understand their own
   
144

culture more fully if they
have studied another
culture. (20)

To what extent would you agree to the following statements regarding the
administrative support by Marymount College to assist faculty with providing teaching
and learning experiences leading to student achievement of a global perspective?
Strongly Disagree
(1)
Disagree (2) Agree (3) Strongly Agree (4)
International
events are a
consistent part of
programming at
Marymount
College. (1)

   
Marymount
College provides
opportunities for
my division to
share in dialog
with colleagues
or guests with
different
perspectives
from my own.
(2)

   
Marymount
College offers
programming
(e.g., films,
events, speakers)
for students that
helps increase
familiarity with
people from
other cultures.
(3)
   
I am encouraged
by my division
chair or
   
145

colleagues to
incorporate the
interdependency
of concepts such
as world events,
conditions, or
issues into my
classes. (4)

I have access
(e.g.,
announcements,
emails)
regarding
programs held
by the College
and colleagues
on global topics.
(5)

   
Marymount
College provides
ideas for
increasing
intercultural
awareness
through faculty
and student
programming.
(6)

   
I am provided
with current
digital or
traditional map
resources, or
access to such
within my
classroom. (7)

   
The College    
146

offers programs
that encourage
the International
and domestic
students to
engage in
dialogue or
sharing of
customs. (8)

The College
curriculum
provides a range
of courses
meeting degree
requirements
that lead to
building multiple
knowledge
domains. (9)

   
The College
supports
multicultural
perspectives by
inviting guest
speakers to
campus. (10)
   

147

APPENDIX E: Competencies, Question Types, and Means

Mean

Competency #12

Ability to demonstrate respect for
cultural differences

3.83
Question Types Question #1
Knowledge and Skills (K)

I know how to incorporate different
ethnic and cultural practices into my
curriculum.
3.02
Motivation (M)

I believe that incorporating different
ethnic and cultural experiences into my
curriculum could help students to better
appreciate other cultures.
3.65
Organizational Culture/Support (O) Events with an international or
intercultural focus are a consistent
program goal at Marymount College.
3.04

Mean

Competency #11

Ability to demonstrate tolerance for
unfamiliarity with new ideas regarding
cultural differences.

3.74

Question Types Question #3
Knowledge and Skills (K) I have the practical skills to create a
classroom that promotes a respectful
sharing of ideas and beliefs.

3.54
Motivation (M)

When I learn about other cultures, it
helps me to better tolerated ambiguity or
the unfamiliar when communicating
with students from other cultures.
3.54
Organizational Culture/Support (O) Marymount College offers
programming (e.g., films, events,
speakers) for students that helps
increase familiarity with people from
other cultures.

3.17

Mean

148

Competency #10

Ability to demonstrate openness
towards new opportunities, ideas, or
ways of thinking.

3.71

Question Types Question #2
Knowledge and Skills (K) I know how to provide a culturally
tolerant classroom environment,
welcoming new and opposing ideas.
3.52
Motivation (M) I value having a discussion in my class,
based on a curiosity and openness
toward new ideas and ways of thinking.
3.85
Organizational Culture/Support (O) Marymount College provides
opportunities for my division to share in
dialogue with colleagues or guests with
different perspectives from my own.

2.52

Mean

Competency #2

Ability to understand the
interdependency of concepts such as
world events, conditions, and issues.

3.66

Question Types Question #4
Knowledge and Skills (K) I incorporate and discuss global topics
such as world events, conditions, and
issues within my class(es).

3.20
Motivation (M) I place value on the integration of world
knowledge (e.g., world events, issues,
and/or conditions) into my curriculum.

3.28
Organizational Culture/Support (O) I am encouraged by my division chair
or colleagues to incorporate the
interdependency of concepts such as
world events, conditions, or issues into
my classes.

2.24

Mean

Competency #4

Ability to understand and evaluate
one’s culture in relationship to the rest
of the world.

3.60

Question Types Question #10
Knowledge and Skills (K) I have the knowledge and skills to
advance student understanding of the
diversity of values, beliefs, ideas, or
world views.
3.20
149

Motivation (M) I believe students can understand their
own culture more fully if they have
studied another culture.

3.59
Organizational Culture/Support (O) The College supports multicultural
perspectives by inviting guest speakers
to campus.

3.04

Mean

Competency #16

Ability to use critical thinking skills to
evaluate the integration of new
concepts.

3.54

Question Types Question #9
Knowledge and Skills (K) I help students connect the root causes
of basic global problems, e.g.,
population control, poverty, or disease.

2.65
Motivation (M) I want my students to become interested
in analyzing and evaluating critical
issues.

3.63
Organizational Culture/Support (O) The College curriculum provides a
range of courses that meet degree
requirements which lead to building
multiple knowledge domains.

3.07

Mean

Competency #13

Ability to differentiate between multiple
perspectives.

3.49

Question Types Question #8
Knowledge and Skills (K) I am able to differentiate between
multiple perspectives while applying
this skill to my course lectures and
discussion.
3.26
Motivation (M) I encourage an openness of perspective
within my classroom environment.

3.72
Organizational Culture/Support (O) The College offers programs that 2.74
150

encourage the international and
domestic students to engage in dialogue
or sharing of ideas.

Mean

Competency #1

Ability to identify regions of world
geography on a map.

3.46

Question Types Question #7
Knowledge and Skills (K) I provide examples of physical or
cultural geography from different
regions of the world as part of my
course content, locating these regions
with visual representation (hard copy
maps or technological access.)

2.47
Motivation (M) I enjoy related course topics to the
physical or cultural regions of the
world.

2.98
Organizational Culture/Support (O) I am provided with current digital or
traditional map resources, or access to
such, within my classroom.

2.49
Mean

Competency #14

Ability to evaluate self-awareness about
one’s own identity and culture.

3.44

Question Types Question #6
Knowledge and Skills (K) With awareness of my own identity and
culture, I am able to better discuss
world issues and events with my
students.
3.44
Motivation (M) I believe that the more students know
about other cultures, the better they will
understand their own culture.

3.65
Organizational Culture/Support (O) Marymount College provides ideas for
increasing intercultural and global
awareness through faculty and student
programming.
3.04

151

Mean

Competency #18

Ability to critique cultural issues
objectively.

3.40
Question Types Question #5
Knowledge and Skills (K) I am able to examine cultural issues
objectively in my courses.
3.17
Motivation (M) I value helping my students learn about
other cultures through discussion with
people from other cultures.

3.40
Organizational Culture/Support (O) I have access (e.g., announcements,
emails) regarding programs held by the
College and colleagues on global topics.

3.43

152

APPENDIX F: Student Learning Outcomes for Global Perspective
Competencies
RQ 1 & 2, for RQ 3 (Solutions)

Interview Questions: 20 Competencies

This instrument represents the full pool of interview questions. Only 10 will be used,
based on the top 10 competencies identified in the first survey (RQ #1, operationalization
of the goal). The second survey, addressing RQ #2, identified the faculty perceptions as
to the causes of the barriers, or gaps, in faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture. The interviews with 10 faculty members will identify
recommended solutions to the gaps, through the use of standardized open-ended
interview questions (Patton, p. 344).

Introduction to the faculty member:

“Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge with me. This doctoral study is
identifying the student learning outcomes for global perspective competencies.
Marymount College is the case study. The fourth Institutional Student Learning Outcome
calls for the development of a global perspective. The initial survey operationalizes the
concept of global perspective; with identification of the top 10 competencies the faculty
felt represented student achievement of a global perspective. The second survey allowed
faculty to identify their perception of whether they had the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational support for meeting these competencies. Based on the
results of the two surveys, I would like to spend ½ hour with you, gaining your insight on
what you would recommend as solutions to the barriers, or gaps, identified by your
colleagues that could affect the ability to faculty to help Marymount College students
achieve a global perspective.”

Competency #1: Ability to identify regions of world geography on a map.
K & S: Do you have suggestions for enhancing faculty geography skills?
M: How do you suggest motivating faculty to incorporate world geography
concepts into their courses?
OC: Do you feel that the College provides the professional development needed
to incorporate Geographic Information Systems technology into coursework
across the curriculum?

153

Competency #2: Ability to understand the interdependency of concepts such as
world events, conditions, and issues.
K & What types of knowledge and/or skills would help you, as a faculty member;
incorporate this into your courses?
M: If a faculty member does not see relationship of this competency in terms of
their specific courses, how could the college help the faculty member to
appreciate opportunities to increase their self-understanding in developing new
pedagogy or curriculum to meet this competency?
OC: Does the college support this competency with programming? What types
of programs would you say has supported this topic? How are programs in this
area communicated?
Competency #3: Ability to evaluate historical forces that have shaped the current
world system.
K & S: What types of programs have you participated in that helps you build
your curriculum to lead students in gaining an appreciation for this competency?
What might be needed to enhance your skills in this area?
M: What do you recommend that would help faculty increase their motivation to
evaluate how the current world system has been shaped by historical forces in
relationship to their own courses?
OC: Do you use the college library resources to build your understanding? Are
the resources (hard copy or electronic data bases) sufficient to support your
knowledge?

Competency #4: Ability to understand and evaluate one’s culture in relationship to
the rest of the world.
K & S: How do faculty develop the knowledge and skills needed to help students
develop the competency to understand and evaluate their individual cultures in
relationship to the rest of the world?
M: How do you recommend that the College encourage faculty to engage in
ongoing self-evaluation of cultures and their relationship to the larger global
community? What would create faculty interest to engage in continual personal
growth in cultural understanding?
154

OC: What type of professional development is, or should be, offered by the
College that helps faculty develop the skills of cultural evaluation? Do you
think that the culture and climate of the college leads faculty to appreciate this
competency? Are there opportunities to engage in conversations across the
campus that help faculty learn to evaluate their own culture and then its
relationship to other cultures?

Competency #5: Ability to effectively communicate in a foreign language.
K & S: Do you speak another language? What is your level of fluency
(beginning, intermediate, fluent)?
M: Would you recommend that all students achieve competency in a foreign
language? What is the role of faculty to encourage the desire in students to
develop foreign language competency? Would you like to develop competency in
another language?
OC: Does the College encourage faculty to develop language skills? Would you
enroll in language classes if they were offered to faculty? What languages should
be offered to students through the curriculum?

Competency #6: Ability to analyze intercultural communication concepts.
K & S: Do most of the faculty have the skills and knowledge to teach students to
analyze intercultural communication concepts?
M: What type of opportunities would you take advantage of in order to learn
more about how you communicate with other cultures?
OC: What type of activities or programs could be offered by the College to
increase faculty interest, knowledge, and skills in this area? Is this represented
throughout academic leadership? Are there specific courses that should be
teaching these concepts or is this a competency to be met across the curriculum?

Competency #7: Ability to demonstrate international social and business etiquette.
K & S: Do you interact with companies or colleagues from other cultures? Do
you think you have the ability to teach these skills to your students?
155

M: Which divisions or classes should be teaching these skills? Is this a
competency that needs to be taught across disciplines? What types of
recommendations do you have to help motivate faculty across disciplines to
incorporate aspects of international social and business etiquette into their
courses?
OC: What could the College do to enhance your skills of understanding the
differences among cultures in terms of social and business etiquette? Do they
provide workshops for students and faculty to learn these skills?

Competency #8: Ability to evaluate self-understanding of one’s values in
relationship to worldviews.
K & S: Which programs, guest speakers, or other events have helped you to
evaluate your self-understanding of your values in relationship to world views?
How have you shared this with your students? Colleagues?
M: How could faculty to learn to appreciate the idea of evaluation of self-
understanding of their values and how these values relate to world views?
OC: What type of programming or workshops could Marymount provide that
would help faculty develop the skills to evaluate their self-understanding of their
own values in relationship to worldviews, and then incorporate that knowledge
into their curriculum?

Competency #9: Ability to recall key events in world history.
K & S: Do you think this is a competency related to specific disciplines? Do you
have recommendations as to how this could become a skill or knowledge area
across the curriculum?
M: What suggestions do you have to help faculty appreciate the value of the
impact on world history as related to coursework across the curriculum as well as
in specific disciplines?
OC: Does the College budget process support the ongoing purchase of library
resources that provide the knowledge and information you need to incorporate
world history into your courses? What type of resources would help you achieve
this?

156

Competency #10: Ability to demonstrate openness towards new opportunities,
ideas, or ways of thinking.
K & S: Does your academic division spend time in dialog about incorporating
new opportunities to increase your knowledge and skills for embracing new
ideas? To think critically about other perspectives?
M: What type of encouragement would it take to increase faculty acceptance of
new opportunities and ideas for pedagogy?
OC: Does the College actively support participation in conferences to increase
professional knowledge?

Competency #11: Ability to demonstrate tolerance for unfamiliarity with new ideas
regarding cultural differences.
K & S: How do we teach faulty to develop a tolerance for new ideas regarding
cultural differences?
M: How can we change faculty in their personal views on tolerance for new ideas
regarding cultural differences? Do you think faculty respect one type of cultural
difference more so than another (e.g., tolerate racial or ethnic differences vs.
gender or sexual orientation)?
OC: Are you familiar with international programs? Do you know how to access
information about international programs? What types of programs are needed to
support the faculty in appreciation of the diversity of students?

Competency #12: Ability to demonstrate respect for cultural differences.
K & S: Do faculty need support in learning how to support a bias free classroom?
How do you recommend that the College help increase the knowledge and skills
of the faulty to demonstrate respect for cultural differences?
M: If faculty do not appear to demonstrate or appreciate respect for cultural
differences, do you have recommendations for how to help them learn to value
cultural differences within their classes?
OC: What type of programs could Marymount College offer to faculty to increase
their skills for providing a classroom and curriculum free of cultural bias? Is
professional development needed to help faulty learn classroom management
157

techniques that represent appreciation and respect for all students in their class,
regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, or sexual orientation?

Competency #13: Ability to differentiate between multiple perspectives.
K & S: Do faculty have the skill of differentiation between perspectives? If not,
how does the College help build this skill among faculty? What is needed to
incorporate this competency into the curriculum and classroom environment?
M: Is the appreciation of multiple perspectives a valued component of the
Marymount faculty culture? Does faculty respect the expression and recognition
of multiple perspectives between faculty members, as seen at faculty meetings,
division meetings, in collegial dialog? If not, how do you recommend the college
foster such a culture?
What programs are you most likely to support?
OC: What type of opportunities does the College provide for domestic students
and international students to engage in meaningful dialog and shared experiences?
How would you recommend enhancing (or developing) such programs?

Competency #14: Ability to evaluate self-awareness about one’s own identity and
culture.
K & S: What would you recommend that the College do to help teach faculty
how to evaluate their self-awareness of identity and culture?
M: How do we help faculty learn to value self-awareness of their own identity
and culture and the relationship this has on their teaching and the successful
achievement of this competency by students?
OC: Does academic leadership provide workshops or personal assistance to help
faculty develop grading rubrics to identify this skill in evaluation of student work?
Competency #15: Ability to apply computer literacy skills to research international
topics.
K & S: How do you recommend that the faculty at Marymount College learn to
incorporate computer literacy skills into research across the curriculum?
M: What are your recommendations to help faculty become motivated to
incorporate research skills into courses across the curriculum? If faculty do not
158

value this competency, how could they be encouraged to embrace this as a
component of their course?
OC: Does the College have the staffing to adequately teach/provide support to
faculty to teach the computer literacy skills, the GIS skills, or research skills that
they need in order to incorporate into their courses? If not, how do we resolve this
issue?

Competency #16: Ability to use critical thinking skills to evaluate the integration of
new concepts.
K & S: Are you encouraged to critically analyze new ways to integrate
international concepts into your curriculum? Does your division provide
opportunities to learn to create rubrics for learning that enable you to analyze
student work in terms of their critical thinking?
M: How do you recommend that the College help faculty want to integrate new
concepts into their teaching pedagogy? What is the role of academic leadership to
support or encourage faculty to want to accomplish this?
OC: How can the faculty be assisted in assessing the critical thinking skills that
are needed to evaluate the integration of new concepts into their curriculum?

Competency #17: Ability to demonstrate resiliency skills in unfamiliar situations.
K & S: Do you feel equipped to help students develop resiliency skills in
unfamiliar situations? How do you see faculty developing the skills needed to
provide such support for students?
M: Do you value the ability to be resilient? Is this the role of a faculty member to
help students learn this skill? What would you be willing to do to learn to develop
this skill?
OC: What are your recommendations as to how the College can help faculty
learn to prepare students for study abroad?

Competency #18: Ability to critique cultural issues objectively.
K & S: What do you need in order to build skills in your ability to teach students
to critiques culture issues objectively?
159

M: Do you think the faculty at Marymount College are willing to objectively
critique cultural issues? Do you think this is a valued aspect of the Marymount
culture?
OC: What do you see as the College’s role is providing support for faculty to
learn to help teach students to critique cultures issues with objectivity?

Competency #19: Ability to reflect, via an electronic portfolio, with personal
examples of the one’s understanding of a global perspective.
K & S: Are faculty trained to assess student work through the ePortfolio? Do
they recognize or are they able to identify the types of artifacts to require from
their classes?
M: Are you encouraged by your division and/or academic leadership in the use of
the ePortfolio? Do you think it will help to meet this competency, and therefore,
are you willing to learn the process needed to incorporate the use of the ePorfolio
for document collection and reflection?
OC: Is the electronic portfolio software in place “user friendly”, and therefore a
relatively simple process for faculty and students? If not, what is recommended,
or would help you, to make the practice of updating ePortfolios an effective
process?

Competency #20: Ability to reflect, with specific examples, changes in one’s
knowledge, skills, or attitudes as an outcome of a study travel course.
K & S: Are you familiar with the study travel courses and opportunities? Are
you familiar with the services of the Office of International Study? How do you
suggest that faculty elicit a student’s change in knowledge, skills, or attitudes as
an outcome of participating in a study travel program?
M: Do you encourage students to attend a study travel program? Did you
participate in a study travel experience in college? Does this impact your
willingness to share information about such opportunities with your students?
OC: What is the role of faculty and college leadership in effectively encouraging
students to participate in study travel? What type of institutional support is
needed to help faculty teach students the practice of reflection? What programs
or services have we offered in the past several years that you think most strongly
support student participation in study travel as well as in experiential reflection?
160

APPENDIX G: Student Learning Outcomes for Global Perspective
Competencies

Syllabi Review Checklist

To operationalize Marymount’s definition of a global perspective, faculty will rate the
importance of each of the following twenty student competencies as an outcome of
students’ achievement of a global perspective, using a 4 point Likert Scale of “Not
Important” to “Very Important” (Survey Instrument #1, linked to RQ #1). After
identification of the top ten competencies, from a pool of twenty, the following Syllabi
Review Checklist will be used to identify if the competencies for global perspective are
present within approximately 30 syllabi.
Syllabi Review Checklist for Global Perspective Competency Linked to
Course Assignments

Competency Identification of at Least
One Assignment that Links
to the Global Perspective
Competency
Ability to identify regions of world geography on a
map.

Ability to understand the interdependency of
concepts such as world events, conditions, and
issues.

Ability to evaluate historical forces that have shaped
the current world system.

Ability to understand and evaluate one’s culture in
relationship to the rest of the world.

Ability to effectively communicate in a foreign
language.

Ability to analyze intercultural communication
concepts.

Ability to demonstrate international business
etiquette.

Ability to evaluate self-understanding of one’s
values in relationship to worldviews.

161

Ability to recall key events in world history.

Ability to demonstrate openness towards new
opportunities, ideas, or ways of thinking.

Ability to demonstrate tolerance for unfamiliarity
with new ideas regarding cultural differences.

Ability to demonstrate respect for cultural
differences.

Ability to differentiate between multiple
perspectives.

Ability to evaluate self-awareness about one’s own
identity and culture.

Ability to apply computer literacy skills to research
international topics.

Ability to use critical thinking skills to evaluate the
integration of new concepts.

Ability to demonstrate resiliency skills in unfamiliar
situations.

Ability to critique cultural issues objectively.

Ability to reflect, via an electronic portfolio, with
personal examples of the one’s understanding of a
global perspective.

Ability to reflect, with specific examples, changes
in one’s knowledge, skills, or attitudes as an
outcome of a study travel course.

Adapted from Working Group on Assessing International Learning, FIPSE: (ACE
project, multi-institutional) (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005

Abstract (if available)

Abstract A global perspective reflects the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors that students should know or be able to do in order to succeed as citizens in a global environment (Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007). The American Council on Education’s concept of comprehensive internationalization provides an integrative approach that ties institutional strategies and initiatives to global learning outcomes (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005). Marymount College, a small liberal arts college in Southern California undergoing transformative change to a four-year institution, established, as a new learning outcome, that graduates achieve global awareness as measured by indicators that represent The American Council’s concept. To achieve this outcome for graduates, Marymount recognized that faculty must be prepared to provide learning experiences that meet the goal. The purpose of this case study was to apply an innovation gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The conceptualization and development of a global community college: a case study examining the perspective and roles of Pasadena City College leadership and management

PDF

Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study

PDF

Measuring and assessing globalization in higher education: the creation of a scale of global engagement

PDF

An institution's global engagement and its connection with the surrounding community: a case study

PDF

The internationalization of higher education in an era of globalization: a case study of a national research university in an emerging municipality in southwest China

PDF

The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit

PDF

Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

Increasing Emiratisation in engineering faculty position at the higher colleges of technology

PDF

Institutional diversity policy improvement through the lens of Black alumni stakeholder leadership: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model

PDF

Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program

PDF

Third culture kids and college support: a case study

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

The role of international research collaboration in enhancing global presence of an institution

PDF

Increasing international student application and enrollment to a branch campus

Asset Metadata

Creator Wade, Virginia Mason (author)

Core Title Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/31/2012

Defense Date 05/30/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag gap analysis,global awareness,global education,global perspectives,innovation gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Diamond, Michael A. (committee chair), Robison, Mark Power (committee chair), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email vwade@marymountpv.edu,vwade@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-77984

Unique identifier UC11289167

Identifier usctheses-c3-77984 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WadeVirgin-1072.pdf

Dmrecord 77984

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wade, Virginia Mason

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA