The Impact of Transculturality on Student Experience of Higher Education

Abstract

Background: Higher education outdoor studies programs retain a critical interest in student experiences as they seek to prepare citizens in a globalized, yet simultaneously neo-nationalist, world. Purpose: This research explored the impact of transculturality on the student experience of outdoor studies in the Transcultural European Outdoor Studies (TEOS) Masters, a course hosted by three universities in three countries. Methodology/Approach: A longitudinal study of the student experience, using a conceptual framework of self, place, transculturality, and outdoor learning theory underpins the research. Semistructured online interviews and one face-to-face retrospective interview were conducted with four participants throughout the course (Semesters 1, 2, 3), plus an additional five participants prior to the end of Semester 3. Findings/Conclusions: The findings elucidate students’ transcultural self-growth and transcultural capabilities, including resilience, intelligence, and fatigue. Implications: Although challenges exist for course design, considerations of transcultural pedagogy and curricula, reflective practices, support for students and teaching staff, cultural learning experiences (including language acquisition), and a willingness to move beyond traditional models of curricula at the university level are recommended.

Keywords

outdoor studies transculturality higher education internationalization study abroad

Introduction

As the world becomes increasingly globalized, higher education students are studying internationally in increasing numbers, creating a need to understand the international student experience (Leask, 2001, 2009; Lee, 2017a; Tangney, 2017). The educational and social outcomes of such experiences are of particular interest (Pitts & Brooks, 2017; Summers & Volet, 2008). The increase in border crossing and emergence of neo-nationalism in response to globalization (Lee, 2017a) suggests that transcultural education is more important than ever. Although international students introduce both benefits and challenges for higher education, universities are often unprepared to support international students on arrival (Lee, 2017a, 2017b). To better support mobile students, both internationally and regionally, it is essential to explore the cultural experiences of students studying internationally (Lee, 2017a; Lee, Jon, & Byun, 2017). Outdoor studies and experiential education courses in higher education are not exempt from this increase in student mobility.

The current study examines students’ experiences in the Erasmus Mundus Transcultural European Outdoor Studies (TEOS) Masters program, providing an opportunity to explore the student experience of internationalized learning in a transcultural context. International approaches to outdoor and experiential learning are not new (e.g., Kurt Hahn’s Atlantic College); what is novel about TEOS is the way in which students explore content in the context of globalization and various national perspectives while undertaking a journey through three nations. Findings from the current study, although reflective of a specific program context, are likely relevant to all students and educators in higher education, local and international, as they teach and learn side by side in an ever increasingly global and transcultural world (Foresy, Broomhall, & Davis, 2012; Soriano, 2015). Although globalized approaches to learning are not without criticism in various countries (see, for example, Bunnell’s, 2010, discussion on the International Baccalaureate program), especially in the context of rising neo-nationalism, it is important to understand how students experience transcultural education in the current global climate.

Context

Traditionally, university outdoor studies programs occur in one university and one cultural context (Kostogriz & Abe, 2015). TEOS students undertake “education journeys” founded on the premise of “peregrination academia” (Loynes & Gurholt, 2017, p. 534). Teaching and learning transpires in a variety of cultural and outdoor landscapes, with structured and unstructured journeys, hosted by three universities in three countries (TEOS, n.d.). The main aims include unpacking three core outdoor studies traditions (Norwegian Friluftsliv, English Outdoor Education, and German Erlebnispädagogik) and developing transcultural sensitivity (Welsch, 1999) as students journey and learn together through pedagogy, language, and culture (Loynes & Gurholt, 2017; TEOS, n.d.). “Outdoor studies” in the TEOS program is a term that includes all forms and cultural approaches of learning out of doors. Using the TEOS program as a case example provides an opportunity to learn about students’ experience of outdoor studies in a transcultural space.

Literature Review

Culture contains the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society (Baldwin, Faulkner, Hecht, & Lindsley, 2006; Moore, 2009), and is in a permanent state of fluctuation (Lewis, 2008; Slimbach, 2014). With the emergence of globalization, “single cultures” (Welsch, 1999, p. 104) came into contact with other single cultures more regularly, often resulting in tension and concern for the loss of the single culture and individual identity (Lee, 2017a). Globalization is the process whereby a local cultural condition extends across the globe and, as a result, develops the ability to turn a social condition from elsewhere into a new local condition (de Sousa Santos, 1999). In response to this enmeshing of cultures, interculturality explored how the single culture interacts with, appreciates, and recognizes other single cultures (Welsch, 1999). The implicit notion of single cultures rendered interculturality unsuccessful as it maintained the separatist view of cultures. Multiculturalism, as an alternate framework, instead of bridging this gap further reinforced issues “different cultures have living together in one society” (Welsch, 1999, p. 197, emphasis in original).

The rise of internationalization and globalization, along with multiculturalism, has resulted in a neo-nationalist backlash (Lee, 2017b). Neo-nationalism contests globalization and has the ability to negatively influence international students’ experiences, including when studying within their own region (Lee, 2017a). The cultural shift and emergence of neo-nationalism in Western Europe (Eger & Valdez, 2015) emphasizes the changing space that is Europe; Erasmus Mundus opposes current neo-nationalist trends, aiming to reinforce the mobility of individuals between nation-states and achieve a more balanced perspective of globalization (Lee, 2017a). Living in a globalized world requires humans to learn how to work together effectively, within and across cultures and nations (Slimbach, 2005). Transculturality offers one way to achieve this.

Transculturality

Transculturality attends to the way in which humanity has moved about the globe with single cultures now intertwined (Cuccioletta, 2002; Soriano, 2015) across cultural and national borders (Slimbach, 2005). As a process of “entanglement, intermixing and commonness” (Welsch, 1999, p. 205), transculturality promotes conversation and collaboration between people, and welcomes diversity while maintaining individual/national identity. To explore the potential conviviality of the globalized world, transcultural studies in higher education provide a space through which to explore the shift from multiculturalism to transculturalism (Ryan, 2011).

Internationalization

In response to globalization and the emergence of transculturality, higher education has responded by expanding and deepening internationalization at an unprecedented rate (Gu & Schweisfurth, 2011; Knight, 2013; Pitts & Brooks, 2017). Internationalization has consistently been perceived as one of the most revolutionary developments in higher education this century (Knight, 2007, 2013; Seddoh, 2001; Yemini & Sagie, 2016). It is a process of increased cooperation between nation-states with activities (such as university study) that take place across borders (Knight, 2004; Sanderson, 2008; Tangney, 2017). However, higher education is no more international now than it was in the past (Lee, 2017a); the contemporary university is very much a national institution affected by internationalization and globalization (Teichler, 1999). International students, in their contact with local students, have traditionally played a central role in internationalizing higher education curricula, resulting in an intercultural exchange; these interactions are often minimal, prompting calls for more structure, and intentional pedagogy (Peacock & Harrison, 2009; Pitts & Brooks, 2017; Soria & Troisi, 2014; Summers & Volet, 2008).

Although higher education institutions claim to have adopted internationalization, curriculum and pedagogy are often unaffected (Matus & Talburt, 2015; Pitts & Brooks, 2017; Ryan, 2011), focusing instead on gaining international students (Ryan, 2011). Ryan argues that the social and cultural practices of higher education shape teaching and learning practices (and its culture more broadly) and recommends a transcultural approach to curriculum reform. There is a need to work toward enmeshing globalization and curriculum reform (Matus & Talburt, 2015; Pitts & Brooks, 2017) which questions the supposed universalism of teaching and learning practices to move beyond “academic monoculturalism, or interculturalism, and towards transculturalism” (Ryan, 2011, p. 636, emphasis in original). This requires bringing together international students, lecturers, and supervisors, (Pitts & Brooks, 2017) as TEOS has done, while recognizing that these individuals are also “shaped by their social, cultural and academic traditions and that these are not universal” (Ryan, 2011, p. 636). Too often policymakers’ and administrators’ expectations of internationalized curriculum, resulting in cultural awareness and global citizenship within students, are unrealistic (Pitts & Brooks, 2017). One way to achieve social and educational goals of internationalization is through completing group assessment tasks with peers from various cultures (Summers & Volet, 2008), which is central to the TEOS curriculum.

In studies of international students from various places (e.g., China, South Africa, South East Asia), the student experience was found to be complex. Student success was left up to the individual’s own maturity (Gu, Schweisfurth, & Day, 2010), their ability to adapt to cultural challenges, their language proficiency, and their capacity to not be homesick (Lee, 2017a, 2017b; Lee et al., 2017). Essential to their success was the accessibility of diverse support structures and opportunities that contributed directly to their intercultural adaptation and reconfiguration of identity (Gu et al., 2010). Most notably, the outcomes of studying abroad varied considerably for each individual student.

Internationalization and Transculturality

Internationalizing university curriculum has been identified as “a complex process that is as much about whom and how we teach as it is about what we teach” (Leask, 2001, p. 114). One challenge facing higher education this century is the incorporation of transcultural competence to strengthen internationalization of the curriculum (Matus & Talburt, 2015; Slimbach, 2005). The inclusions of study abroad programs, foreign language instruction, international research, and scholarly exchange have all been recommended to increase transculturality (Forsey et al., 2012; Slimbach, 2005; Woolf, 2007). Humanity’s aptitude for transculturality is directly reliant on the educational process—a process required to prepare students for a changing world with unforeseeable problems (Slimbach, 2014). Without personal reflection guided by pedagogy, the international/transcultural educational process is unlikely to be successful (Forsey et al., 2012; Woolf, 2007).

Transcultural learning requires specific competencies, such as “perspective consciousness, ethnographic skill, global awareness, world learning, foreign language proficiency, and affective development” (Slimbach, 2005, pp. 206-207), where learning is taken beyond the traditional classroom. Beyond these individual competencies, higher education is obliged to think in new ways about how an internationalized curriculum might be constructed (Slimbach, 2014). The very design of the TEOS course and underpinning philosophy provide the opportunity for students to develop new worldviews (Gill, 2007) and understand themselves within this broader, global framework (Forsey et al., 2012; Woolf, 2007). As new forms of internationalized border-crossing curriculum emerge and expand, internationalizing higher education becomes more complex (Gu et al., 2010). TEOS provides an example of a complex, internationalized transcultural curriculum.

Method

Case study research was selected to focus on understanding the dynamics of the student experience within the single setting of TEOS (Stake, 2005; Yin, 2014). The study of TEOS as a case was underpinned by the interpretive paradigm as the researchers explored the student experience in terms of understanding their “feelings and world views” (Neumann, 1997, p. 73). The conceptual framework emerged from the course design, where the focus for learning throughout TEOS was on self, place, transculturality, and outdoor learning theory (TEOS, n.d.). Brookfield’s (1995) lenses of self (authors as visiting scholar and sessional lecturer, respectively), students (one cohort of TEOS), colleagues (course designers, lecturers, visiting scholars), and literature were used to further focus the examination of the student experience of TEOS. The authors acknowledge that, as visiting scholars and sessional lecturers within TEOS, they were afforded some insider knowledge; their limited engagement with the cohort (not directly teaching the students) also afforded them an outsider perspective essential for exploring and understanding the student experience of TEOS.

Students were invited to participate in the study via email after a brief presentation over Skype at the beginning of their first semester. Four participants agreed to be involved in the study. In Semester 3, an additional five participants agreed to be involved in the study, invited via email. The original four participants were interviewed before TEOS began and at the end of each semester, through four semistructured formal interviews (Hatch, 2002) via email, which allowed participants time to reflect, return to answers, and learn from their own stories of experience as they shared them (James, 2007; Seymour, 2001; Smith, 2011). They also participated in one face-to-face semistructured formal interview (Hatch, 2002) in Semester 3. The five students who joined the study in Semester 3 were interviewed once, face-to-face. The interviews were audio recorded and selectively transcribed. Interview questions were drafted at the beginning of the project and modified at the end of each phase in response to data collected and analyzed (Hatch, 2002; Yin, 2014). Supporting documents from TEOS were also collected, including assessment pieces and reflections (Mertens, 2010). Data analysis began as data were collected (Hatch, 2002; Yin, 2014), with changes to data collection and analysis made as the study evolved (Eisenhardt, 2002; Gillham, 2000).

The conceptual framework (self, others, transculturality, and outdoor learning) was used to focus the deductive analysis. Initially, a general reading of the data was completed, allowing for the generation of broad themes (Denscombe, 1998), followed by two main coding cycles. The first cycle consisted of initial coding, which allowed the exploration of similarities and differences between participants, followed by emotion coding, which explored the inter- and intrapersonal student experiences, and values coding, which probed “participant values, attitudes and beliefs” (Saldana, 2007, p. 89), to better understand the student experience of TEOS. The second cycle consisted of inductive focused coding, which allowed the most prominent categories to emerge, resulting in a streamlining of the findings (Saldana, 2007). The subsequent rich familiarity of data allowed for ensuing instances of data collection to be informed by previous ones and for cross case comparisons at the conclusion of the analysis (Eisenhardt, 2002; Simons, 2009; Stake, 2005). Throughout the data collection and analysis, the researchers were open to conflicting data that might qualify or complicate the findings (Gillham, 2000). This article reports on data from nine participants out of a cohort of 18 students. The findings and discussion are presented together against the themes that emerged from the data. Student voice is identified by the use of italics and quotation marks; pseudonyms are used.

Findings/Discussion

All students learned to live and learn with others from a variety of cultural backgrounds within TEOS. In this section, we present the findings and discussion in relation to transculturality around the emerging themes of transcultural self-growth and capabilities: resilience, intelligence, and fatigue.

Transcultural Self-Growth

Students consistently described TEOS as a journey that changed them significantly, a journey that was highly individualized and resulted in a heightened sense of self.

“I’ve really learned a lot about myself . . . I’ve rediscovered my true self and opened up generally, as well as specifically, to the experience.” (Emma)

There was also evidence of an increasing level of self-awareness.

“ . . . words impact more than we may realise and that people observe you. Your life influences others.” (Olivia)

The experiences shared were highly individual (Gu et al., 2010), yet commonalities emerged. All students demonstrated a shift in perspective consciousness, an increased global awareness, and overall personal development due to their TEOS experience.

“I have grown spiritually and personally” and “TEOS has forced me inward in many ways.” (Ava)

A constant questioning of the cultural assumptions they brought to the learning and living space, including ethical judgments emerged and resulted in all participants being able to better see through “the minds and hearts of others” (Slimbach, 2005, p. 207).

“It has changed my thinking and world views.” (Jack)

Their gentle engagement with cultures and willingness to address conflicts resulted in a deep need to share what they learned with others for the benefit of their own cultures and humanity (Slimbach, 2005, 2014). This was evident through a commitment to “giving back” to their home nations. Their capacity to be empathetic and inquisitive; and to show initiative, flexibility, humility, sincerity, and gentleness; and to find joy through interactions within the specific intercultural contexts in which they were living and learning, despite cultural frustrations and clashes, was evident, and deepened as their self-awareness developed and they transitioned through the course. Transcultural self-growth dominated the student experience.

Transcultural Capabilities

Transcultural capabilities comprised the students’ development of transcultural resilience and intelligence, and the role of transcultural fatigue through their experiences of being a student of TEOS. The learning experience trajectory of TEOS students was a complex route that shifted between learning the language, interacting socially and academically, and achieving adequate grades to pass each semester (Gu et al., 2010). Essential to their success was the support of peers within and separate to TEOS, including family and friends, as they adapted to their new identities (Gu et al., 2010; Pitts & Brooks, 2017). A reflexive approach to learning through experience was essential for their success (Forsey et al., 2012; Woolf, 2007).

Transcultural resilience

Transcultural resilience emerged in their early experiences of a new culture, which required them to develop their cultural capacity as they began their studies in the United Kingdom (Tangney, 2017).

“This (first) semester has reminded me of how different two cultures can be, even [those] that seem so alike . . . we forget how different we can be so we approach interactions initially as we would in our own culture only to find an unexpected difference . . . similarly, there are always reminders of how much we have in common, even with those that seem to be from [cultures that appear] polar opposite to us.” (Emma)

This became more obvious as they encountered not only each new culture, but also the subcultures within the universities, including the internationalized curricula (Leask, 2009; Tangney, 2017), which all differed greatly from their previous experiences. Students from Western cultures noted that they were

“ . . . not expecting to be confronted with as many challenges and disappointments during the first semester.” (Ava)

Regardless of background, the coming together as a transcultural cohort was viewed as a “tricky” and challenging one. All students consistently reported, similarly to Jack,

“The biggest challenge for me . . . has been adapting to a new culture.”

Their ability to develop new friendships while contemplating issues of global significance, to record their learning, and to analyze their new experiences alongside their habits and social conditioning (Slimbach, 2005), through reflection and observation (Forsey et al., 2012; Summers & Volet, 2008), enabled students to navigate the transcultural experiences. In particular, Isabelle recognized the stereotypes each student brought with them about “others” and their cultures to the course, which resulted in clashes. Although students reported experiencing repetitive instances of clashes between cultures in and out of the classroom in their everyday experience, they all shared a sense of growing transcultural resilience toward these clashes the more they encountered them (Gu et al., 2010; Pitt & Brooks, 2017).

Transcultural intelligence

Through TEOS’s direct engagement with contrasting cultural experiences in their academic and day-to-day life, the students all demonstrated high levels of transcultural intelligence that went beyond the classroom. Sharing living spaces with students and/or people from other cultures, and learning about the cultural reasons and habits that caused individuals to be and act in certain ways, resulted in Jack feeling more “culturally sensitive and intelligent.” Through TEOS, students’ direct, extended, and immersive experiences of contrasting cultures, environments (Slimbach, 2005), and pedagogies directly contributed to the development of their transcultural intelligence. With outdoor studies as the frame, along with intentional pedagogy, students were able to explore various cultural perspectives and understandings of knowing and being.

“There are many different ways of practicing [outdoor studies], none are ‘the right one’ but some may be better for certain target groups.” (Olivia)

“[TEOS helped to] deconstruct the myths I had about outdoor education and build a sound and solid personal practice with supporting pedagogy.” (Jack)

These experiences in the classroom translated into an ability to function across cultures and to be able to explore the transcultural space (Ryan, 2011) beyond the classroom.

The attention to both globalization and curriculum reform as part of the structure and focus of TEOS achieved its outcome in terms of students increasing their understanding of transculturality (Matus & Talburt, 2015), not only in terms of cognitive thinking but also as lived experience.

“Concepts of national identity seemed to be most prevalent in the coursework in Norway, and I’d never really thought of how correlated the outdoors are with that before.” (Emma)

Two students who attended the European Outdoor Education (EOE) conference noted that it contributed greatly to their pedagogical understandings of outdoor studies and their understandings of diverse cultural perspectives and approaches to outdoor studies specifically, and to life more generally (Pitts & Brooks, 2017). The joint modules, which involved one week of intense learning, and group field experiences were reported by all participants as the most beneficial in terms of outdoor learning theory, group development, and getting to know their lecturers and peers, and their cultural and personal perspectives (Ryan, 2011).

The students indicated a preference for more experiential field expeditions/journeys within the cultures and course to further deepen their transcultural learning. Although they understood the purpose of self-directed journeys, and found them to be essential contributions to their transcultural learning, they would have liked these to have clearer parameters (Summers & Volet, 2008). Overall, Jack found the course to be,

“ . . . an eye-opener . . . I have had a great time learning more about outdoor education and different cultures. It has changed my thinking and worldviews, and opened up new avenues for me in the future.”

TEOS achieved its goal of transculturality by presenting students with culturally diverse approaches to outdoor studies, along with a culturally diverse cohort living together across cultures with access to culturally diverse visiting scholars (Pitts & Brooks, 2017; Ryan, 2011), which resulted in the emergence of transcultural intelligence in students.

Transcultural fatigue

After traveling through so many places, students did not specifically identify with one place over another. Instead, students experienced both connection and disconnection to place:

“The transient nature of the course discourages putting down roots and really giving back to the communities I’ve been visiting—it feels like I’ve just been visiting them and not part of them. I don’t feel like I belong here long term.” (Ava)

There was a general sense of enjoying the semester in Norway the most for the structured learning space, and for living close to the university, while being on the edge of the forest. This positioning enabled engagement in university and daily outdoor activities and largely avoided cultural challenges on a daily basis. By the time the students arrived in their third semester, they had become used to traveling and moving, and all of them said they were not looking forward to moving again. Some longed for home. Others felt adrift in the world with no home. A sense of homelessness pervaded and challenged some student’s identity; however, the majority acknowledged how it gave them a sense of freedom and the privileged position to choose anywhere in the world to move next.

Overall, students grasped the English language in which the course was taught and assessed, having all come to the course with various proficiencies in English. The students were less likely to learn the languages of the countries in which they were studying beyond what was required for daily living. Some of this was dependent on time, but also need, and directly contributed to transcultural fatigue.

“ . . . not being able to speak [the language] fluently brings much inconvenience to daily life.” (Jack)

By the time they reached the final semester, they were less committed to learning the language and often spoke of just being too tired to begin (Pitts & Brooks, 2017; Slimbach, 2005).

Although an increase in diversity and contact with international students has been identified as essential to internationalizing higher education and resultant intercultural exchange (Slimbach, 2014; Summers & Volet, 2008), this diversity also contributed to their transcultural fatigue. Similarly, a perceived lack of structure and intentional pedagogy was also identified as contributing to their transcultural fatigue. Students requested the transcultural aspects within the course (e.g., sharing cultural perspectives through class discussions) to be more structured and intentional (Matus & Talburt, 2015; Pitts & Brooks, 2017; Ryan, 2011), which would reduce the fatigue on individuals to volunteer contributions, especially where others chose to consistently remain silent. Although they acknowledged these silences were often culturally driven, intentional pedagogy and facilitation (Peacock & Harrison, 2009; Slimbach, 2005, 2014; Soria & Troisi, 2014) may have resulted in diversified perspectives being contributed, as well as a reduction in the complexity in terms of transcultural communication and lived experiences (Gu et al., 2010; Summers & Volet, 2008). The need to volunteer these alternative cultural perspectives was perceived by students as less and less expected as the course progressed; they were equally less likely to volunteer as fatigue set in. These experiences of shifting places, perceived lack of intentional pedagogy, and facilitation around sharing cultural perspectives, along with students’ minimal language skills, contributed significantly to an overwhelming sense of transcultural fatigue.

Summary

TEOS provided students with opportunities to explore, encounter, and incorporate cultural and national identities into their new versions of self (Pitts & Brooks, 2017), as a direct result of their engagement with different cultures, resulting in an increase in global understanding and attentiveness (Gill, 2007; Slimbach, 2005, 2014); deepened through personal reflection (Forsey et al., 2012) required in the course content. Overall, students highlighted the need for support and clearly facilitated pedagogy, reflective practice, and language development to ensure transcultural fatigue was minimal, transcultural resilience was developed, and overall transcultural intelligence and self-growth resulted in individuals prepared for living and working within a globalized world.

To achieve success in a transcultural context, where too much is literally and figuratively lost in translation, language skills cannot be underestimated and perhaps need to become a formal part of the academic course. The transcultural learning experience was not without personal and cultural challenges, including a sense of homelessness; however, through reflection, support, and commitment to see the experience through, the students achieved transcultural self-growth and competencies that aided them in their navigation of TEOS and their personal lives surrounding their studies as they traveled and lived in various nations.

Underpinning these findings lie the motivations and expectations of TEOS students and the resultant outcomes when these are, and are not, met. To further deepen the understanding of transcultural curricula and pedagogy, we recommend additional research into the student experience and pedagogical approaches of transcultural learning in other cases— to investigate, for example, issues of equity and diversity in terms of scholarship allocation, privilege, and cultural difference as part of the student experience. For example, future research into the lecturer/course designer/visiting scholar experiences of transcultural teaching and learning, one that indicates to also be individual and complex given the individuals come from diverse cultural backgrounds, will help balance the student perspective to offer a more conclusive and comprehensive picture of transculturality.

Conclusion

Student mobility in higher education continues to increase with students crossing borders to ensure they are well educated and prepared as global citizens. Transcultural learning in higher education affects individual students, the cultures in which universities are based, and the cultures to which students return, resulting in financial, educational, and cultural benefits for all. With the rise of globalization and the subsequent neo-nationalist response in Europe (Lee, 2017a), the responsibility for higher education institutions to provide learning opportunities that are transcultural in terms of “purpose, product, place and pedagogy” (Slimbach, 2014, p. 59) is more timely than ever. Well-supported transcultural pedagogy in higher education has the potential to transform students’ lives as they navigate the cultural multiplicities within student bodies and within the countries in which they study.

Given the current global climate, universities are well placed to engage in similar types of transcultural pedagogy and internationalizing the curricula as TEOS has done, thereby offering students learning experiences that will help prepare them for the complex world in which they live. The pedagogical implications of internationalized curricula cannot be underestimated (Forsey et al., 2012); not only do students require support in achieving their transcultural learning through high quality teaching and learning, and skills in language and reflection (Woolf, 2007), but teaching staff also require support to achieve their role in supporting student learning that develops globally prepared individuals for an unknown future (McKinnon, Hammond, & Foster, 2017).

Outdoor studies higher education programs, due to their experiential approach with associated field experiences, provide a context and space for offering transcultural pedagogy and curricula for students. Regardless of context, transcultural learning is possible with internationally and regionally mobile students willing to move to undertake outdoor studies courses that are suited to transcultural education. By inviting visiting scholars into the learning space, both physically and virtually, collaborating with colleagues across borders, and providing transcultural teaching and learning curricula and pedagogy, many opportunities exist for providing transcultural education to outdoor studies students in higher education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Heidi Smith is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania, Australia. In this role she has developed range of undergraduate courses that focus on outdoor and sustainability education. Heidi completed her PhD exploring ‘extraordinary’ outdoor leadership and has published in a range of areas, including outdoor leadership, reflective journals, e-portfolios, curriculum development and outdoor education praxis.

Teresa Segbers works in the Institute of Human Geography at the Geothe-Univerity of Frankfurt/Germany and is the coodinator of a DAAD project, a training programme for the academic qualification of junior researchers from less developed countries. She also teaches at the Philipps-University of Marburg/Germany in the national study programme (Outdoor Education) and in the international master programme TEOS (Transcultural European Outdoor Studies). In this way, transculturallity is a transferable topic of teaching and research in the science of geography and outdoor studies.

References

Baldwin

J. R.

Faulkner

S. L.

Hecht

M. L.

Lindsley

S. L.

(Eds.). (2006). Redefining culture: Conceptualizing culture across disciplines. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brookfield

(1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bunnell

(2010). The international baccalaureate in the United States: From relative inactivity to imbalance. The Educational Forum, 75, 66-79. doi:10.1080/00131725.2010.528717

Cuccioletta

(2002). Multiculturalism or transculturalism: Towards a cosmopolitan citizenship. London Journal of Canadian Studies, 17,1-11.

Denscombe

(1998). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

de Sousa Santos

. (1999). Towards a multicultural conception of human rights. In Featherstone

Lash

(Eds.), Spaces of culture: City, nation, world (pp. 214-229). London, England: Sage.

Eger

M. A.

Valdez

(2015). Neo-nationalism in Western Europe. European Sociological Review, 31, 115-130. doi:10.1093/esr/jcu087

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(2002). Building theories from case study research. In Huberman

A. M.

Miles

M. B.

(Eds.), The qualitative researchers companion (pp. 5-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Forsey

Broomhall

Davis

(2012). Broadening the mind? Australian student reflections on the experience of overseas study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 128-139. doi:10.1177/1028315311407511

10.

Gill

(2007). Overseas students’ intercultural adaptation as intercultural learning: A transformative framework. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 37, 167-183. doi:10.1080/03057920601165512

11.

Gillham

(2000). Case study research methods. London, UK: Continuum.

12.

Schweisfurth

(2011). Rethinking university internationalization: Towards transformative change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17, 611-617. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.625110

13.

Schweisfurth

Day

(2010). Learning and growing into a “foreign” context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(1), 7-23. doi:10.1080/03057920903115983

14.

Hatch

J. A.

(2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.

15.

James

(2007). The use of email interviewing as a qualitative method of inquiry in educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 963-976. doi:10.1080/01411920701657074

16.

Knight

(2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of International Studies, 8, 5-31.

17.

Knight

(2007). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges. In Forest

J. J. F.

Altbach

P. G.

(Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education (Vol. 18, pp. 207-227). New York, NY: Springer.

18.

Knight

(2013). The changing landscape of higher education internationalization: For better or worse. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17, 84-90. doi:10.1080/13603108.2012.753957

19.

Kostogriz

Abe

(2015). Introduction: International education and cultural-linguistic experiences of international students in Australia. In Abe

Kostogriz

(Eds.), International education and cultural-linguistic experiences of international students in Australia (pp. 1-11). Samford Valley, Queensland: Australian Academic Press.

20.

Leask

(2001). Bridging the gap: Internationalizing university curricula. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5, 100-115. doi:10.1177/102831530152002

21.

Leask

(2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 205-221. doi:10.1177/1028315308329786

22.

Lee

J. J.

(2017a). Global: Neo-nationalism: Challenges for international students. In Mihut

Altbach

P. G.

Wit

(Eds.), Understanding higher education internationalization: Global perspectives on higher education (pp. 371-373). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

23.

Lee

J. J.

(2017b). Neo-nationalism in higher education: Case of South Africa. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 869-886. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1293875

24.

Lee

J. J.

Jon

Byun

(2017). Neo-racism and neo-nationalism within East Asia: The experiences of international students in South Korea. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21, 136-155. doi:10.1177/1028315316669903

25.

Lewis

(2008). Cultural studies: The basics (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

26.

Loynes

Gurholt

(2017). The journal as a transcultural experience for international students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41, 352-548. doi:10.1080/03098265.2017.1337734

27.

Matus

Talburt

(2015). Producing global citizens for the future: Space, discourse and curricular reform. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45, 226-247. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.842682

28.

McKinnon

Hammond

Foster

(2017). Reflecting on the value of resources for internationalizing the curriculum: Exploring academic perspectives. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1-10. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1359506

29.

Mertens

D. M.

(2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Moore

(Ed.). (2009). Visions of culture: An annotated reader. Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press.

31.

Neumann

W. L.

(1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

32.

Peacock

Harrison

(2009). It’s so much easier to go with what’s easy: “Mindfulness” and the discourse between home and international students in the United Kingdom. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 487-508.

33.

Pitts

M. J.

Brooks

C. F.

(2017). Critical pedagogy, internationalization, and a third space: Cultural tensions revealed in students’ discourse. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38, 251-267. doi:10.1080/01434632.2015.1134553

34.

Ryan

(2011). Teaching and learning for international students: Towards a transcultural approach. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17, 631-648. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.625138

35.

Saldana

(2007). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, England: Sage.

36.

Sanderson

(2008). A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 276-307. doi:10.1177/1028315307299420

37.

Seddoh

F. K.

(2001). Internationalization of higher education: What for, how and at what cost? International Association of Universities Newsletter, 7(3), 1-3.

38.

Seymour

W. S.

(2001). In the flesh or online? Exploring qualitative research methodologies. Qualitative Research, 1, 147-168. doi:10.1177/146879410100100203

39.

Simons

(2009). Case study research in practice. London, England: Sage.

40.

Slimbach

(2005). The transcultural journey. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 11, 205-230

41.

Slimbach

(2014, September/October). Reinventing international education: Purpose, product, place, and pedagogy. International Educator, pp. 58-63.

42.

Smith

H. A.

(2011). Extraordinary outdoor leaders: An Australian case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3551

43.

Soria

K. M.

Troisi

(2014). Internationalization at home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 261-280

44.

Soriano

(2015). Rethinking education for a global, transcultural world. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

45.

Stake

R. E.

(2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46.

Summers

Volet

(2008). Students’ attitudes towards culturally mixed groups on international campuses: Impact of participation in diverse and non-diverse groups. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 357-370. doi:10.1080/03075070802211430

47.

Tangney

(2017). The development of a reflective tool for internationalization of the curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1-10. doi:10.1080/14703297.2017.1386118

48.

Teichler

(1999). Internationalization as a challenge for higher education in Europe. Tertiary Education and Management, 5, 5-23.

49.

Transcultural European Outdoor Studies. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.uni-marburg.de/fb21/ifsm/teos

50.

Welsch

(1999). Transculturality: The puzzling form of cultures today. In Featherstone

Lash

(Eds.), Spaces of culture: City, nation, world (pp. 194-213). London, England: Sage.

51.

Woolf

(2007). Impossible things before breakfast: Myths in education abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 496-509. doi:10.1177/1028315307304186

52.

Yemini

Sagie

(2016). Research on internationalization in higher education—Exploratory analysis. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 20, 90-98. doi:10.1080/13603108.2015.1062057

53.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.