In pursuit of a global mindset: Toward a theory-driven pedagogy

ABSTRACT

Despite decades of research on the global mind-set concept, no cohesive framework has emerged through which this way-of-thinking can be developed in learners, leading some to perceive the global mind-set as elusive. To move the literature forward, I propose a theory-driven pedagogy which combines insights from the extant global mind-set literature with the key tenets of transformative learning theory. On that basis, five course design principles are distilled along transformational learning phases which delineate the process through which learners can advance their ability to handle cognitive complexity and foster a cosmopolitan perspective. The importance of the learners’ agency and interdependency between learning elements is highlighted. The efficacy of this approach, which was first applied to a graduate-level course at a large North American research university in the 2021 winter semester, receives promising preliminary support. Specifically, while little difference exists across all courses in the sample with regards to quantitative scores, a qualitative text analysis of comments suggests that the course design framework generates distinct response patterns, specifically with regards to the categories of learning experience (cognitive complexity) and broadening of perspectives (cosmopolitan orientation). Implications for future research opportunities on the development of global mind-sets in practice are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Global mind-set
• transformative learning theory
• course design
• perspective shift

1. Introduction

Cultivating a global mind-set in students is one of the most important mandates for international business (IB) educators – in fact, there “is nothing more valuable we can impart to our students” (Maznevski and Lane 2003, 183) as it expands global awareness and builds the foundation for effective global managers. Most commonly defined as a combination of the ability to handle cognitive complexity and a cosmopolitan orientation (Levy et al. 2007a), this meta-capability is thus more than an approach to doing business internationally; rather, it is a distinctive way-of-thinking that integrates a diversity of perspectives, embraces ambiguity and complexity, and allows for humility and growth by questioning assumptions and updating frames-of-reference where needed. As such, developing a global mind-set encompasses the development of a cognitive structure which is closer to a way-of-being than reflected in the conveyance of knowledge and skills alone (Hruby et al. 2018, 98; Rhinesmith 1992, 63).

Cultivating global mind-sets is now more important than ever. After decades of increasing levels of global integration post WWII (Meyer 2017, 80), shaped by powerful underlying forces such as changes in demographics, advances in technology, and efforts toward sustainability and climate change mitigation (Aggarwal 2011), events such as the 2008 financial crisis, rise in nationalism, and the global COVID-19 pandemic have illuminated the complexities inherent in our global networks (Beamish and Hasse 2022). We live in a world where global contexts have become ever more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (Van Tulder, Jankowska, and Verbeke 2019). As a result, the demands on a decision-maker’s ability to handle cognitive complexity have increased substantively. At the same time, the past decade has reminded us that globalization is not “an inevitable trend” (Meyer 2017, 79) but better represented as waves (Jones 2004) or a pendulum (Meyer 2017, 79). With that come forces toward anti-globalization – a notion that is especially apparent when zooming out to historical timeframes (Meyer 2017). The COVID-19 pandemic has further fueled a shift toward more nationalistic tendencies, in part by replacing real-world exposure to foreign cultures with virtual (and often isolating) environments. These contextual factors thus impose higher demands on a decision-maker’s ability to develop, maintain, and champion a cosmopolitan orientation.

Yet, despite its importance for effective conduct in global contexts, the path toward the cultivation of a global mind-set and the differentiated way-of-thinking associated with it continue to be elusive (Bohas, Morley, and Kinra 2021, 1696; Boyacigiller et al. 2004). While much of the global mind-set literature has focused on refining the concept theoretically or deriving post-hoc descriptions of global mind-set developments, very little research exists on detailed, theory-driven pedagogical approaches to cultivating a global mind-set, especially in business school classroom contexts (Le, Ling, and Yau 2018, 64). Many of the studies that do refer to pedagogy remain at rather abstract levels or focus on specific types of pedagogical tools rather than a course-level perspective. In particular, much of the literature has focused on assessing the efficacy of short-term study trips (Pathak 2018) and similar experiential activities (DeLoach et al. 2003; Le, Ling, and Yau 2018; Nonis, Relyea, and Hunt 2020). While some evidence for the efficacy of these immersive experiences has been garnered (e.g. Le, Ling, and Yau 2018), not all of these tools are available in all contexts. Study trips, for instance, are associated with costs and time tradeoffs with regards to the learners’ academic schedule and personal commitments (Le, Ling, and Yau 2018; Pathak 2018), as well as a higher psychological load (Nonis, Relyea, and Hunt 2020). As a result, participation rates for business students in such experiences tend to be rather low, at around 13% according to one study (Hackney, Boggs, and Borozan 2012). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic and broader trend toward virtual learning requires educators to develop alternative – yet effective – ways of instilling global mind-sets in business school students. However, merely introducing more international content into business courses does not suffice in developing global mind-sets in students (Le, Ling, and Yau 2018).

Therefore, a comprehensive approach to fostering global mind-sets in a wide range of classroom settings is needed (Aggarwal and Gooddell 2012). In this paper, I draw from transformative learning theory (Mezirow 1978a, 1978b, 1991, 2006), whereby “a deep, structural shift in basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions” (Paik 2020; Transformative Learning Centre 2021) is the driving force behind the process that shapes a learner’s mind-set. Following the phases of transformative learning, I distill five course design principles and align them closely with the goal of developing global mind-sets, demonstrated through an example based on Rosling (2018). The first of these principles captures the importance of making learners aware of their assumptions and facing them with a disorienting dilemma. Thus motivated to search for new perspectives, learners will be engaged in a process of critical self-reflection and discourse with others to facilitate the process of transformation. On that basis, pedagogical tools can be selected to expand the learner’s cognitive complexity and cosmopolitan orientation through specific knowledge and skills. Finally, in order for the transformative learning to have a lasting effect, the learner must gain competence and self-confidence as well as integrate the new perspective into their overall ways-of-thinking. I suggest that this process can be facilitated by intentionally designing learning elements which combine a high degree of agency for the learner with a high degree of interdependency between learning elements across the course.

The efficacy of the proposed global mind-set pedagogy was first tested in a graduate-level classroom setting at a large North American research university in the 2021 winter semester. The course’s topic was on frontier markets, which are defined as countries that are more established than least developed countries but carry higher risk than emerging markets (they are thus also referred to as pre-emerging markets). Assessing both quantitative and qualitative course evaluations, promising preliminary support for the pedagogy’s efficacy was found. In particular, although quantitative evaluation scores were comparable across courses in the sample, the qualitative analysis revealed that distinct categories occur uniquely or more frequently for the course the pedagogy was developed for. Most notable are the categories of learning experiences (cognitive complexity) and broadening of perspectives (cosmopolitan orientation).

The proposed course design approach thus contributes to both scholarly literature and educational practice on global mind-sets and transformative learning in the following ways. First, it offers a comprehensive review of the extant literature on global mind-set pedagogies, taking stock of existing approaches and tools, as well as observing a lack of an evolution toward a cohesive framework on how to develop a global mind-set in learners. Second, the proposed approach is based on transformative learning theory as an established theoretical framework which allows future studies to build upon to move global mind-set pedagogy ahead and offer better practical guidance to IB educators. Course design principles are derived from transformative learning phases and thus follow a predictable pattern which enhances their applicability across a range of educational formats. Third, connections are explicated between the dimensions of cognitive complexity/cosmopolitan orientation and knowledge/skills. Prior studies referred to these as elements of global mind-sets but none clarified the conceptually relevant connections between each of these dimensions. Fourth, the importance of utilizing evidence in creating disorienting dilemmas is highlighted, leading to a course design framework which integrates scientific thinking into global mind-set pedagogy. Fifth, to create a lasting transformation in learners’ ways-of-thinking, the notions of learner agency and interdependency of learning elements across the course are emphasized. As such, the approach moves beyond prior studies which describe pedagogical tools but fall short of ensuring an integration of insights beyond the particular educational context. Finally, the particular circumstance of the approach’s first iteration during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed for insights regarding virtual classroom environments – a notion for which there have been calls for more research (Taylor 2007, 175). As will be argued in the discussion section of this paper, the successful implementation of the approach in a virtual environment suggests that it is widely applicable across a range of business courses (with international relevance) and educator styles.

In the following, I review the literatures on global mind-sets and transformative learning theory before deriving and detailing theory-driven course design principles. This is followed by an exploration of the efficacy of the proposed pedagogy using both quantitative and qualitative data. Finally, I discuss the implications of these results for future research and practice.

2. Literature review

2.1. Global mind-set research

The concept of a global mind-set first emerged in Perlmutter’s (1969) influential article which laid out a taxonomy of MNE orientations. Differentiating between a home country mind-set (ethnocentrism), host country mind-set (polycentrism), and world mind-set (geocentrism), the latter was described as a key contributory factor to an MNE’s competitive advantage (Bohas, Morley, and Kinra 2021). This conceptualization marked a shift in how scholars viewed international management – away from achieving a “fit” between strategy and structure, and toward illuminating the cognitive processes involved in the internationalization of firms (Kobrin 1994, 494). Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) furthered Perlmutter’s typology by distinguishing MNEs along the dimensions of global integration and local responsiveness, suggesting that managers with a “transnational mentality” are better able to balance the complexities arising from high global integration and high local responsiveness than those with other mind-sets.

Since then, and in parallel with globalization and resulting complexities in business realities (Levy et al. 2007b, 11), these early conceptualizations of global mind-sets have funneled into a growing body of research, resulting in some degree of fragmentation and ambiguity (Andresen and Bergdolt 2017; Levy et al. 2007a, 232). While some define the concept rather broadly as an “orientation to the world [that allows one to] scan the world from a broad perspective” (Rhinesmith 1992, 63), others conceive of it more tactically as “an individual’s ability to influence individuals, groups, organizations, and systems that are unlike him or her or his or her own” (Javidan and Teagarden 2011, 14). Perhaps the definition closest to a consensus in the extant literature, however, is that by Levy et al. (2007a, 244), who define the concept as “a highly complex cognitive structure characterized by an openness to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both global and local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate and integrate across this multiplicity.”

This definition highlights the notions of cognitive complexity and a cosmopolitan orientation that are characteristic of global mind-sets Levy et al. (Levy et al. 2007a, 232). As such, it is distinct from other, closely related constructs. For instance, the global mind-set construct is closely tied to that of global leadership mind-set, whereby the former is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the construction of global leadership (Hruby et al. 2018, 117). Similarly, compared to the expanding literature on cultural intelligence, while both constructs refer to cross-cultural competency in culturally complex environments, global mind-sets also encompass a dimension of strategic complexity. As such, global mind-sets embody normative/strategic elements, while cultural intelligence is more operative in nature (Andresen and Bergdolt 2017, p. 187–188). Parallels also exist to the literature on critical thinking (DeLoach et al. 2003), although the latter does not necessitate a cosmopolitan orientation.

Moreover, the definition further suggests that the concept predominantly describes an individual-level cognitive structure, as opposed to an organizational-level concept as some have proposed (Levy et al. 2007a). As such, an individual’s global mind-set is formed through a combination of knowledge and skills, each of which can be to be fostered through personal experiences, pedagogical approaches, and HR practices (Kedia, Harveston, and Bhagat 2001, Gupta and Govindarajan, 2002). Knowledge is, according to the Oxford Dictionary, herein defined as the facts and information acquired through education or experience, whereas skills constitute the ability to do something well. Kedia and Mukherji (1999, 237) further explicate that “skills are the ability to put knowledge into action,” suggesting that knowledge comes before skills.

Diagram A in Figure 1 illustrates the connection between cognitive complexity/cosmopolitan orientation and knowledge/skills, whereby the perforated lines suggest that knowledge may inform skills and vice versa, across both dimensions of the global mind-set construct. This establishes the foundation for the proposed global mind-set pedagogy.

Figure 1. Evolution of meaning schemes across the knowledge/skills and cognitive complexity/cosmopolitan orientation matrix.

Notably, while much research has focused on refining the global mind-set concept and describing its genesis, much less is known about how to build up that knowledge base and skillset with regards to cognitive complexity and a cosmopolitan orientation from a pedagogical standpoint (Bohas et al., 2021). In reviewing the major contributions to global mind-set research, only 16 studies, published between 1992 and 2020, were identified that delineate a dedicated pedagogical approach (see Table OSM-1 in the online supplementary materials).¹

Across those 16 studies, a few observations stand out. First, while the studies build on and advance the broader global mind-set literature, there is very little evolution with regards to the particular pedagogical components. Indeed, pedagogical recommendations tend to appear toward the end of most studies, rather than as their central theme. As a result, many recommendations remain at a rather abstract level and take on the flair of an afterthought. Second, and perhaps relatedly, although pedagogical theories have been acknowledged in the context of facilitating global mind-sets (Ramsey et al. 2016, 111, for instance, mention transformative learning theory), hardly any study applies them systematically (few exceptions exist, such as DeLoach et al. 2003 or Pathak 2018). This furthers the impression that, despite the acknowledged importance of developing global mind-sets in students and managers through research-based guidance (Le et al. 2018, 64), the approaches proposed in extant literature are not evolving toward a cohesive pedagogical framework. Third, only 7 of the 16 identified studies contain an empirical element, which even then is not always in relation to the pedagogical efficacy itself. This hinders a research-driven approach to developing global mind-sets. Fourth, studies which refer to pedagogical tools differ with regards to their target audience – while 10 studies were focused on business school students, 6 were written for organizational settings. The expectations, resources, and types of tools, however, are different across these contexts, furthering the perceived lack of a pattern emerging across studies with regards to global mind-set pedagogies. Finally, while studies in the realm of global mind-set pedagogies have been published in a range of journals, the Journal of Teaching in International Business has established itself as central outlet for moving the literature toward a more cohesive, concrete, and theory-driven global mind-set pedagogy.

Thus, in the following I propose a theory-driven pedagogy for developing global mind-sets. I choose to focus on business school courses as the educational setting, where educators have an opportunity to encourage students to reflect upon their ways-of-thinking. The objective is to create a foundation for future studies on global mind-set pedagogies to build upon, thereby getting a step closer to capturing the “elusive” nature of the global mind-set and the processes that underlie its development (Boyacigiller et al. 2004). In line with suggestions in extant literature that the development of global mind-sets is marked by transformative learning (Ramsey et al. 2016, 111), I use transformative learning theory (Mezirow 1978a, 1978b) as a theoretical foundation upon which to build course designs aimed at fostering global mind-sets. To that end, I detail the key tenets of transformative learning theory next, before deriving specific course-design principles and a resulting course design framework with pedagogical tools.

2.2. Transformative learning theory

Transformative learning as a pedagogical concept emerged in the early 1970s, with Paolo Freire’s (1970) work on literacy education in Brazil and other Latin American contexts. Intent on fostering an awareness of political oppression and a desire for liberation in students, Freire’s approach to teaching literacy was one of raising consciousness through encouraging critical analysis, questioning assumptions, and empowering social action (Dirkx 1998, 3). Since then, extant research on transformative learning has evolved into a sizable body of work on the concept, as reflected by several reviews (Calleja 2014; Kitchenham 2008; Taylor 2007, 1997).

The stream of literature within this realm which has gained most traction is that associated with Mezirow’s conceptualization of transformative learning, who defines the concept as “a rational, metacognitive process of reassessing reasons that support problematic meaning perspectives or frames of reference” (Mezirow 2006). Building on the work of Kuhn (1962), Freire (1970), and Habermas (1971), Mezirow’s insights gained from studying U.S. women’s return to work or community college after an extended hiatus led to the distillation of ten phases of personal change indicative of transformative learning (Mezirow 1978a, 1978b; with later extensions, e.g., 1991). In contrast to other streams in the literature represented by Paolo Freire, Elizabeth Tisdell, and others (Taylor 2009, 5), this conceptualization focuses on individual-level change more so than society at large.

Mezirow (1978a, 1978b) originally proposed that such an individual-level transformative change generally occurs over ten phases, not all of which have to materialize or unfold in a strictly sequential manner. First, the learner is faced with a disorienting dilemma which seemingly contradicts the learner’s beliefs or expectations. Next, a self-examination ensues which may be associated with feelings of guilt or shame, followed by a critical assessment of assumptions. After that, the learner recognizes that they are not alone in their discontent and transformative process, which opens up an exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions. The learner then plans a course of action, acquires the necessary knowledge and skills for implementing the plans, and provisionally tries out the new roles. As a result, the learner gains competence and self-confidence in their execution of new roles and relationships, which allows them to reintegrate the updated perspective into their cognitive structures (Kitchenham 2008, 105). These phases, summarized in Figure 2, will provide the building blocks for a theory-driven global mind-set pedagogy laid out in the next section which is aimed at fundamentally expanding learners’ perspectives.

Figure 2. Ten phases of transformative learning (Mezirow 1978a, 1978b).

As important catalysts of such transformative learning, Mezirow identified two key elements, in order of importance: critical (self-)reflection and critical discourse. Both elements aim at heightening awareness and elevating scrutinization of preexisting meaning schemes, which Mezirow (1994, 223) defines as “the constellation of concept, belief, judgment, and feeling which shapes a particular interpretation.” These constitute habits-of-mind, i.e. “habitual ways-of-thinking, feeling and acting, influenced by assumptions that constitute a set of codes” (Mezirow 2006). Through exposure to and engagement with problems or anomalies that conflict with the assumptions underlying current meaning schemes, the learner is moved to deeply reconsider the foundation of their perspectives. This process can present as either a “painless” gradual evolution over time (cumulative) or sudden, “painful,” and deeply disruptive (epochal) shift in meaning schemes, both leading to perspective transformations that fundamentally shift the learner’s way-of-thinking (Kitchenham 2008, 112).

The phases of transformative learning as described by Mezirow (1978a, 1978b, 1991) thus illuminate the process by which learners acquire new, broader, and more differentiated perspectives. As such, transformative learning theory provides a suitable underpinning for the fundamental shift in learners’ ways-of-thinking required to move away from ethnocentric tendencies toward a global mind-set. In the following, the key tenets of transformative learning theory are utilized to derive a pedagogical framework for encouraging the development of global mind-sets in business school students.

3. Toward a theory-driven global mind-set pedagogy

To achieve a fundamental shift in learners’ ways-of-thinking which expands their ability to balance cognitive complexity with a cosmopolitan orientation, course design principles will next be derived which closely follow the ten phases of transformative learning (Mezirow 1978a, 1978b). These principles will be demonstrated with an example based on Rosling (2018).

3.1. Principle 1: explicate preexisting meaning schemes

This principle provides the foundation for the transformative learning process and corresponds to the “pre-existing meaning schemes” phase depicted in Figure 2. Particularly effective in this regard is an approach whereby students are asked about their assumptions. Rosling (2018) provides an example which allows students to understand global contexts more deeply and initiates a transformative learning process that can continue throughout an entire course. Students are asked how they imagine life to be like in lower-income markets with regards to safety, literacy, access to health care, number of children, child mortality rates, and similar notions. Perspectives typically converge around the common theme of lower levels of safety, literacy, and access to health care, combined with a high number of children and child mortality rates. These are reflective of preexisting meaning-schemes and can be depicted as bubbles across the knowledge and skills ranges (see Diagram B in Figure 1). Notably, not all of the bubbles within the knowledge dimension are located within the respective quadrants – those parts that are outside constitute that portion of the preexisting meaning scheme which is based on beliefs, judgment, or feelings (Mezirow 1994), rather than evidence-based knowledge.

Then, learners within the Rosling (2018) example are presented with a chart which shows countries across the dimensions of “Babies per women” (x-axis) with “Children surviving to age 5” (y-axis; Rosling 2018, 25). Importantly, child mortality rate in particular serves as a proxy indicator for other advancements such as access to healthcare, sanitation, clean water, and more. Countries within the chart appear to separate into two clusters: a large cluster representing countries where families are large and many children die, and a small cluster indicating countries where families are small and few children die. Asked about a way to describe the two clusters, many students will suggest labeling them as “developing vs. developed” countries.

3.2. Principle 2: create a disorienting dilemma using evidence

Next, the transformative process will be set off by creating a disorienting dilemma, which is depicted as phase 1 in Figure 2. This is a crucial moment, since it captures the learners’ attention and motivates them to engage with the next phases of the transformative learning process. Following Rosling’s (2018) example, the instructor will ask: What is wrong with the chart just presented? The disorientation experienced by students typically is expressed in a range of creative answers. This search for meaning is depicted as wavy arrows in Diagram B – note that learners will typically search for knowledge before searching for skills (Kedia and Mukherji 1999), which is why the disorienting dilemma mostly refers to the knowledge dimension.

Then, the answer to the instructor’s question is revealed: There is not necessarily anything “wrong” with the data – it is that it is from 1965! As Rosling (2018, 26) remarks, “Would you be happy if your doctor was using cutting-edge research from 1965 to suggest your diagnosis and treatment?” Then the instructor shows current data, which exhibits a very different picture of the world. Rather than two distinct clusters, countries now have largely converged within the upper right quadrant of the chart, where families tend to be small and few children die. This is often correlated with higher income, better education, and broader access to healthcare and suggests that many countries have made remarkable progress since 1965. The instructor can further emphasize this by asking what the child mortality rate was for countries like Bangladesh or Peru in 1965 (237 and 194, respectively) versus what it is today (29 and 13, respectively). Many will be surprised by the speed of improvement and that the current numbers are not too far off from the US’ child mortality rates in 1965 (27) and today (6) (The World Bank 2022).

This example highlights the crucial role of evidence in creating a disorienting dilemma. Evidence allows learners to see where their blind spots are with regards to how their preexisting meaning schemes map onto reality. In essence, the approach works similarly to the scientific method and Bayesian thinking in particular. Based on the English statistician Thomas Bayes’ (1792–1761) work, the Bayesian approach describes a process of forming a state of knowledge. Any preexisting knowledge is assigned a probability based on certain hypotheses about the specific phenomenon. Upon receiving new information, reasonable expectations and their assigned credence are updated. The objective of focusing on evidence in creating the disorienting dilemma thus allows learners to become aware of and update their state of knowledge and move from dichotomous perspectives (“developing vs. developed” countries) toward more nuanced ones.² Such evidence can take many shapes. In Rosling’s (2018) example, the evidence is largely numeric but it can be in the form of real-world scenarios, case studies, and more.

Creating disorienting dilemmas for learners as a start to their transformative learning process, while utilizing an evidence-centric approach, thus takes on a central role in this theory-driven pedagogy. To explicate this notion, Figure 3 illustrates a course design framework which consists of three interconnected pillars, each detailing a core element of course designs along with specific learning elements aimed at facilitating transformative learning as described above. Pillar 1 focuses on the utilization of evidence, whereby the objective is to not present students with finalized conclusions about a subject but guide them in exploring the evidence for themselves. This allows them to take an agentic role in their own learning process and elevate engagement with the subject matter. Pillar 2 emphasizes exposure to real-world scenarios as much as possible in (virtual) classroom settings, as a crucial way to challenge assumptions and enable critical discourse. Finally, Pillar 3 highlights the importance of integrating materials and learning outcome assessments throughout the course.

Figure 3. Course design framework highlighting the crucial role of evidence.

3.3. Principle 3: facilitate a shared process

As learners face the disorienting dilemma, they might experience feelings such as surprise, embarrassment, shame, disbelief, or resistance. At this point, it is thus important for the instructor to illuminate the assumptions underlying preexisting meaning schemes and to highlight that these are often shared across learners. This principle is reflected in phases 2–4 of the transformative learning process in Figure 2. Following the example from Rosling (2018), the instructor may initiate a discussion asking students which assumptions they made when asked about how life looks like in lower-income countries, especially with regards to the size of families and child mortality rates. The answers typically suggest that preexisting meaning schemes exhibit blind spots with regards to cognitive complexity (“The world can be neatly divided into developed vs developing countries!”) and a cosmopolitan orientation (“I don’t really know how life looks like ‘over there’!”). This can funnel into a discussion involving critical (self-)reflection and critical discourse as the two catalysts identified by Mezirow (1994).

3.4. Principle 4: advance learners’ knowledge and skills with regards to cognitive complexity and cosmopolitan orientation

Once learners accept that preexisting meaning schemes need to be updated, the instructor should steer them in the direction of the knowledge and skills required to try out new meaning schemes and roles. This is in line with phases 5–8 in Figure 2, with particular emphasis on phase 7. A range of pedagogical tools have been identified in the extant literature and are listed in Figure OSM-1 and Table OSM-2 of the online supplementary materials. It should be noted that a well-rounded global mind-set pedagogy ought to cover and integrate elements relating to all quadrants within the knowledge/skills and cognitive complexity/cosmopolitan orientation matrix. Some pedagogical tools cover more than one quadrant (e.g. case studies/simulations), which make them especially potent tools.³

Continuing with Rosling’s (2018) example, to move away from the developing vs. developed dichotomy and thereby enhance cognitive complexity, the instructor could ask students to explore other ways of categorizing countries that offer more nuance, using evidence.⁴ Furthermore, case study discussions or visits by expert guest speakers are useful tools to allow learners to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of a certain context or situation better. To enhance learners’ knowledge with regards to their cosmopolitan orientation, instructors can ask students to explore the data further⁵ or design immersive cultural experiences such as visiting a Hindi temple (Smith 2012). In tandem with growing knowledge, learners’ global mind-sets should also be enhanced through skill-building pedagogical tools, such as role plays for cognitive complexity or cultural interviews for their cosmopolitan orientation. These activities will allow learners to try out new roles and perspectives which are in line with an updated meaning scheme.

3.5. Principle 5: consolidate and integrate the updated meaning scheme

In order to create a transformative learning process that has a lasting impact on the learners’ way-of-thinking, it is important they build competence and self-confidence in applying the new meaning scheme (phase 9 in Figure 2). This reflects what Maznevski and Lane (2003, 171) observe – that ultimately, “perhaps a global mindset cannot be taught, [but] it can certainly be learned.” In order for learning to occur, the learner must thus not only receive the teaching but also absorb, understand, and grapple with it, all over an extended period of time – in other words, they have to make it “their own.” As such, it is crucial for the development of a global mind-set that learners attain a sense of agency with regards to learning elements. Applied to the example by Rosling (2018), the instructor should let students explore the data for themselves, rather than just presenting them with pre-formulated conclusions.

Moreover, for the transformative learning experience to lead to a lasting elevation of the learners’ cognitive complexity and cosmopolitan orientation, the updated meaning scheme has to be integrated into the learners’ ways-of-thinking (phase 10 in Figure 2). This can be facilitated by a high degree of interdependency in learning elements across the course curriculum. By interweaving learning activities and drawing cross-links between concepts, the complexities and nuances of global contexts become apparent and insights become more firmly anchored in the learners’ minds. Similarly, incorporating a wide range of methods, materials, and sources allows for a capturing of different learning styles (Maznevski and Lane 2003, 174). In the example of Rosling (2018), combining e.g. an independent data analysis, case study discussions, insights from expert guest speakers, and an assumption-challenging trivia exercise can help solidify the transformative learning process toward a more global mind-set.

The highest potential for achieving a more global mind-set thus occurs when learning elements allow for a high degree of agency by the learner and are designed to be interdependent across the respective course. Figure 4 illustrates this notion. The final outcome of the transformative learning approach is thereby to fill the learner’s blind spots in the areas of cognitive complexity and a cosmopolitan orientation with deeper knowledge and more nuanced skills. From this expansion through updated meaning schemes emerges a more global mind-set characterized by more nuanced ways-of-thinking (see Diagram C in Figure 1).

Figure 4. Agency-interdependency matrix and associated outcomes.

A few overarching aspects are important to note with regards to applying the course design principles and frameworks in practice. First, it is essential for the instructor to recognize that a course which puts transformative learning to the forefront can be quite different from other, more familiar course designs. The goal is thus to provide as clear and predictable a structure as possible (e.g. always starting and ending sessions the same way), so that students can devote much of their mental bandwidth to the learning process itself. Second, the instructor needs to be mindful that transformative learning, especially when occurring live during a classroom discussion, can leave some students feeling more vulnerable and at risk of being judged than in other course designs. The instructor’s responsibility is thus to encourage an atmosphere of inclusion and open-minded discussion among participants. Third, while much of course content could lend itself well to the approach described in this note, certain reasons may make the approach not feasible at all times. Moreover, the described learning activities should only be the starting point for critical reflection. Important concepts like morality or justice require nuanced consideration which the instructor ought to weave into the discussion as appropriate. Finally, the described approach is appropriate for learners at any level and adjustable to most topic areas, though likely most effective in settings with up to 50 students.

4. Application and efficacy

The proposed global mind-set pedagogy was applied for the first time in the context of a graduate-level elective on frontier markets at a large North American research university. In its first iteration in the 2021 winter semester, the course exhibited a distribution of 40% of participants with North American birthplaces and 60% with birthplaces in other locations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the course was delivered entirely virtually. Class sessions were held ten times in total from early January until late March 2021, with each session consisting of two hours of synchronous content and one hour of post-session asynchronous content. Aside from contributions (synchronous and asynchronous), performance in the course was assessed on the basis of an individual assignment (a narrated power point presentation), and a team-based final research paper. To assess the efficacy of the proposed pedagogical approach for this special issue,⁶ I compared student evaluations for the course with a comparison group consisting of all other courses previously taught by the same instructor at that institution. This approach led to a sample size of student evaluations from six courses, encompassing 128 anonymous qualitative comments, and an average response rate of 83.22%.

As a first step, I analyzed the quantitative component of student evaluations by employing a descriptive statistics approach to compare mean evaluation scores and standard deviations across all courses included in the sample for the three evaluation items most closely related to transformative learning (“Encourages reflection,” “Instructor effectiveness,” and “Course learning experience”). The results suggest that mean scores for the focal course exhibited high proximity to maximum scores across all three evaluation items – 94% for “Encourages reflection,” 95% for “Instructor effectiveness,” and 97% for “Course learning experience.” This compares to an average proximity to maximum scores for the five reference courses at 91% for “Encourages reflection,” 92% for “Instructor effectiveness,” and 89% for “Course learning experience.” Standard deviations were low for the focal course, at an average of 0.7 across the three items (0.9 for the five reference courses), suggesting a high degree of agreement among respondents.

While these scores hint at an effective course design, they are not exclusive to that focal course (e.g. one of the reference courses exhibits a similar score pattern to that of the focal course but is not specifically based on the proposed approach) and thus do not allow for a conclusive discernment of whether the high scores are the result of a course design effect, an instructor effect, or another factor. Moreover, a quantitative analysis holds limited interpretive value regarding the nature of the learning experience, especially with regards to transformative learning. The use of mean scores and standard deviations has further been contested in the extant literature, based on a growing body of evidence regarding biases inherent in student evaluations (Centra and Gaubatz 2000; Heffernan 2021) as well as difficulties in comparing scores across institutions, causing the institution at which the course was implemented to abandon the practice of including these statistics in course evaluation reports altogether. As a result, while the raw data is available to calculate these statistics by hand (as was done for the purpose of paper), such aspects should be considered when assigning credence to these scores.

Thus, I next conducted a qualitative text analysis of anonymous student comments, using NVivo 12, to add more detail to the efficacy assessment of the proposed pedagogy. In a process of iterating between the theory and the data, I identified several important themes relevant to the assessment of whether and how transformative learning occurred.

4.1. Learning experience (cognitive complexity)

While mentioning of the word “learning” occurred in an average of 12% of comments across all five reference courses, that number was significantly higher (45%) for the focal course. Sample comments for the latter include “Even though this was a new course, it still was the best structured course I’ve taken and it included so many components to maximize our learning,” hinting at the importance of structure and interwoven course materials, and “This course is extremely interactive and allowed for a bunch of learning on a topic which is severely understudied in business schools today,” suggesting a high degree of perceived relevance of course content.

4.2. Broadening of perspectives (cosmopolitan orientation)

This is an important category in light of the desired transformative learning outcome toward a global mind-set, and appeared in this clarity only in the comments for the focal course. Examples include “Very good course to get a much better, clearer idea of the world” and “I think the most important thing about this course was that it completely changed my perspective of the world and it’s something I am going to take with me throughout my career.” These not only hint at a possible shift in meaning schemes but also a longer-term effect of the transformative learning experience.

4.3. Self-reflection and critical discourse

Although frequently mentioned in comments across all courses (e.g. “I liked that [the instructor] challenged students to defend their arguments; it made us more critical thinkers”), few differences could be discerned across courses with regards to this category. This may be due to the fact that courses are highly interactive in general at this institution and critical discourse is thus a baseline expectation.

4.4. Interdependency of learning elements

Although comments across all courses referred to learning elements per se, those comments for the focal course stood out in the way they highlighted the interconnectedness of these elements. Examples include: “In this class the combination of the book, the articles, the cases and the guests really brought the topic to life” and “[the instructor] utilized an incredible mix of individual and group situations in order to execute upon the course’s material. The textbook for this class was without a doubt the most relevant textbook that I have utilized throughout my four terms at [the institution].”

Other instructor-level themes, such as degree of enthusiasm, were predictably similar across courses. Overall, these results from the text-based analysis reveal that although quantitative mean scores are comparable across all courses taught, there are important qualitative differences that lead the focal course to stand out, particularly with regards to the effects on learning experience (cognitive complexity) and broadening of perspectives (cosmopolitan orientation). It thus appears that the proposed pedagogy gained credence upon implementation which is further supported by the fact that the course was awarded a teaching excellence award in its first iteration (based on student nominations). In sum, these outcomes present promising evidence for the practical applicability of transformative learning theory to the context of global mind-sets, with a particular emphasis on the five principles derived from transformative learning phases. The implications of these results for future research and practice are discussed next.

5. Discussion

Since Perlmutter (1969) first introduced the concept of a “world mindset,” IB scholars have been concerned with the cognitive processes that underlie decision-making in international contexts. Yet, despite considerable conceptual advancements with regards to what later became known as the “global mindset,” the concept remained elusive in terms of its effective development in learners (Boyacigiller et al. 2004). Based on a critical review of the extant literature on global mind-set pedagogies, I develop a theory-driven approach in pursuit of a global mind-set, along with concrete course design principles. Moreover, it is explicated how cognitive complexity and a cosmopolitan orientation map onto knowledge and skills, along with the importance of allowing for a high degree of learner agency and interdependence between learning elements. An application of this proposed pedagogy in a graduate-level course on frontier markets garners promising preliminary support.

The key objective of this approach is thus not only to better prepare students for the new realities of a complex and uncertain world marked by a retreat of globalization but also to create the conceptual foundation for a more cohesive pedagogy which future studies can build upon. As such, this paper responds to Witte’s (2010) call for moderate curriculum reform toward enhancing the cognitive, behavioral, and critical skills associated with global competencies. It is also in line with major contributions to the global mind-set literature, such as Javidan and Teagarden’s (2011) differentiation between cognitive, psychological, and social capital, and furthers a theory-driven application of these concepts in classroom settings.

The proposed approach allows for several salient research opportunities, aimed at moving studies toward a more cohesive global mind-set pedagogy. First, the framework and underlying theoretical tenets were designed for the specific purpose of developing a new graduate-level course on frontier markets at a large North American research university. Future studies and applications can adjust the proposed pedagogy to other contexts, whereby boundary conditions and further refinements will become apparent. Such contexts include non-Western environments, other delivery modes (in-person, hybrid, virtual), organizational settings, and more. I see particular need for more studies on the application of transformative learning to other cultural contexts, particularly those in which values such as high-context communication, power distance, and group orientation are held in high regard, likely leading to different ways in which the elements of critical (self-) reflection and critical discourse materialize.

Second, interesting and nuanced insights are likely to emerge upon designing a rigorous empirical study ex ante to test the efficacy of the described course design approach. For instance, a research design can be conceived whereby two sections of the same course are taught, holding institution, instructor, and semester constant. One section would receive delivery of content through the proposed approach (treatment group) while the other would not (control group). Through measures such as pre- and post-course surveys using a global mind-set scale (Javidan and Teagarden 2011), the validity of the approach can be established further.

Third, contrary to some studies’ depictions, global mind-sets are not either existent or not existent but should rather be seen as a continuum. Relatedly, global mind-sets are not static, such that they may grow further (Cohen 2010) or deteriorate over time (Bohas et al., 2021). How exactly the characteristics of the individual, environment, and pedagogy interact in that regard would constitute a very interesting research direction.

Fourth, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the proposed approach was first implemented in a virtual course environment. While this required some adjustments compared to in-person modes, it did not change the principle approach to developing global mind-sets through a transformative learning process pedagogy. Two caveats are worth mentioning though. First, due to the relatively small class size in the course’s first iteration, students were aware that they were more “visible” and expected to keep their cameras turned on. This created a sense of group cohesion, even in a virtual setting, which might not have been possible with larger class sizes. Second, during the pandemic, sessions consisted of a 2-hr synchronous session and a 1-hr asynchronous one (instead of a 3-hr in person session during non-pandemic times). This was to alleviate concerns of “Zoom fatigue” (Bailenson 2021) and accommodate those students located in different time zones. Future studies could further explore such adjustments across classroom contexts, including virtual/hybrid/in-person modes as well as course content.

Finally, the enactment of learning as a social process requires further investigation. For instance, aside from the learners, the instructor may also undergo a transformational shift in perspectives over time, or in interaction with learners. How these instructor-related processes interact with learner-related ones presents a highly fascinating avenue for future research.

In sum, given the importance of the topic for both theory and practice, there remains much to be explored about how to develop global mind-sets. I thus call for a reinvigoration of global mind-sets research, especially regarding relevant pedagogies. Journals could incentivize this by issuing special issue calls in this space. Global mind-set pedagogies would further lend themselves particularly well to being shared via a dedicated online depository similar to Harvard’s Activity-Based Learning website (https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/).

6. Conclusion

Although the way-of-thinking associated with a global mind-set is not a panacea for all of today’s complex societal and economic challenges worldwide, IB educators have a tremendous responsibility (and opportunity) to help learners navigate the plethora of available information, critically reflect on their meaning schemes, and make sense of the world at large. One desired outcome is to develop future leaders with nimble analytical minds, comfortable with and curious about the ambiguities inherent in the realities of the world. To that end, the proposed approach promises to be a useful building block for constructing a theory-driven global mind-set pedagogy.

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge the guidance and encouragement of the special issue editors, Marleen Dieleman, Ausrine Silenskyte, Margaret Fletcher, Karen Lynden, and Daria Panina. Moreover, I wish to thank the AIB Teaching and Education Shared Interest Group for organizing the AIB Teaching Innovation Award and fostering knowledge exchange in this space.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2022.2137278

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Vanessa C. Hasse

Vanessa C. Hasse is an Assistant Professor of International Business at the Ivey Business School, Western University (Canada). Her primary research interests focus on exploring behavioral explanations for firm-level responses to performance feedback in an international context, as well as the impact cultural and temporal dimensions have on managerial decision-making. Her research has been published in outlets such as the Academy of Management Journal, Global Strategy Journal, and more. As a management educator, Dr. Hasse has authored several case studies and been recognized for her innovations in designing transformative learning experiences. She is the recipient of multiple teaching awards and was named a Finalist for the 2021 Academy of International Business Teaching Innovation Award.

Notes

¹ I included only those publications which go beyond descriptions of how global mind-sets have been instructed in the past and provide normative accounts of how global mind-sets are actively facilitated to achieve a cognitive and/or behavioral change.

² In fact, The World Bank has abandoned reference to developing vs. developed countries.

³ Please note that only those tools that can be applied within the context of a business school course are listed (i.e. study trips, international internships, and similar programs are excluded).

⁴ (Rosling 2018) suggests a categorization on the basis of four levels of income.

⁵ (Rosling 2018) created the gapminder.org website for that purpose.

⁶ I thank the editors of this special issue for suggesting ways to assess the efficacy of the proposed approach.