ISLarticle

Understanding Complexity: Facilitation of Transformation in ISL
Jenny M. Clark
M.A. International Development ‘16

Introduction
Higher education continues to wrestle with major philosophical and pedagogical shifts
that have occurred over the past decades. Educational theorists such as John Dewey, Paulo
Freire, and David Kolb have challenged traditional methods of instruction by arguing for
educational experiences and teaching strategies that are more active, student-centered, and that
can better engage learners with real-world contexts (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1973; Kolb, 1984). In
addition, universities are placing increasingly more emphasis on becoming global entities by
incorporating semesters abroad into their curricula. As this process evolves, practitioners
continue to consider how they can facilitate meaning from international experiences for their
students. Especially in service-learning settings, where students have a more personal
involvement within a broader community, there is much potential for meaningful, transformative
experiences (Parker & Dautoff, 2007). The following article investigates the pedagogical
nuances of student development and community engagement in ISL, and elaborates on
facilitation techniques of ISL that can empower students to engage with a more holistic,
reflective approach to their educational experiences abroad.
Study Abroad, ISL, and Global Leadership
Experiential education provides students with the opportunity to gain valuable
perspective through critical thinking and problem-solving within active learning situations (Kolb,
1984; Montrose, 2002). In the current academic climate there has been a surge of interest in
experiential educational programs such as study abroad and ISL. These international experiences
focus on language development, cultural immersion, service projects, and the enhancement of
student perspectives. Service-learning is a branch of experiential education that seeks to connect
elements of academia to real-world communities. Its goal is both to allow students to better fit

within the globalized world while simultaneously making some kind of social contribution. As a
pedagogy, ISL adds this quality of civic engagement to study abroad through connecting
experience with learning that also encourages student participation in relevant social change
(Bringle & Hatcher, 2011).
Study abroad by itself has become a branch of experiential education that has made
education abroad a more visible part of higher education. According to the 2015 Open Doors
Report conducted by the International Educational Exchange (IEE), study abroad in the U.S. has
increased by five percent, which is the highest rate of growth for study abroad since 2008. In
response to this trend, the IEE created Generation Study Abroad, a national campaign that aims
to double the number of students who study abroad by the year 2020. The campaign advocates to
universities and students across the U.S. the benefits of study abroad and recently released their
Year One Impact Report. The key findings highlighted by this report were as follows: 91% of
U.S. institutions are creating or expanding programs to offer more international for-credit
opportunities; 64% of U.S. institutions are increasing the number of academic programs that
offer (or even require) a study abroad component; 77% of international institutions are creating
or expanding short-term study (such as internships) abroad opportunities; and lastly, 71% of U.S.
institutions are committing to increasing financial support for faculty members to develop and
lead faculty-led study abroad programs (IEE, 2015).
These numbers suggest how universities are attempting to keep pace with globalization
by internationalizing students in order to better prepare them for their professional lives. This
quest for competency and leadership has become a focal point for higher education, with
international experience and global knowledge as key components that keep American students
involved and competitive in the worldwide marketplace (Pusch, 2009). Margaret Pusch (2009)

has suggested the complexities inherent in becoming a globally competent leader as having a
mind-set, heart-set, and skill-set to partake in the process of developing respect, openness, and
curiosity about cultures other than one’s own. She has further explained how an element of risk-
taking is important for a leader of this sort: “leaders who must deal with this new era of
connectivity are those edge-walkers who must deal with the endless restructuring of
organizations, of alliances, or partnerships, of the pace at which change seems to occur, all at the
nexus of different expectations and needs” (Pusch, 2009, p. 79). A global leader takes chances,
fails, and learns from those failures as opposed to following set guidelines on what to do, how to
think, and how to act.
Due to the growing emphasis on international awareness and global competencies, ISL
and study abroad have many implications for higher education. While both ISL and study abroad
provide students with contextual learning experiences, ISL exists as a unique pedagogy that adds
the elements of civic engagement and community-building to international education and study
abroad. Instead of merely academic study, ISL engages students with a local organization and
enables them to participate in community activities. These individual interactions augment
classroom learning through the concept of learning by doing and present students with real world
challenges that often go missing in a structured learning environment (Bringle, Clayton, & Price,
2009; Bringle & Hatcher, 2011).
The evolution of higher education in tandem with the evolution of global processes has
created opportunities for instructors as well as students to engage experientially with their
learning processes. Well-designed ISL and study abroad programs provide much potential for
enriched, transformative learning that is deep and long-lasting. The goals of ISL in particular are
rooted in enhancing intercultural understanding and personal growth and development (Bringle

et al., 2009; Bringle & Hatcher, 2011; J. Engle & L. Engle, 2003). Students engaging in ISL
require guidance from instructors in order to gain insights from their studies and to properly
engage with the communities with which they serve (Bringle & Hatcher, 2011; Eyler & Giles,
1999). ISL draws its power, relevance, and utility from within the lived experience of a
community and depends upon a bond of mutual benefit and interaction between students and
community partners. This concept of reciprocity is a major distinction between ISL and study
abroad: ISL is action through and with a community, while study abroad tends to consist of
action of and in the community (Bringle & Hatcher, 2011; Harrison & Clayton, 2012). Students
are essential partners in service-learning, and such partnerships should be scrutinized through
similar lenses as with campus-community partnerships (Jacoby, 2003).
Service-learning is then nuanced and complicated in the manner in which it attempts to
engage different groups for social betterment. In order for such pedagogy to be effective, the
bonds between institutions and community partners need to be carefully considered. The inner-
workings of these relationships are complicated and so require thorough examination and
strategic maintenance (Billig & Eyler, 2003; Jacoby, 2003). Bringle et al. (2009) have referred to
the term partnership by describing it as a relationship that is comprised of integrity, closeness,
and equity. These relationships can be understood as interactions between people that become
partnerships as those interactions develop enhanced closeness. This closeness was defined as a
range from unaware (or lacking) to transformational (or deep) that depends upon the frequency
of interaction, the diversity of activities that constitute the interactions, and the strength of
decisions and plans. Equity was defined as outcomes that are perceived as proportionate to
inputs, and integrity was defined as a deeply felt set of inherent values. Relationships with higher
levels of equity and integrity are more likely to have higher satisfaction for all parties (Bringle et

al., 2009). In order to better understand the nature and depth of how healthy civic and cross-
institutional relationships function in ISL, Bringle et al. (2009) also suggested using the E-T-T
(Exploitative-Transactional-Transformational) model of relationship outcomes, with
transformational relationships as the end goal. Because relationships are not static, they can
progress (exploitive to transactional to transformational) or regress on the dimensions of
closeness, equity, and integrity.
These findings demonstrate how it is important to monitor ISL partnerships or
relationships in ways that provide feedback to all members in all areas in order to recognize the
entirety of the service-learning process (Bringle et al., 2009; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). In
addition, focusing on the person-to-person relationships formed through mutual collaboration
also will help assuage distance created from any formalities between institutions and the
communities involved (Bringle et al., 2009; Cruz & Giles, 2000; Jacoby, 2003). These
relationships are the heart of the transformative pedagogy that is ISL.
Integrative and Transformative Learning
Educational practitioners seek to facilitate students’ connection of their experiences to
meaning in order to provide context from which students can build a foundation of
understanding. Experiential learning as described by David Kolb (1984) offers a holistic,
integrative perspective that combines experience, perception, cognition and behavior. Kolb’s
theories of learning have conveyed the idea that learning is largely an issue of personal
development that can be extended beyond academic learning and into the realm of adaptability to
life events and problem-solving (Kolb, 1984). Part of this practice is realizing that the process of
critical thinking is integral to experiential learning. Knowledge, according to Kolb, is creation
and re-creation, rather than a thread of information to be acquired or transmitted. Mezirow

(1991) built upon this theory of learning and described it as a process of perspective
transformation or a shifting in worldview:
[Perspective transformation] is the process of becoming critically aware of how and who
our presuppositions have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand and feel
about our world; of reformulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive,
discriminating, permeable and integrative perspective; and of making decisions or
otherwise acting on these new understandings. (p. 14)
One of the complications that arises with transformative learning is that it cannot be
guaranteed or forced upon learners, but is rather a method whereby educators “engage with…co-
learners in critical reflection, critical thinking, reframing questions, deconstructing issues, and
dialogue and discourse” (Alfred & Johnson-Bailey, 2006, p.56). Students involved with this form
of learning are being asked to bring their “whole selves” into the learning environment and draw
on “multiple forms of being and knowing” through their learning process, which produces in
them certain vulnerability (Mezirow & Taylor, 2009, p. 86). According to Mezirow and Taylor
(2009), this vulnerability can be alleviated by creating a small kind of democracy between
student and facilitator (or mentor) via creative, imaginative spaces that supplement processes of
reasoning. Implementation of transformative learning is consequently a complex process that
involves the holistic involvement of an individual (e.g. mind, body, and spirit) in order for
transformation to take place (Mezirow & Taylor, 2009; Panitsides & Papastamatis, 2014).
This approach to learning reflects Vygotsky’s (1980) theory of social-cultural
development that inevitably guides an individual’s personal transformation. When students play
an active part in the learning process, their roles shift to resemble a more collaborative reality
that can provide developmental tools for future social functioning (Vygotsky, 1980).

Consequently, this mode of learning has the potential to mediate social environments, the
internalization of which contributes to higher-level, creative thinking (Kozulin, 2003; Vygotsky,
1980). These developmental processes are significant to transformative learning in the way they
encourage a “unification of contradictory, distinct processes…[that] embody the essence of the
whole” (Kozulin, 2003, p. 121). As DiPardo and Potter (2003) further elaborate:
Affect cannot be understood as a state within a state, but only within the systemic context
of human thought and action, and within the social-cultural environments from which we
draw the raw material of our inner lives. (DiPardo & Potter, 2003, p. 326)
Our internal experiences are therefore directly related to our external ones in the way they
involve all elements of our personalities and interactions.
Dirkx (2006) also has noted the role of emotion in creating those imaginative spaces in
higher education, especially in regards to the meaning-making process which is integral to
transformative learning:
Transformative learning is often characterized by such intense, emotionally laden
experiences that are mediated by powerful but often dimly perceived images. Like
dreams, the experience of these images cannot be fully articulated through words (p. 23).
Emotions dictate largely unconscious forms of meaning that are associated with learning and
reveal aspects of a learner’s perceived reality. Throughout his research, Dirkx (2006) referenced
the Jungian concept of individuation, or the process through which adults develop more authentic
relationships with the self and with others, as integral to transformative learning. As with any
psychic process, certain emotional dilemmas can surface that must be facilitated in ways that
contribute to instead of hinder individual and group development.

Ettling (2006) similarly presented the concept of “ethical capacities” involved with
engaging students in transformative learning as “competencies that can arise from the practice of
intellectual, emotional, and spiritual rigor in our professional self-development, which then can
offer us grounding and guidance in our everyday practice of transformative learning” (p. 65). In
order to honor these ethical capacities, an effective facilitation practice requires an intentional
and consistent examination of instructor methods throughout the learning process. The four
capacities described as crucial for ethical facilitation of transformative learning were: openness
to cosmic awareness, an attitude of attunement, the art of conversation, and the practice of
contemplation (Ettling, 2006). Each of these principles relates to the concept of active reflection
and critical thinking that are integral to transformative learning. In this way, both facilitators and
students are benefiting from and changing with the transformative nature of the learning process
in a kind of lived experiment. The role of reflection in transformative learning is then a crucial
area for consideration when discussing facilitation of ISL and contributes to students’ ability to
construct meaning from their experiences.
Reflection and The Moral Imagination
John Dewey (1916) described the concept of learning from experience as a conscious
connection of activity with analysis: “mere activity does not constitute experience…experience
involves change, but change is a meaningless transition unless it is consciously connected with
the return wave of consequences which flow from it” (p. 163). A related theorist, Paulo Freire,
encouraged the liberation of both students and citizens through the use of free and critical
thought. Freire (1973) identified the concept of conscientizacao, or critical awareness that
develops from social and educational awakening, which he described as crucial for students in
higher education. Of his many theoretical and philosophical musings, perhaps his most

meaningful one was the concept of authentic reflection, which he stated must co-exist with
action in order to produce meaningful social change (Freire, 1973).
Dewey and Freire offered a philosophical foundation for the role of reflection in higher
education by describing it as essentially a bridge between theory and practice. This
contemplative process has been described as something of which individuals are largely unaware
and inherently take for granted (Schön, 1983). For ISL, reflection exists as the “primary
mechanism that generates meaningful and powerful learning” (Whitney & Clayton, 2011, p.
149). It consists of an integrated understanding and intentional analyses of complex processes
that can better inform how students engage with life, other people, and other cultures. In terms of
its uses for ISL, reflection can also contribute to students becoming more conscious about their
motivations for service and their role to the communities and partners with which they serve. As
a result, service-learning practitioners can use critical reflection to engage students in a learning
process that examines relations of power, hegemony, ideology, and existing institutional
arrangements that potentially marginalize and oppress (Brookfield, 2009).
Martha Nussbaum (1996) has additionally described the integrative, reflective process as
developing an understanding of one’s individual potential along with, more broadly, the human
condition through learning that is rooted in the real. For Nussbaum, reflection is integral to
students participating in ISL, through processes of self-awareness, the capacity to think critically,
and the ability for moral reasoning. According to her, “our systems of education have long given
us far too little information about lives outside our borders, [thus] stunting our moral
imaginations” (Nussbaum, 1996, p xiv). The term moral imaginations is relevant when
discussing the world of ISL as it refers to the way in which students navigate and design their
own ways of learning and doing in complex situations.

Related to this concept of moral imagining, John Paul Lederach (2005) has conveyed
how learning is a deeply personal and complex process:
When we attempt to eliminate the personal, [and] lose sight of ourselves, our deeper
intuition, and the source of our understandings…we believe in the knowledge we
generate but not in the inherently messy and personal process by which we acquired it.
(p. ix)
According to Lederach, the learning process is highly creative and imaginative, and must
be nurtured and developed in order to gain an integrated understanding of our experiences.
Harvesting this sort of moral imagination consists of “the capacity to imagine something rooted
in the challenges of the real world yet capable of giving birth to that which does not yet exist”
(Lederach, 2005, p. x). This concept can be applied for students in ISL learning environments as
well; the unexpected and unplanned are bound to occur which can then create avenues of
discovery and potential for new understandings. Constructive social change, as Lederach has
described, as well as personal growth and development, is connected to one’s willingness to see
beyond that which is explicitly stated.
Furthermore, according to Mather (2008), individuals form meaning by exercising their
own deeply imbedded values that are dictated by previous personal experiences. Student
narratives contribute to this process of transformative learning by constructing meaningful
connections to the past, present, and future (Mather, 2008). The implications of these findings
help outline how educators can better understand the power of narratives and story-telling in
meaning-making processes involved with transformative learning. These efforts to deconstruct
the sometimes vague concepts of transformative learning that ISL claims to produce are useful in
how they seek to consider the ways in which meaning is created by students, and how that

meaning can be maximized through relationships built within ISL. Reflective processing of this
kind is essential for integrative, transformative learning in ISL and contributes to overall student
development of critical thought.
In terms of course design, best practice guidelines for reflection tend to emphasize the
need for regularity, connecting learning activities to relevant content, providing guided
facilitation of reflection, and challenging students’ perspectives in order to clarify values
(Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Hatcher, Bringle & Muthiah, 2004). One model
that clearly addresses each of these points is the DEAL model, created by Ash, Clayton, and
Moses (2009). The DEAL model is a tool that deconstructs how facilitators can help learners
with the process of “how to think” as opposed to “what to think” (Ash et al., 2009, p. 10).
Reflection practitioners are essentially trying to elicit in their students the process of critical
thought as opposed to traditional methods of information transmission.
The use of critical reflection then enhances the potential for producing desired outcomes
related to transformative learning. A significant challenge that arises from facilitating reflective
processes comes from questions concerning structural design and course mediation. Especially in
higher education, structuring reflective learning may be difficult in terms of upholding academic
standards of excellence and keeping course material relevant and engaging (Endres & Gould,
2009). As a result of these ambiguities, instructors assume a pivotal role in service-learning
environments in the ways in which they engage their students within complex learning processes.
Facilitation of Reflective Processes
Facilitators of ISL identify and assess learning outcomes as well as collaborate with
community partners in order to structure student experiences that contribute to overarching
academic and civic goals. In correspondence with the concept of partnerships in ISL, students

and instructors coexist in a fluid environment together where they have the opportunity to relate
to one another as more than distanced, collegiate associates and more akin to partners engaging
in a shared experience. Instructors of transformative learning are expected to guide students
through the process of critical thinking while also allowing them to engage in self-directed
learning through their own investigative strategies (Pagello & Roselle, 2009). Practitioners may
struggle in creating a structured class environment due to the unpredictability of experiential
learning opportunities; however, it is precisely this lack of structure that offers potential for
transformation (Kiely, 2004). In order to understand how facilitators can properly integrate
learning opportunities in such an environment, it is useful to examine the role of the facilitator in
experiential learning settings.
ISL facilitators provide students with a means of accessing their own learning through a
holistic understanding of themselves. Researchers have suggested how an effective facilitator
creates the space and presence in which students may process the many complexities inherent
with their educational experiences. As a result, facilitation is more than simply knowing and
teaching, but is rather “a shift in the way knowledge spaces are used” (Savin-Baden, 2003, p.
142). Especially in an ISL context, where transitions are plentiful and uncertainties are bound to
arise, the ideal classroom consists of a continuous dialogue between facilitator and students. As
Savin-Baden has described (2003):
Facilitation is not about procedures or rules, but about creating different possibilities for
learning, particularly ones that resist reductionist accounts and techniques for becoming.
Thus we do not have types of facilitators…instead we have tutors in higher education
who speak of the relationship between facilitation and the other types of teaching in
which they are involved, in terms of overcrowded and often conflicted positions in which

uneasiness about their identities, boundaries and relationships with students are
evident…Facilitation has a plurality of boundaries and roles where previous beliefs and
practices become vulnerable. (p. 27)
Indeed, many ambiguities are apparent in this process, as are opportunities for growth and
development. Can there be best practices for such a role that is constantly changing? How do
instructors maximize these “different possibilities for learning” that create instead of reduce
“techniques for becoming?” (Savin-Baden (2003, p. 27). The above quote is reminiscent of
Nussbaum (1996) and Lederach (2005), and the notions of enhancing the ambiguous but
necessary “moral imagination” in higher education and in service-learning. Inherent in this quote
is also the notion of the personal nature of facilitation, and the need to understand the
vulnerabilities of both instructors and students.
Apte (2009) has similarly conveyed how, in order to increase transformative potential of
the learning process, facilitators must strive to create a “mood of possibility” when aiding
students in their development of new perspectives. As adult educators, facilitators fill a
“provocative role” as they “[represent] relevant, unnoticed ‘truth’” (p. 178). This role is
accompanied by certain complexities of identity:
Facilitators are continually making choices about how to traverse the interface of
participants’ ideas and the ideas that they might speak for throughout a program. We are
receiving, confirming, stretching and/or challenging a participant’s frame of reference,
and thus we are recognizing, confirming and interrupting various selves. (p. 179)
The provocative nature of this work lies in the way educators can elicit change within students
by creating those possibilities through their practice. These findings indicate how transformative
learning can resemble a circular and often erratic process. As a result of these ambiguities,

facilitators operate as mediators to uncertainty and, more generally, as educational guides. In
essence, they generate opportunities and invite students to take ownership of their own learning
process. For this framework to be successful, it is then vital that students venture away from
more passive educational experiences and instead become active and engaged participants.
Conclusion
ISL as a method of learning creates a mixture of experience where difficult realities and
complex ideas are thrown together to create a stew of potential knowledge. There is more to the
facilitation of this pedagogical form than simple best practices can convey, which creates an
ambiguity whereby individuals can discover their practice as a kind of methodological art form.
In response to these ambiguities, this article invites universities and practitioners to consider the
implications of engaging pedagogies such as ISL that seek to utilize transformative learning as a
viable student learning outcome. Much remains to be discovered in terms of how best to engage
students within their own learning processes, especially in regards to a complex pedagogical
design such as ISL.
References
Alfred, M. V., & Johnson-Bailey, J. (2006). Transformational teaching and the practices of black
women adult educators. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109, 49-58.
Apte, J. (2009). Facilitating transformative learning: A framework for practice. Australian
Journal of Adult Learning, 49(1), 169-189.
Ash, S.L, Clayton, P.H., & Moses, M.G. (2009). Learning through critical reflection: A tutorial
for service-learning students (instructor version). Raleigh, NC.
Billig, S. & Eyler, J. (2003). Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context,
participation, and impacts. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Bringle. R. G., Clayton, P., & Price, M.F. (2009). Partnerships in service learning and civic
engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of Service Learning & Civic Engagement, 1(1), 1-
20.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning of
experience. Educational Horizons, 77, 179-185.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). University-community partnerships: The terms of
engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 503-516.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J.A. (2011). International service learning. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J.
A., & Jones, S. G. (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and
research (pp. 3-28). Virginia: Stylus Publishing LLC.
Brookfield, S. (2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions. European
Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 293-304.
Crossley, N. (1996). Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming. Thousand Oaks, US:
SAGE Publications.
Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. E. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning research?
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 28-34.
DiPardo, A., & Potter, C. (2003). Recent perspectives on emotion and teaching. Kozulin, A.
(Ed.). Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 322-33). UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Dirkx, J. M. (2006). Engaging emotions in adult learning: A Jungian perspective on emotion and
transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109, 15-26.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Endres, D., & Gould, M. (2009). ‘I am also in the position to use my whiteness to help them
out’: The communication of whiteness in service learning. Western Journal of
Communication, 73(4), 418-436.
Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program
types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9(1), 1-20.
Ettling, D. (2006). Ethical demands of transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 109, 59-67.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. The University of Michigan: Seabury
Press.
Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing effective reflection: What
matters to service-learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1),
38-46.
Harrison, B., & Clayton, P.H. (2012). Reciprocity as a threshold concept for faculty who are
learning to teach with service-learning. The Journal of Faculty Development, 26(3), 29-
33.
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2015). Open doors 2015 report on international
educational exchange. Retrieved from www.iienetwork.com
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2015). Generation study abroad year one impact
report. Retrieved from www.iienetwork.com
Jacoby, B. (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kiely, R. (2004). A chameleon with a complex: Searching for transformation in international
service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 5-20.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
Kozulin, A. (2003). Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lederach, P. (2005). The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. New York,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Mather, P. C. (2008). Interns at an international, humanitarian organization: Career pathways and
meaning making. Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 182-198.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, California:
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J., & Taylor, E. W. (2009). Transformative learning in practice: Insights from
community, workplace, and higher education. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Montrose, L. (2002). International study and experiential learning: The academic
context. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8(2), 1-15.
Nussbaum, M. (1996). For love of country? Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Pagano, M., & Roselle, L. (2009). Beyond reflection through an academic lens: Refraction and
international experiential education. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 18, 217-229.
Panitsides, E. A. & Papastamatis, A. (2014). Transformative learning: Advocating for a holistic
approach. Review of European Studies, 6(4), 74-81.

Parker, B., & Altman Dautoff, D. (2007). Service-learning and study abroad: Synergistic
learning opportunities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(2), 40-53.
Pusch, M.D. (2009). The interculturally competent global leader. D.K. Deardoff (Ed.), The Sage
handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 66-84). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications Inc.
Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
Whitney, B. C., & Clayton, P. H. (2011). Research on and through reflection in international
service learning. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Jones, S. G. (Eds.). International
service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (pp. 145-187). Virginia: Stylus
Publishing LLC.

ISLarticle

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to ISLarticle (20)

ISLarticle