• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Development of an instrument to measure high school students' global awareness and attitudes: Looking through the lens of social sciences

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Renita Ferreira
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to measure high school students' perspectives on global awareness and attitudes toward social issues. The research questions that guided this study were: (a) Can acceptable validity and reliability estimates be established for an instrument developed to measure high schools students' global awareness? (b) Can acceptable validity and reliability estimates be established for an instrument developed to measure high schools students' attitudes towards global social issues? (c) What is the relationship between high school students' GPA, race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, parents' education, getting the news, reading and listening habits, the number of classes taken in the social sciences, whether they speak a second language, and have experienced living in or visiting other countries, and their perception of global awareness and attitudes toward global social issues. An ex post facto research design was used and the data were collected using a 4-part Likert-type survey. It was administered to 14 schools in the Miami-Dade County, Florida area to 704 students. A factor analysis with an orthogonal varimax rotation was vii used to select the factors that best represented the three constructs - global education, global citizenship, and global workforce. This was done to establish construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the instrument. Descriptive statistics and a hierarchical multiple regression were used for the demographics to establish their relationship, if any, to the findings. Key findings of the study were that reliable and valid estimates can be developed for the instrument. The multiple regression analysis for model 1 and 2 accounted for a variance of 3% and 5% for self-perceptions of global awareness (factor 1). The regression model also accounted for a 5% and 13% variance in the two models for attitudes toward global social issues (factor 2). The demographics that were statistically significant were: ethnicity, gender, SES, parents' education, listening to music, getting the news, speaking a second language, GPA, classes taken in the social sciences, and visiting other countries. An important finding for the study was those attending public schools (as opposed to private schools) had more positive attitudes towards global social issues (factor 2) The statistics indicated that these students had taken history, economics, and social studies - a curriculum infused with global perspectives.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................2 Research Questions .................................................................................................6 Global Education.....................................................................................................7 Changing Definitions of Literacy ...........................................................................8 Global Citizenship.................................................................................................11 Global Workforce..................................................................................................12 Assumptions...........................................................................................................13 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................14 Delimitations of the Study.....................................................................................16 Operational Definitions..........................................................................................16 Summary................................................................................................................19 Overview of the Study...........................................................................................20

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................................................................... 21 The Repercussion of Globalization .......................................................................22 Defining Global Education ...................................................................................23 Relevance of Global Education to the Global Workforce ....................................28 Defining Global Citizenship .................................................................................34 Relevance of Global Citizenship to the Global Workforce ..................................39 A Discussion on Research Done on Students’ Attitudes and Opinions ................41 Review of Some Instruments Considered for This Study......................................50 Choice of Demographics .......................................................................................66 Summary ...............................................................................................................70

III. METHODS ...........................................................................................................73 Research Questions ...............................................................................................73 Research Design.....................................................................................................74 Description of the Sample......................................................................................77 Instrumentation .....................................................................................................79 Procedures for Survey Administration ..................................................................85 Statistical Treatment .............................................................................................87 Summary ...............................................................................................................90

IV FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ...........................................................91 Description of Participants.....................................................................................91 Estimates of Construct Validity ............................................................................92 Estimates of Reliability .........................................................................................95 Descriptive Statistics..............................................................................................96

ix

Multiple Regression Analysis ...............................................................................97 Summary..............................................................................................................104

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSION .........................................107 Summary of the Study.........................................................................................107 Findings and Interpretation .................................................................................109 Limitations of the Study ......................................................................................117 Implications for Theory and Practice...................................................................117 Recommendations for Future Research...............................................................120 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................122

REFERENCES................................................................................................................123

APPENDICES.................................................................................................................145

VITA….......................................................................................................................... ..165

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Study Globalization has touched almost every pe rson and locale in today’s world. As an economic force, globalization means increa sed power for organizations, people, and global markets (Friedman, 2000). As a political force, globalization has provided people, in once isolated countries in the continents of Africa and Asia, acce ss to the ideals of democracy and international law (Lechner & Bo li, 2000). As a social force, globalization endangers less commonly spoken languages and cultural distinctions , increases cultural imperialism, and can even change people’s identities (Barber, 1995; Said, 1993; Spring, 1998). “Some people see globalization as incr easing the homogeneity of societies, whereas others see it as increasing the hybrid ization of cultures” (Torres, 2002, p. 365). Friedman (2000) maintains that globalization is not a mere phenomenon; “It is not just some passing trend” (p. 7), ra ther it is an overwhelming international system shaping domestic politics and the forei gn relations of virtually every country in the world. Hence, depending on how it is perceived, globaliza tion has its “advocates, adversaries, and ambivalents” (Zeleza, 2007, p. 80). For this study globalization denotes “The international flow of ideas and knowledge, the sharing of cultures, global civil society, and the environmental movement” (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 4). Changes are taking place on every level: economic, social, and political; and although the implications of these changes are still blur red, it is clear that they are profound. Information, people, and ideas now traverse the globe with unprecedented speed and frequency. Yet, educational discourse in most cases has continued to remain

2 passive, overwhelmed by issues and stan dards set years before the world was overpowered by technology and the open market s (Stewart & Kagan, 2005). As a nation, “we can no more afford to isolate ourselv es educationally than we can economically” (Stewart & Kagan, 2005, p. 241). This situation requires the same urgency for reform in education as we would give to any crisis in this country. The global transf ormations that are shrinking the world and innovating th e way business is done in the global marketplace should mandate a modification in the school curriculum to include global education and global citizenship to get high school students ready to join the global workforce. Wehling (2007) voices a similar c oncern about education not reflecting global changes taking place when he states, “I simply don’t understand why politicians, the news media, and even educators themselves aren’t more alarmed by the fact that dozens of countries make education improvement a t op national priority”. He adds, “Why aren’t more people concerned about the implications of this (downward trend of education) for our economy and the future of our society” (p. 5). Statement of the Problem The social studies curriculum includes subject matter on glob al education and global citizenship intended to create global aw areness. However, an in-depth review of the current literature indicates that there is a paucity of research on global education and global citizenship and their combined rele vance to high school students who are on the threshold of making life-changing decisions. Th is lack-luster interest even in social studies stems from the general neglect of the subject matter in the curriculum especially since high stakes testing t ook precedence (Barber, 2002; Hicks, 2003; Merryfield, 1997; Pike & Selby, 2000). Although The No Child Left Behind (2001) legislation specifies

3 history, geography, civics and government, and economics as core subjects, it does not include social science as an area to be tested (Neil & Guisbond, 2005; Pascopella, 2004; & Rabb, 2004). Petrilli, the then acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for the U.S. Department of Education’s office of Innovation and Improvement reinforced this situation by proclaiming that “nowhere in the legislation are educators told they are not to teach social studies” (Manzo, 2005, p. 2). However, it is evident that pressures to increase instructional time for the subjects that are tested have resulted in a reduction of time spent on subjects that are not tested (Burroughs, Groce, & Webeck, 2005). As a result, students may graduate with a good knowledge of the subjects that are tested but yet lack the skills of living in a mosaic world fraught with complexities such as social, political, cultural and environmental threats. In a study done by Fernandez, Massey, and Dornbusch (1978) in the high schools of San Francisco the findings seemed to suggest that social studies would be important to students if they believed that it prepared them for their future. There seems to be a disconnect between students’ perception of the subject and the actual curriculum and pedagogy in social science education. This could possibly place students at a disadvantage in a competitive, innovative, and technologically progressive world that demands different literacies (Dubin & Kuhlman, 1992) and competencies (Reimers, 2009). A corollary to this problem is that students’ voices are seldom heard or considered (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). The dearth of literature dealing with student opinions or views about their own schooling is evident in the field of research (Calvert, 1975; Cook- Sather, 2002; Weinstein, 1983). Statements of educational aims such as those that appear in suggestions to teachers, school prospectuses and school mission statements correctly

4 focus on the student as the “principal beneficiary of the education system” (Calvert, 1975, p. 3). Yet, “every other group concerned with education: teachers, administrators, planners, and parents, employers and society at large – can obtain a better hearing of their point of view than can the pupil” (Calvert, 1975, p. 3). Therefore, this study sought to develop an instrument that reflects high school students’ perceptions and attitudes on topics related to global awareness. It also sought to determine whether students’ considered global awareness and their attitudes towards social issues as essential ingredients for participation in the global workforce. A comprehensive search of studies done over the last 75 years for an instrument to measure high school students’ perspectives of global education, or an evaluation of the appropriateness of their current education to their future careers and global citizenship did not yield any relevant results. However, a few studies focused on high school and college students’ attitudes and awareness about the world at large and these were reviewed for content. Neumann (1926), who developed The Attitude Indicator dealt with 12 “international attitudes of high school students” (p. 795). Lentz (1950) studied the “phenomenon of worldism vs. nationalism” (p. 207). Some years later in 1957, Sampson and Smith developed a scale to measure world-mindedness in university students. Bingham (1979) presented her Acceptance of Global Education Scale (ACES) for teachers, and it was the first time the phrase global education appeared in tests. Silvernail (1979) introduced the Future World Perspectives Scale. This was followed by two studies done by Barrows, one with in collaboration with Pike, Barrows, Mahoney, and Jungeblut (1979), who was the lead researcher, that was designed for grades 4, 8, and 12. The second study by Barrows and a host of associates (1981) was done on undergraduate

5 students called the Global Understanding Scale. Finally, the review of the literature revealed that the Global Mindedness Scale by Hett (1993), which had been very popular in its use in dissertations and in related studies was not feasible for this study since the scale dealt with knowledge of discrete issues, trends, and systems that have a global impact. Some of the more recent instruments began to look more closely at beliefs, values about culture, world-mindedness, and having global perspectives. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI; Hammer & Bennett, 1998) is a cross-culturally generalizable instrument with good validity and reliability estimates of an individual’s and group’s core orientations toward cultural differences. The Beliefs, Events, Values Inventory (BEVI; Shealy, 2000) was designed to understand whether, how, and to what degree people are (or are likely to be) ‘open’ to various transformational experiences, such as participating in international education. While Braskamp, Braskamp and Merrill’s Gobal Perspective Inventory (GPI; 2007) provides an empirically-based understanding of the relationship between service participation and students’ development of a global perspective, while providing an empirical roadmap for educators interested in a service- based model of college development (Engberg, 2010). These instruments were not adopted for the present study because the samples used in the studies were inappropriate for this study. Almost all of them were designed for undergraduate students. Others addressed concepts not exactly aligned with this study. Some of the instruments dealt exclusively with culture while others addressed knowledge values and attitudes relevant to their community at the time. Hence, they were considered irrelevant in today’s enigmatic world where technology has shrunk the earth

6 and changed the landscape of education. Th e instruments in question, in some cases, failed to recognize the adve nt of a knowledge society (World Bank, 2003), a knowledge economy (Neef, 1999), and the skills required to be viable in the global workforce today, which must be redefined within the framework of globalization. For all the reasons outlined above, it becam e apparent that it was necessary for this study to be undertaken in order to ask hi gh school students their perspectives on their education in the field of the social sciences to shed more light on their preparedness to join the global workforce. To do so a new instrument was developed to provide answers to the following research questions. Research Questions 1.

Can acceptable validity and reliability estim ates be established for an instrument developed to measure high school students' global awareness? 2.

Can acceptable validity and reliability estim ates be established for an instrument developed to measure high schools students' attitudes on global social issues? 3. What is the relationship between high school students’ GPA, race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, parents’ education, getting th e news, reading and listening habits, the number of classes taken in the social sciences, whether they speak a second language, and have experienced living in or visiting other countries, and their perception of global awareness and atti tudes toward global social issues? For this study global awareness is cons idered to be the “knowledge of the interrelatedness of local, global, internati onal, and intercultura l issues, trends, and systems” (Florida International Univer sity’s Quality Enhancement Plan, 2010, p.23).

7 Global awareness represents the “cognitive or knowledge aspect of students’ perceptions” (Clarke, 2004, p.56). This study examines student s’ global awareness and attitudes within the framework of the constructs adopted fo r this study namely: global education, global citizenship, and global workforce. The stance taken for this study is that do students in high schools possess global awareness that is achieved through global education? Global Education What is global education? Even t hough scholars (Anderson, 1968; Becker, 1982; Case, 1993; Kirkwood, 2001; Kniep, 1986; La my, 1987; Pike & Selby, 2000) have wrangled with its illusive definition since its initiation and throughout its evolution, the definition of global education still presents a “linguistic confusi on” (Popkewitz, 1980, p. 303). Tye and Tye (1992) posit that global education involves l earning about those problems and issues, “which cut across na tional boundaries, and the interconnectedness of cultural, environmental, economic, political and technological systems” (p. 87), while Osler and Vincent (2002) claim that “globa l education encompasses the strategies, policies and plans that prepar e young people for living together in an interdependent world….” (p. 2). The latter add that globa l education includes th e teaching of human rights and social justice as a means of en couraging critical th inking and responsible participation. All of these interpretations of global education include similar ideas but from a slightly different viewpoint. As vague as the concept of global ed ucation might seem, there is a very categorical realization that t hose responsible for preparing students to become responsible citizens of their own country and of the world should be trained and willing to deal with difficult and complex global issues. “While the interactions and synergistic dynamics that

8 constitute globalization are many” (Stromqui st, 2002, p. xiii), its re levance to students and their future as well as to this study cannot be underestimated. Fullan (1993), a strong proponent for change in education maintains that “change mirrors life itself” (p. viii). His call for change is based on the claim that education has “a moral purpose which is to make a difference in the lives of students … and to help produ ce citizens who can live and work productively in increasingly dyna mically complex societies” (Fullan, 1993, p. 4). He makes a very strong argument when he identifies the business of schools, as “making improvements, and to make improve ments in an ever changing world is to contend with and manage the forces of change on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). This study borrows some of the salient features from those definitions of global education such as: learning “cross-cultural aw areness” (Hanvey, 1982. p. 162), and the study of “global problems and issues” (Kniep, 1986, p. 437). It also involves the possession of human beliefs and values (Merryfield, 1990), a nd the willingness to make the world a sustainable and more equitable place (Oxf am, 2006) while being trained to become lifelong learners.

Changing Definitions of Literacy To explain the relevance of global literacy to the global workforce, it is necessary to explain the changing definitions of liter acy. “Today even the definitions of what it means to be literate are shifting” (Sluys,L ewinson, & Flint, 2006, p. 199). The definition of literacy has progressed from an exclusive focus on reading and writing to encompass a more inclusive and expansive perspective. Linguists, anthropologi sts, educators and social theorists no longer believe that literacy can be defined as a c oncrete list of skills that people merely manipulate and use. Ra ther, they argue that “becoming literate is

9 about what people do with l iteracy” (Sluys et al., 2006, p. 199); in other words the functional aspect of literacy. “Several forces have brought about and c ontinue to influence transformations of literacy in the workplace. These intertwined economic, organizational, and technological forces have changed the nature of most wor k. Among these forces is participation in the global marketplace…this creates new liter acy demands….” (Mikulecky & Kirkley, 1998, p. 290). Dubin and Kuhlman (1992) discuss th e changing meaning of literacy in their book, Cross-Cultural Literacy: Global Perspectives . They maintain that educators are cognizant of the fact that liter acy, as the “simple definition of ‘reading and writing’ as we conceived of it in 1984” (Dubin & Kuhlma n, 1992, p.vi), has matured. Today most educators concede that change is necessary to cater to the de mands of the knowledge society, and which requires a multitude of liter acies such as: “digital literacy” (Labbo, Reinking, & McKenna, 1998), “ critical literacy” (Muspr att, Luke, & Freebody, 1997), “global literacy” (Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007) , “functional literacy” (Verhoeven, 1998),

and political literacy” (Warre n, 1992). According to Ruddell (1999), the definition of literacy, the perspectives, and th e stances, with which research in literacy (as relevant to the global workforce today) is addressed, ma kes all the difference in the findings. What is meant by global literacy was a question asked at a Building Global

Literacy workshop of the Association of Univers ities and Colleges in Canada (AUCC). They met to discuss how “to provide students with an education that will prepare them for the increasingly complex world of the 21 st century” (2001, p1). Among the many responses received were : students should gain a globa l perspective, cultural

10 understanding, competitiveness, knowledge of languages, new courses emphasizing international issues, and finally “be able to thrive in the international environment” (p.2) Mitchell (2006) joins the conversation on global literacy by offering several interpretations of the twin words - From the Prime Minister of Thailand, Shinawatra (2001) “ I would like them (the students) to have global literacy, think well, be eager for lifelong learning and able to adapt to change”(2 nd para.), from the Queensland University of Technology (2006) “ students seeking employment in job markets that demand and value knowledge of trends….understanding of cultural diversity, knowledge of world regions, cultures and societies, and skills” (2 nd para.).” Mitchell adds, “in an era of globalization, there is the economic context where global literacy means knowledge, skills and practices” (4 th para.) and be able to function effectively in a globalized market. The Summit of 21 st Century Literacy (2005) described global literacy as understanding the interdependence among people and nations and having the ability to interact and collaborate successfully across cultures. As noted there is no single concise description of global literacy. However, this study favors the definition of global literacy as put forward by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2006). It embraces all of the dominant components of the interpretations of global literacy outlined earlier and which also includes some of the main tenets of global education and global citizenship. For them, job seekers who are globally literate should possess the five Cs: communication - be able to speak more than one language, culture - explore and experience the compassion and the curiosity about another culture, citizenship - understand global responsibility, community - understand current international issues, and careers - become lifelong-learners. This study considers

11 global literacy the culmination of a global education in getting the students ready for global citizenship. Global Citizenship “As education has long been tied to ci tizenship, a global ed ucation provides the basis for world citizenship ” (Adams & Carfagna, 2006, p. 159). According to Tye and Tye (1992), such education engages students of all ages and in all su bject matter in "the study of themselves as members of the human species, as inhabitants of planet earth, and as participants in the global social order" (p. xvii). To become world-citizens students must learn to make global connections. They will only be able to do that when they “begin to view themselves as global citi zens in a rapidly changing world when they encounter, compare, experience, and adopt multiple perspectives” (Bacon & Kischner, 2002, p. 48) . They must learn to connect the dots of the contemporar y world they live in – going from the local to the global, crissc rossing between other people, events, and issues in the complex web of today’ s world. Myers, (2006) argues that: Scholarship on globalization suggests that new forms of democratic citizenship are emerging, yet the United States’ edu cational system remains resistant to global perspectives in the curriculum and continues to favor national patriotism over learning about the world. (p.370) Americans who wish to exercise effectiv e citizenship in a democratic society within a nation-state or a “global village” (McLuhan, 1967, p. 63) in the 21st century will have to be knowledgeable about global i ssues. Education today needs to include establishing contacts with students in other nations, to help promote mutual understanding and problem solving (Engler & Hunt, 2004). Heater (1999) strongly

12 asserts that globalization is the foremost reason that global citizenship has become a viable concept today; and a lthough the phrase “global citizen s” is in circulation in educational circles there is li ttle understanding of its far reaching implications for the present-day students. This study borrows fr om all of the above-mentioned proponents of global citizenship its foremost principle, which is: preparing young citizens through global education to play an active role in understanding global issues and problems and being able to offer solutions for a more e quitable and sustainable world (Oxfam 2006). Global citizenship is an in trinsic part of global educ ation, and together they provide the requisites necessary for the students to participate in the global workforce. Global citizenship entails the willingness to apply the knowledge of interrelated global issues and multi-perspective analytical skills to local and global problem solving (Florida International University’s Quality Enhan cement Plan, 2010). Zembylas (2003) in his book review of Osler and Vincent’s Citizenship and the Challenge of Global Education

presents a rather clear relationship of globa l education, global citi zenship and the global workforce when he writes: They [Osler & Vincent] explore educatio nal responses to globalization such as efforts to create a skilled workforce to compete in a world job-market, and efforts to create cosmopolitan citizens 1 capable of participating in democratic processes to resolve problems facing the global community. (p.388) Global Workforce Today because of globalization, multina tional/transnational firms now have workforces that are spread across contin ents and countries, an d that include an

1 “Global citizenship” used in the same article with the same connotation.

13 increasingly complex blend of cultures, nati onalities, and languages participating in a very competitive environment (Rosenzweig, 1998). William J. Clinton, the United States President in 2000 in a “Memorandum on Intern ational Education Policy” dated 19 April, stated, “To continue to compet e successfully in the global economy and to maintain its role as a world leader, the United States n eeds to ensure its citizens develop a broad understanding of the world, pr oficiency in other language s, and knowledge of other cultures” (as cited in Hunter, 2004, p. 9). “T he link between educat ion and the economy drives other nations and must inspire us” (Rust, 2007, p. 131). Globalization has forever changed the education landscap e. “We live in an interdep endent economic universe… and economic success for any country depends on the educational attainment of its population….” (p.131), and the transl ation of that education is to get high school students ready for global citizenship and the global work force. The key elements of that education can be found in a global education. Assumptions The basic assumptions of this study are as follows: 1.

Students will have taken some social scie nce classes or other subjects that dealt with concepts of global e ducation and global citizenship, and that they will have some knowledge about current world issues, environmental problems, and cultural and religious intricacies to be ab le to answer questions in the survey. 2.

The students who return parental permi ssion forms are representative of students who do not return parental permission forms. 3.

The students who participate will an swer the questions conscientiously.

14 Significance of the Study There are two important issues addressed in this study. The first is gauging high school students’ perceptions of global awareness and the se cond is measuring students’ attitudes towards global issues. The history of education reform has always been to mandate other people to do things supposedly for the good of the students but in the “‘hierarchical structure of education” (Lev in, 2000, p. 155), the student s are at the lowest rung. “Traditionally, students have been ove rlooked as valuable resources in the restructuring of schools” (Soo Hoo, 1993, p. 392; see also Ivey & Broaddus, 2001; Vaughn, Schumm, Klingner, & Saumell, 1995). Prior studies have generally focused on researchers’ analyses and interpretations ra ther than students’ pe rspectives (Jencks & Phillips, 1998). “When adults do think of st udents, they think of them as potential beneficiaries of change. They rarely think of students as participants in a process of change and of organizational life” (Fullan, 2001, p. 151). This research is fueled by the recognition that students influence instru ction and decision-making in the classroom (Wolfson & Nash, 1968), and that their opinions are as valuable as those of teachers (Berliner, 1976). Phelan, Davidson and Cao ( 1992) argued that it is imperative to give more attention to “students’ view of things that affect their le arning, not so much to factors outside school, but to those in school that teachers and policy makers have some power to change” (p. 696). The second segment of this research is the development of an instrument since no appropriate instrument was available for this study. The development of this instrument will: (a) help educators assess high school stud ents’ global awareness and their attitudes on global issues: (b) give students the rare opportunity to express themselves on their

Full document contains 177 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to measure high school students' perspectives on global awareness and attitudes toward social issues. The research questions that guided this study were: (a) Can acceptable validity and reliability estimates be established for an instrument developed to measure high schools students' global awareness? (b) Can acceptable validity and reliability estimates be established for an instrument developed to measure high schools students' attitudes towards global social issues? (c) What is the relationship between high school students' GPA, race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, parents' education, getting the news, reading and listening habits, the number of classes taken in the social sciences, whether they speak a second language, and have experienced living in or visiting other countries, and their perception of global awareness and attitudes toward global social issues. An ex post facto research design was used and the data were collected using a 4-part Likert-type survey. It was administered to 14 schools in the Miami-Dade County, Florida area to 704 students. A factor analysis with an orthogonal varimax rotation was vii used to select the factors that best represented the three constructs - global education, global citizenship, and global workforce. This was done to establish construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the instrument. Descriptive statistics and a hierarchical multiple regression were used for the demographics to establish their relationship, if any, to the findings. Key findings of the study were that reliable and valid estimates can be developed for the instrument. The multiple regression analysis for model 1 and 2 accounted for a variance of 3% and 5% for self-perceptions of global awareness (factor 1). The regression model also accounted for a 5% and 13% variance in the two models for attitudes toward global social issues (factor 2). The demographics that were statistically significant were: ethnicity, gender, SES, parents' education, listening to music, getting the news, speaking a second language, GPA, classes taken in the social sciences, and visiting other countries. An important finding for the study was those attending public schools (as opposed to private schools) had more positive attitudes towards global social issues (factor 2) The statistics indicated that these students had taken history, economics, and social studies - a curriculum infused with global perspectives.