This study investigates international students’ perceptions of the issues they face using English as a second language while attending American higher education institutions. In order to fully understand those challenges involved in learning English as a Second Language, it is necessary to know the extent to which international students have mastered the English language before they start their study in America. Most international students experience an overload of English language input upon arrival in the United States. Cultural differences influence international students’ learning of English in other ways, including international students’ isolation within their communities and America’s lack of teaching listening skills to its own students.  Other factors also affect international students’ learning of English, such as the  many forms of informal English spoken in the USA, as well as a variety of dialects. Moreover, since most international students have learned English in an environment that precluded much contact with spoken English, they often speak English with an accent that reveals their own language. This study offers informed insight into the complicated process of simultaneously learning the language and culture of another country.

Readers will find three main voices in addition to the international students who “speak” (in quotation marks) throughout this article. Hong Li, a Chinese doctoral student in English Education at the  University of Missouri-Columbia, authored the “regular” text. Second, Roy F. Fox’s voice appears in italics. Fox is Professor of English Education and Chair of the Department of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Third, Dario J. Almarza’s voice appears in boldface. Almarza, a native of Venezuela, is an Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education at the same institution.

Journalists, book authors, and think tank members have been extremely critical of how literacy is presented in schools. Many of these critics who are inexperienced in literacy education believe that educators are inadequately teaching reading and writing. Those most critical of the “inadequate skills perspective” are usually experts in their respective fields, including neuroscience, speech-language pathology, and educational psychology. Not surprisingly, their fields of expertise are not fine-tuned in  the field of literacy.  These critics are more likely to promote balanced and constructive criticisms if they (a) hold graduate degrees in the areas in which they serve as critics, (b) collaborate with colleagues who believe in different points of view, (c) maintain rigorous peer-review standards before releasing research findings to the media, (d) have practical experience in schools, and (e) attend professional development sessions concerning big-picture perspectives and make observations in schools where these perspectives have been effectively implemented.

This paper draws upon a case study of library and information science (LIS) international doctoral students in the United States and documents their perspectives to identify ways to further internationalization. Internationalization is defined as incorporating non-US issues and elements into LIS education. The study explores internationalization in the context of a “two-way” learning process in which international students gain from the discipline, but also LIS education gains from the  cross- cultural experiences of the students. Documenting the perspectives of LIS international doctoral students provides a critical outlook by giving voice to an under-represented group. It also becomes a methodological    strategy    to    represent    global    diversity    and    facilitate     cross-cultural exchange.

This study focuses on the rate of the participation of the member countries in the objectives of UNESCO. Text-based approach in method of content analysis has been used to carry out the study. The objectives  of UNESCO have been identified and examined to reveal whether the member countries acknowledge these objectives among their national educational objectives. The study is limited with the data available on the UNESCO Web Page (World Data on Education of UNESCO). It has been found that only 5 of the member countries have fully adopted the objectives of UNESCO, which means that the national educational objectives of the remaining 97% of the member countries do not fully reflect UNESCO’s objectives in their education policies. The most highly participated objectives are “Equality” with 56.05%, “Human Rights” with 35.03%, “Freedom” with 25.47%, “Universal Values” with 19.10% and finally “Peace” with 15.28%. This situation may put UNESCO’s existence into danger in the future, and may cause serious doubts about its activities and its future success.

The author situates this paper within ongoing debates in related areas such as reflective practice, critical pedagogy, practical wisdom and critical theory. First, the author identifies some of the problems in the present notions of reflective teaching and progressive teacher education. He analyzes and compares the traditional-technical and interpretive literature on teaching and teacher education. None of these conceptions deal with teaching and teacher education in a reflexive way. Some problems the author identifies are located in the history of the concept “reflective teaching” and its interpretive underpinnings. Others emerge from particular applications within teacher education itself. The author’s critique challenges the prevalent conceptions of interpretive reflective teaching, and proceeds to offer a critical framework for further reconstruction of the theory and practice of reflective teaching. The final section offers an alternative conceptualization of teaching and teacher education as a post-foundational and moral-political philosophy.