critical thinking global citizenship

Screen Menu

Screen Front Menu

Gced basic search form, quick search, resource type, you are here.

Critical thinking is clear, rational, logical, and independent thinking. It’s about improving thinking by analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing how we think. It also means thinking in a self-regulated and self-corrective manner. It’s thinking on purpose! The Critical Thinking Workbook helps you and your students develop mindful communication and problem-solving skills with exciting games and activities. It has activities that are adaptable to any grade level you want. The activity pages in the Critical Thinking Workbook are meant to be shared and explored. Use it as an electronic document or as worksheets. You can either print off the pages and use them as activity sheets, or you can edit them directly right in the document on your computer. There are also Answer Keys for the activities that need them provided at the back of the book.

Four Literacies for Responsible Global Citizenship

A framework for global citizenship education

by: Dr. Evan Saperstein

date: September 19, 2022

In recent years, because of globalization, the world has become increasingly small and interdependent. No longer confined by place of birth or residence, citizens have a collective responsibility to participate in a globalized society.

In 2015, the UN General Assembly recognized this responsibility by adopting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The resolution includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that seek to promote far-reaching social, health, environmental, and political change.

At the same time, several Canadian ministries of education have stressed the importance of integrating the UN SDGs and contemporary world issues into the curriculum as part of a field of study known as global citizenship education (GCE). As a discipline, GCE aims to provide students with the knowledge, skills, and values to address critical global challenges. These include the alarming spread of misinformation, a global health crisis, climate change, and a growing threat to the liberal international order. While some provinces have incorporated GCE into their curricula, most do not offer it as a stand-alone course.

More Canadian ministries of education should adopt a required half-year course at the secondary level on responsible global citizenship. They should seek to equip students with critical thinking skills, including media and information literacy (the ability to find and evaluate information), health literacy (the ability to make informed health decisions), ecological literacy (the ability to identify and take action on environmental issues), and democratic literacy (the ability to understand and participate in civic affairs). Various stakeholders have a vested interest, including school administrators, teachers, curriculum writers, policymakers, scholars, and professors.

Responsible global citizenship

The conceptual framework below (Figure 1) ties responsible global citizenship to critical thinking through four literacies:

• media and information literacy
• health literacy
• ecological literacy
• democratic literacy

As the framework reflects, critical thinking is a necessary skill to achieve responsible global citizenship. The UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE) (2013) defines critical thinking as a “process that involves asking appropriate questions, gathering and creatively sorting through relevant information, relating new information to existing knowledge, re-examining beliefs and assumptions, reasoning logically, and drawing reliable and trustworthy conclusions” (p. 15). Critical thinking skills help global citizens make responsible choices when consuming information about the media, health, environment, and democracy. These skills are necessary to evaluate the abundance of information (and misinformation) in the digital age. They also play a central role in making evidence-based health decisions, provide a foundation for exploring today’s complex and interdependent ecosystem, and encourage the kind of civic engagement and participation needed to preserve a functioning democracy.

Media and information literacy

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadians have spent more time on the internet and their smartphones. A recent survey found that 98 percent of Canadians aged 15 to 24 years old use the internet (Statistics Canada, 2021). The survey also noted that 71 percent also check their smartphone, at a minimum, every half hour (Statistics Canada, 2021).

While Canadian youth have unprecedented access to knowledge and information, they are at the same time exposed to more misinformation and disinformation than at any other time in history. This makes it even more critical that students receive media and information literacy training at an early age.

Several organizations, including UNESCO, have taken notice. A decade after publishing the first edition of its media and information literacy curriculum, UNESCO (2021) released  Think Critically, Click Wisely: Media and information literate citizens . The more-than-400-page document provides a curriculum and competency framework, along with modules divided into separate units. It also includes useful pedagogical approaches and strategies for teachers.

Meanwhile, in Canada, other organizations (e.g. the Association for Media Literacy, the Canadian Association of Media Education Organizations, and MediaSmarts) have promoted media and information literacy instruction. And for more than three decades, Canadian provinces and territories have incorporated such content into their curriculum. However, as the only Western nation without a federal department of education, Canada has a media and information literacy curriculum that varies by province and territory.

This moment requires increased focus and attention to help Canadian students learn how to think critically when evaluating the media and its information sources and distinguishing between fact and fiction while using information tools. As such, ministries of education should consider adding the following topics in the proposed media and information literacy unit:

• introduction to the media landscape, research process, and critical thinking
• print media versus digital media
• navigating through misinformation and disinformation
• the ethical use of information.

Health literacy

The COVID-19 pandemic is shining a light on the importance of health literacy. The Public Health Agency of Canada defines it as the “ability to access, understand, evaluate and communicate information as a way to promote, maintain and improve health in a variety of settings across the life-course” (Rootman & Gordon-El-Bihbety, 2008, p. 11). This form of literacy requires both knowledge and competence in health-related disciplines.

It should come as no surprise that Canadians lacking health literacy skills are less likely to retrieve reliable information or make informed choices. In fact, limited health literacy (or health illiteracy) can directly impact whether individuals comply with data-driven public health guidance. What’s more, the rapid dissemination of COVID-19 misinformation has placed them at an even greater health risk.

At an organizational level, public health agencies have struggled to manage the current “infodemic” (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2021). In a Public Policy Forum report, University of Toronto professors Eric Merkley and Peter Loewen (2021) provide five recommendations, including to:

• “track misinformation and debunk when needed”
• emphasize “accuracy-focused messaging”
• use “targeted persuasion focusing on downstream behaviours”
• “build relationships with trusted community leaders”
• “start early” (pp. 22–23).

Additionally, medical professionals should provide up-to-date, credible information to large audiences through a strong social media presence.

At the school and board level, teachers and administrators should promote more health literacy instruction. While the concept of health-promoting schools dates back nearly three decades, there is an even greater imperative for students today. In fact, the World Health Organization and UNESCO (2021) recently proposed a whole-school approach to encourage student health and well-being, ranging from school policies and resources to a greater focus on community partnerships and a positive social-emotional environment.

Adopting these standards will help to facilitate cooperation among ministries of education, schools, and civil society organizations. Accordingly, a health literacy unit should include:

• introduction to personal and organizational health literacy
• navigating and evaluating online health information
• responsible and shared decision-making on health and well-being
• pandemic prevention/preparedness.

Ecological literacy

Being a responsible global citizen also requires ecological literacy – defined as “a way of thinking about the world in terms of its interdependent natural and human systems, including a consideration of the consequences of human actions and interactions within the natural context” (Manitoba Education and Training, 2017, p. 15). On top of the combined infodemic-pandemic, an ecological crisis continues to deteriorate. Earlier this year, the federal government released a 768-page document ( Health of Canadians in a Changing Climate: Advancing our knowledge for action ) that examines the serious threat climate change poses to Canadians’ health (Berry & Schnitter, 2022). The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021) report, in particular, details the negative impact of greenhouse gas emissions, which is causing increasing temperatures and frequent natural disasters. Additionally, more than half of the world’s key biodiversity areas remain unprotected while pollution levels keep rising (UN, 2021).

A recent poll conducted by Ipsos (2021), in collaboration with the Canadian Youth Alliance for Climate Action (CYACA), examined the views of young Canadians 18 to 29 years old on climate change. The study found that Canadian youth consider climate change to be a top-five issue of concern after housing, COVID-19, health care, and unemployment. Upon reviewing each province’s secondary school science curriculum, sustainability researchers Seth  Wynes and Kimberly Nicholas (2019) conclude that there is insufficient focus on scientific consensus, impacts, or solutions to climate change. Government leaders may be more likely to fulfill their climate action promises if Canada does more to develop responsible environmental citizens through climate change education.

Ecological literacy, however, is not limited to climate change education and will require students to acquire skills and competencies in other areas. In addition to climate change, this unit should include:

• environmental ethics
• responsible consumption and production
• energy conservation.

Democratic literacy

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the Canadian way of life has contributed to the discontent many feel. According to a Pew Research Center survey, while only 29 percent of Canadians at the beginning of the pandemic believed the country was more divided than before the outbreak, 61 percent held that view by the following year (Wike & Fetterolf, 2021).

Pandemic fatigue, however, should not serve as an excuse for undermining democratic institutions and norms. Indeed, in the latest edition of  The Economist   Intelligence Unit’s (2022) Democracy Index (global democracy rankings), Canada dropped seven spots (5th to 12th place). The report highlights a troubling trend – one in which Canadian citizens express an increasing level of support for non-democratic ideas and values.

Civically literate citizens are more likely to understand the inner workings of the democracy and participate through voting, peaceful assembly, or other forms of engagement (The Samara Centre for Democracy, 2019). The Samara Centre for Democracy (2019) report explains that civic literacy can be developed during the Canadian citizenship process, at home, in schools, and outside the classroom. Schools are a particularly important forum through which Canadian youth can learn about civic participation and engagement.

In a civics unit, students should have the opportunity to hear diverse perspectives, make informed opinions, and actively participate in the community. Democratic literacy content should include a discussion on:

• liberal democratic governance and values
• civic rights and responsibilities
• civic engagement and participation
• challenges to the liberal democratic order (e.g. the rise of populism, authoritarianism).

As teachers prepare students for a post-pandemic world, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot address the needs of every student. Yet, there should be a common framework.

The responsible global citizenship framework can serve to guide ministries of education seeking to implement practical and relevant GCE-related courses and content. To develop responsible global citizens and critical thinkers requires the advancement of media and information, health, ecological, and democratic literacies. These four literacies are critical for Canada’s future success and relevance in a global society.

Illustration: iStock

First published in  Education Canada , September 2022

Berry, P., & Schnitter, R. (Eds.). (2022).   Health of Canadians in a changing climate: Advancing our knowledge for action . Health Canada. https://changingclimate.ca/site/assets/uploads/sites/5/2022/02/CCHA-REPORT-EN.pdf

The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2022).   Democracy index 2021: The China challenge . www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021).   Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge University. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Ipsos. (2021).   Young Canadians’ attitudes on climate change . www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-10/CYACA%20Report%2020211004_0.pdf

Manitoba Education and Training. (2017).  Grade 12 Global Issues: Citizenship and Sustainability .

https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/ cur/socstud/global_issues/ full_doc.pdf  

Public Health Agency of Canada. (2021).   A vision to transform Canada’s public health system . Government of Canada. www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/corporate/publications/chief-public-health-officer-reports-state-public-health-canada/state-public-health-canada-2021/cpho-report-eng.pdf

Rootman, I., & Gordon-El-Bihbety, D. (2008).   A vision for a health literate Canada: Report of the expert panel on health literacy . Canadian Public Health Association. https://swselfmanagement.ca/uploads/ResourceDocuments/CPHA%20(2008)%20A%20Vision%20for%20a%20Health%20Literate%20Canada.pdf

The Samara Centre for Democracy. (2019).   Investing in Canadians’ civic literacy: An answer to fake news and disinformation . www.samaracanada.com/docs/default-source/reports/investing-in-canadians-civic-literacy-by-the-samara-centre-for-democracy.pdf?sfvrsn=66f2072f_4

Statistics Canada. (2021).   Canadian Internet use survey, 2020 . www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/210622/dq210622b-eng.pdf?st=O5mYsIgz

United Nations. (2021).   The sustainable development goals report 2021 . https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2021.pdf

UNESCO. (2021).   Think critically, click wisely: Media and information literate citizens . https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377068

UNESCO-IBE. (2013).   IBE glossary of curriculum terminology . www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/IBE_GlossaryCurriculumTerminology2013_eng.pdf

Wike, R., & Fetterolf, J. (2021).   Global public opinion in an era of democratic anxiety . Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/12/07/global-public-opinion-in-an-era-of-democratic-anxiety

World Health Organization & UNESCO. (2021).   Making every school a health-promoting school: Implementation guidance . https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377941

Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2019).  Climate science curricula in Canadian secondary schools focus on human warming, not scientific consensus, impacts or solutions.  PLoS ONE ,  14 (7), e0218305. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218305

Meet the Expert(s)

Dr. Evan Saperstein

Postdoctoral Fellow, Université de Montréal

Evan Saperstein is a postdoctoral fellow in the citizenship education and history teaching research lab at the Université de Montréal. He also has served as an adjunct professor and a high school Social Studies teacher.

1 /5 Free Articles Left

LOGIN Join The Network

It looks like you've read all of your free articles.

Join the EdCan Network

Join the EdCan Network now for unlimited access to thousands of online articles, to receive our print magazine and access special discount programs.

Thousands of courageous educators rely on our network for content and analysis that can support them working under the radar to reach every learner despite the limitations imposed by the system. You can too.

Not ready to join right now? Check out EdCan Wire for more free content.

It looks like this page isn't available in French.

IDEAS TO SUPPORT EDUCATORS : Subscribe to the EdCan e-Newsletter

Quality research, reports, and professional learning opportunities.

Language Preference Langue de correspondance English Français English Français

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Global Education and Critical Thinking: A Necessary Symbiosis to Educate for Critical Global Citizenship

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is a topic of relevance in current international educational debates, which increasingly focus on the formation of critical citizenship. This makes it necessary to discover from a critical pedagogical perspective the relationships between this pedagogical approach, Critical Thinking (CT), and GCE. Throughout this study, through an extensive theoretical review of the literature, we try to show the characteristics in which critical pedagogy, GCE, and CT converge, giving rise to the Critical GCE towards which we must move today. Therefore, this study is revealing for discovering the path towards which GCE is currently heading by clearly showing the symbiosis between CT and GCE. In conclusion, if we want to educate global citizens, it is necessary not only to have a strong background in GCE but also to develop CT to understand global society critically and the need to act to try to transform the world into one free from oppression and injustice.

1 Introduction

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in recent years stresses the need to create critical citizens to go beyond putting themselves in the situation suffered by people living in impoverished countries; that is, it is intended that Critical GCE – or for social transformation – instructs literate people who think critically and act to transform society through dialogue and respect (Bosio & Waghid, 2022 ; País & Costa, 2020; Torres & Bosio, 2020 ).

Now, what is scientific-critical literacy? The concept of scientific literacy has several interpretations, such as Bybee ( 1996 ) points out four types of scientific literacy: nominal, functional, conceptual–processual, and multidimensional; Hurd’s ( 1998 ) notion, understanding it as a civic competence should develop the ability to think rationally about social, political, economic, or personal issues. Scientific literacy is linked to the development of Critical Thinking (CT) and is understood as the civic competence necessary to think rationally about socioeconomic or personal issues; therefore, a literate person can: differentiate ideas, analyze data, and use scientific knowledge, appreciate the various perspectives (environmental, socioeconomic, and political) from which a problem can be faced, analyze information, apply scientific knowledge, make decisions, and act to solve complex situations (Anderson, 2019 ; Tenreiro-vieira & Vieira, 2013 ).

Educational centers should be aware of the importance of educating literate people who have a global and contextualized vision of social reality. However, this is not usually the case because schools tend to transmit content in a decontextualized and fragmented manner by subject; this results in ending up leaving aside the conflicts that occur in the world and that affect, in one way or another, the daily lives of students (De Castro, 2013 ; Maithreyi, Prabha, & Viknesh, 2022 ). This idea is reflected in the International Manifesto on the GCE elaborated by Oxfam ( 2008 ), which states that educational processes are related to the “growing complexity of the social, economic and political processes of the world in which we live, […] the school continues to be organized today according to an inefficient educational model that does not always respond to the challenges of our contemporaneity” (Oxfam, 2008 , p. 4).

The undeniable role of educational institutions in transforming society from a critical perspective has been one of the topics of pedagogical debates since the end of the twentieth century (Aubert, Duque, Fisas, & Valls, 2004 ; Balls, 2021 ; Hodorovská & Rankovová, 2023 ). Several authors of great pedagogical relevance defend critical pedagogy: Apple ( 2000 , 2002 ), Dewey ( 1938 ), Freire ( 1967 , 1970 ), Giroux ( 1980 , 1997 ), Kincheloe ( 2008 ), Macedo ( 1994 ), or Willis ( 1988 ). Among them, it is worth highlighting Giroux ( 1997 ) who understands critical pedagogy as an “ethical project with roots in critical theory, so that it incorporates both a vision of how society should be constructed and a theory of how current society exploits, dehumanizes and denigrates certain groups of people” (Scott, 2007 , p. 103).

For his part, Freire ( 1997a , b ) does not conceive of an education that does not promote training in values and affirms that the approach to educational reality must be carried out critically in order to transform it and also achieve a change in citizenship. In agreement with this author, Dewey ( 1938 , 1995 ) defends that from education, people should be trained to understand the need to act to transform social reality (Feinberg & Torres, 2014 ). For this reason, critical education is constantly evolving to adapt to the changes occurring in the world, and therefore, from the educational field, it should never “lose sight of the fact that its fundamental concern is human suffering” (Kincheloe, 2008 , p. 40).

Currently, critical pedagogy continues to develop from a similar perspective, seeking an understanding of both the world and the educational system that does not focus solely on the mere acquisition of content. Post-critical or post-modern authors (Astolfi, 1999 ; Morín, 1987 , 2000 ) are situated under this perspective and not only promote renovating currents at the curricular level or the acquisition of knowledge but also emphasize the need to move to action. In this sense, Astolfi ( 1999 ) points out that “learning is not only increasing the “stock” of knowledge, but also […] transforming the ways of conceiving the world” (Astolfi, 1999 , p. 65). Another of the postmodern pedagogues mentioned earlier is Morín ( 1987 , 2000 ), who speaks of complex thinking and indicates a “primordial need to learn to contextualize and, better said, to globalize; that is, to situate knowledge in its organized whole” (Morín, 2000 , p. 61).

These ideas, which underlie Morin’s approach and those of the referent authors in critical and post-critical pedagogy mentioned above, are reflected in the notion of Critical GCE in current research and in the urgency of moving towards the development of global citizens who think critically (Dill & Zambrana, 2020 ; Santamaría-Cárdaba, Martínez-Scott, & Vicente-Mariño, 2021 ). Therefore, Critical GCE seeks to go beyond sensitizing people by promoting the need to act and acquire knowledge in a contextualized manner favoring CT so that everyone understands his or her role in the global society.

2 CT: Key to Global Citizenship

CT is essential in education for global citizenship, but for what reasons? What are the characteristics of CT and why are they related to Critical GCE? This section provides answers to these questions, and therefore, before trying to define CT, it is necessary to highlight some of the most relevant ideas on this issue: 1) thinking carries with it the assimilation of content because we always think about something; 2) thinking is the most valuable way in which people assimilate knowledge through 3 operations: perception, acquisition, and retention; 3) obtaining new knowledge is only possible thanks to the inference capacity of our thinking, which initially starts from the notions already acquired.

There are multiple conceptions of what CT is due to the fact that it is an issue present in various academic fields, but none is universally accepted (Paul & Elder, 2002 ; Philley, 2005 ; Tenreiro-Vieira & Vieira, 2013 ). This lack of consensus leads to the consideration of all notions about CT which encourages Delphi studies on the definition of this concept (Facione, 1990 ). Table 1 shows the definitions proposed by the most relevant authors: Beyer ( 1985 ), Ennis ( 1985 , 1987 , 1996 ), Facione ( 1990 , 2007 ), Halpern ( 1998 , 2006 , 2014 ), Kurfiss ( 1988 ), Lipman ( 1998 ), McPeck ( 1981 ), Paul ( 1993 , 2005 ) or Paul and Elder ( 2002 , 2003 ), among others.

Definitions of CT

Note. Own elaboration.

After observing the definitions given above, a question arises: is CT considered a skill or a way of thinking and a set of capabilities? If attention is paid to the above definitions, it is possible to understand which notion of CT is defended by each author; specifically, CT as a skill can be seen in the definitions of Beyer ( 1985 ), Halpern ( 1998 , 2006 , 2014 ) and McPeck ( 1981 ). However, in the idea of CT as a way of thinking and set of skills is found in the definitions of Ennis ( 1985 , 1987 , 1996 ), Facione ( 1990 , 2007 ), Franco et al. ( 2017 ), Paul ( 1993 , 2005 ), Paul and Elder ( 2002 , 2003 ), Saiz ( 2017 , 2018 ), Solbes and Torres ( 2012 ), and Tamayo et al. ( 2016 ). However, not all definitions of CT can be framed within these two perspectives as is the case of those proposed by Kurfiss ( 1988 ) and Lipman ( 1998 ).

Based on the above definitions, it is possible to appreciate traits in common among them and some allusion to the dimensions of CT, which are: knowledge, norms, dispositions, and capabilities (Vieira, 2018 ). Beyer ( 1985 ), Ennis ( 1985 , 1987 , 1996 ), and Lipman ( 1992 , 1998 ) refer to the capabilities dimension in their definitions by conceiving CT as the ability to analyze information to rely only on reliable sources and to establish reasoned conclusions. Like these authors, Facione ( 1990 , 2007 ) adds to the performance of information analysis the skills of interpreting, evaluating, and drawing inferences to make informed judgments. For his part, Halpern ( 1998 , 2006 , 2014 ) states that the critical thinker must be able to solve problems and make decisions; even, Saiz ( 2017 ) points out that CT requires the ability to reason and decide to solve conflict.

Kurfiss ( 1988 ) focuses his definition on the knowledge dimension, commenting on the need to possess all possible information to be able to investigate a problem and propose hypotheses. In turn, Lipman ( 1998 ) stresses the relevance of knowing the context being studied in order to make reasoned judgments. Likewise, Paul ( 1993 , 2005 ) together with Paul and Elder ( 2002 , 2003 ) emphasize that CT should consist of knowing oneself to improve the quality of reasoning. Tamayo et al. ( 2016 ) propose that CT requires the acquisition of knowledge that allows one to doubt what is established as true to put all issues in doubt and thus place thinking before the need to resolve a conflict.

As McPeck ( 1981 ), Solbes and Torres ( 2012 ), and Walters ( 1994 ) warn, CT requires dispositions, i.e., a critical thinker must be sensitized and informed to act and participate responsibly in society. In this sense, the dimension related to standards is implicit in all the definitions analyzed since a critical thinker must be rigorous, precise, use reliable sources, and be responsible taking into account the social and cultural context of the problem under study. It should be noted that the definition of CT proposed by Franco et al. ( 2017 ) compiles these dimensions noting that CT integrates capacities, dispositions, knowledge, and norms to achieve making assessments, deciding, and solving problems.

In summary, the diversity of definitions provides a wide range of possibilities when it comes to understanding CT. However, if we try to synthesize all the definitions compiled, we could define CT as a way of thinking that comprises various skills to enable people to analyze any situation or problem, differentiate irrelevant information from important information, seek various explanations, establish reasoned and truthful judgments based on evidence, be able to make decisions, and act in search of the best possible solution.

2.1 Components of CT and its Purposes

After understanding what CT is, it is important to comment on the elements that make up this thinking. Plummer, Kebritchi, Leary, and Halverson ( 2022 ) point out the relevance of possessing skills such as interpreting, analyzing, or inferring, although these should not be the objective of CT teaching and assessment. Nowadays, it is considered that the acquisition of skills may not imply CT, since it is likely that they are possessed but that they do not know how to apply them correctly; thus, it is the dispositional or attitudinal component that promotes the ability to adequately apply their skills to think critically. For this reason, most of the reference authors in this field (Ennis, 1996 ; Facione, 2007 ; Halpern, 1998 ; McPeck, 1981 ) consider, from the philosophical viewpoint, that CT is constituted by two elements: cognitive skills and dispositions or attitudes.

In line with this idea from the perspective of psychology, Saiz ( 2018 ) considers that CT has two types of components: cognitive and non-cognitive. The cognitive ones are associated with skills and are only “the processes of perception, learning, and memory […], thinking is an acquisition process, inferential in nature, which encompasses any form of reasoning” (Saiz, 2018 , p. 21). While the non-cognitive or motivational ones are linked to feelings, emotions, or attitudes. The components of CT are interrelated in such a way that “we reason and decide to solve, and we solve to achieve” (Saiz, 2018 , p. 24); that is, people act to change a situation that is unsatisfactory to them and prevents them from achieving well-being.

Therefore, the purpose possessed by the development of CT capabilities is linked to the formation of an active citizenship that understands and acts critically in various “contexts and situations of everyday life, from understanding the meaning of a news item […]; through decision making and personal problem solving […]; to participation in decision-making on public issues” (Vieira, Tenreiro-Vieira, & Martins, 2010 , pp. 101–102). For this reason, didactic resources should be designed based on the dimensions mentioned earlier to promote CT citizenship.

2.2 Capacities, Dispositions, and Difficulties of CT

The complexity of defining the term CT is also reflected when it comes to agreeing on the skills that a critical thinker must develop; in this situation, Tenreiro-Vieira and Vieira ( 2000 ) have been used as a reference and the skills that must be possessed to think critically according to the most relevant authors in the area of CT have been synthesized in Table 2 .

CT capabilities according to different conceptual definitions

In summary, what are the skills that a critical thinker should possess? The most relevant skills that make CT based on Paul ( 2005 ) and Santiuste et al. ( 2001 ) are 1) understanding (identifying the problem and discovering the existing relationships); 2) analyzing (analyzing the information available on the problem, causes, effects, etc.); 3) inferring (inferring data or information that does not appear explicitly on the problem); 4) proposing solutions (being able to formulate solutions to problems and overcome obstacles), and 5) making decisions (choosing a plan of action to achieve a proposed objective).

Before concluding this section, the existing difficulties in proceeding to think critically should be pointed out, which according to Solbes and Torres ( 2012 ) are 1) assuming science as a distant and decontextualized knowledge, which entails not being aware of current social problems; 2) questioning opinions and beliefs based on dominant discourses and ignoring indirect interests; 3) analyzing socio-scientific problems encompassing all their dimensions (scientific, ethical, cultural, social, etc.); 4) to make value judgments on socio-scientific and technological issues in terms of their contribution to the resolution of global problems; and 5) to avoid comfortable and passive attitudes.

Therefore, the formation of a critical global citizenship involves the acquisition of a scientific-critical literacy and is the key to the GCE, by trying to create people capable of thinking for themselves, questioning everything, analyzing both their local and international contexts, comparing the different existing perspectives, and acting by making their own decisions in the face of any problem or situation of injustice.

3 GCE from a Critical Pedagogical Perspective

Education plays a leading role in developing CT to promote democratic citizenship that acts against inequalities and situations that cause suffering to people (Jamatia, 2022 ; McLaren & Kincheloe, 2008 ; Peach & Clare, 2017 ). For this reason, educational centers should enhance the critical literacy of students so that they understand the situations of injustice and contradiction present in today’s world; that is, they should develop a democratic and critical view of reality at both global and local levels to transform the world (Giroux, 2003 ; Jones & Manion, 2023 ).

The Critical GCE seeks to avoid passivity in citizenship, promoting consciences that do not accept existing inequalities and favoring their protagonist in individual and collective actions to try to curb social injustices. Therefore, the aim is to create critical global citizenship, which is why it is argued that education should promote egalitarian societies in which any type of discrimination or oppression should be sold (Leite, 2022 ; Melber, Bjarnesen, Lanzano, & Mususa, 2023 ). In addition, the training provided by schools should not be limited to the memorization of content, since practical exercises should be used to prepare people to live in today’s society (Borghi, 2012 ; McArthur, 2023 ). In other words, if the aim is to educate people who actively participate in transforming society, they must learn by doing.

Thus, if the aim is to build an active global citizenry that participates in today’s democratic society, it is imperative that people do not merely understand issues superficially and that they reflect to make informed judgments (Naiditch, 2010 ; Peach & Clare, 2017 ). As Kitts ( 2022 ) warn, critical pedagogy must be contemplated in educational curricula to be more effective for teachers and students.

However, what are the features of critical citizenship? Table 3 shows these characteristics according to Johnson and Morris ( 2010 , 2012 ) who base themselves on the four objectives of citizenship education proposed by Cogan, Morris, and Print ( 2002 ): “the knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions of citizens” (p. 4).

Features of education for critical citizenship

Note. Own elaboration; own adaptation from the study by Johnson and Morris ( 2010 , p. 90).

In accordance with the above characteristics, it can be seen that education for social transformation requires citizens to know both the reasons for social inequalities and their rights and to be aware of their capacity to act on reality (Mata, Ballesteros, & Padilla, 2013 ). Andreotti ( 2006 ) adds, as previously mentioned, that it is essential to make students critically literate in order for them to understand social reality and North–South inequalities since critical literacy is a key dimension for Critical GCE.

This same author, after studying the arguments on global citizenship proposed by Dobson ( 2005 , 2006 ) and analyzing the effects of colonialism on North–South relations according to Spivak ( 2003 , 2004 ), made a comparison between the soft GCE and the critical GCE. In this sense, recent studies such as those by Andreotti ( 2022 ), Bosio and Waghid ( 2023 ), Giroux and Bosio ( 2021 ), McLaren and Bosio ( 2022 ), or Stein, Andreotti, Suša, Ahenakew, and Čajková ( 2022 ) analyze from a decolonial perspective the importance of educating people who question the information they receive and can think critically from the perspective of GCE.

Understanding Critical GCE in the same way as DeLeon ( 2006 ), as both consider that advocates of critical pedagogy understand education as an act of public character through which they seek to “transform schools towards the pursuit of social justice […] and use education to generate social change and empower educational actors” (DeLeon, 2006 , p. 73). This vision of education as a means to transform society permeates the current GCE, since the Critical GCE requires that people possess the ability to think critically to understand the causes of inequality and social injustices so that they can act to transform society and defend human rights.

The critical citizenship referred to in this study must possess a high level of social responsibility, think critically, and be aware of global problems. This same concept of critical global citizenship is used by Oxley and Morris ( 2013 ) to refer to people who focus on reducing inequalities and actively advocating for social justice; likewise, these authors include the notion of social global citizenship to allude to citizenship that is grounded in critical and postcolonial ideas. However, Jooste and Heleta ( 2017 ) use another different denomination when referring to critical global citizenship as “scholarly” citizenship, which they differentiate from “closed-minded” citizenship being the one that does not care about people living in other areas of the world or possessing another religious ideology.

Today’s changing society makes it necessary for people to acquire various competencies in order to act appropriately in complex situations, and the way forward is CT. Therefore, the formation of critical global citizenship carries with it the development of CT by focusing on “inequality and oppression, critiquing the role of current power relations and economic agendas” (Goren & Yemini, 2017 , p. 171). Authors such as Johnson and Morris ( 2012 ) already announced that CT was directly related to critical pedagogy; in this line, Lipman ( 2003 ) and Moon ( 2008 ) emphasize that the acquisition of new knowledge and the ability to make a judgment are two key aspects of CT and conscientization because “it involves the discovery that one is oppressed and the judgment that such hegemonic power exists in society” (Johnson & Morris, 2012 , p. 286).

4 Conclusion

The GCE that is currently emerging seeks the formation of global and critical citizens, giving rise to a union between the characteristics of the GCE and those of CT, which configures the Critical GCE. Figure 1 illustrates the convergence between the definition and dimensions of both issues; specifically, the definition of GCE and the dimensions proposed by Ortega ( 2007 , 2008 ) are included, and a definition of CT is shown together with the dimensions established by Vieira ( 2018 ), and the result of this union is captured in the definition of Critical GCE, and the dimensions proposed by Johnson and Morris ( 2010 ).

Critical GCE as an area of confluence between GCE and TC. Note: Own elaboration.

As can be seen in the previous figure, the vision of Critical GCE already implies the need to think critically and has dimensions similar to those of CT, since, although it does not have a dimension called thinking criteria, all of them are implicit in the dimensions of Critical GCE.

In conclusion, critical global citizenship needs not only to have solid training in GCE but also to develop its CT as a necessary symbiosis to understand society from a critical perspective, thus aiming to act against injustices and promote a change towards a more sustainable and just society.

Funding information : This study has been funded by the Ministry of Universities through the University Teacher Training (FPU) sub-programme (Reference FPU16/01102).

Author contributions: Noelia Santamaría-Cárdaba has developed this research as part of her doctoral thesis and is the result of a stay at the University of Aveiro. She has written the complete article. Vanessa Ortega-Quevedo has revised and helped to improve the critical thinking section. Judith Cáceres-Iglesias and Katherine Gajardo have revised, corrected, and translated the article into English.

Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

Anderson, A. (2019). Advancing global citizenship education through global competence and critical literacy: Innovative practices for inclusive childhood education. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1–7. 10.1177/2158244019826000 Search in Google Scholar

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy and Practise, 3(1), 40–51. Search in Google Scholar

Andreotti, V. (2022). Gesturing towards decolonial futures: Resonances and tensions at the intersection with systems science. Journal of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, 66(1), 274–287. Search in Google Scholar

Apple, M. (2000). Can critical pedagogies interrupt rightist policies? Educational Theory, 50(2), 229–254. 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00229.x Search in Google Scholar

Apple, M. (2002). Educating “the way God intended”: Markets, standards, religion and inequality. Barcelona: Paidós. Search in Google Scholar

Astolfi, J. (1999). Mistake, a means to teach. Sevilla: Díada. Search in Google Scholar

Aubert, A., Duque, E., Fisas, M., & Valls, R. (2004). Dialogue and transformation: Critical pedagogy in the 21st century. Barcelona: Graó. Search in Google Scholar

Ball, S. J. (2021). The education debate. London: Policy Press. 10.56687/9781447360148 Search in Google Scholar

Beyer, B. (1985). Teaching critical thinking. A direct approach. Social Education, 49(4), 297–303. Search in Google Scholar

Borghi, B. (2012) I, a citizen on the 150th anniversary of the unification of Italy. Italy. Education for citizenship, an investment for the future. In N. Alba, F. García, & A. Santiesteban (Eds.), Educating for civic participation in social science teaching (pp. 317–330). University Association of Teachers of Social Sciences Didactics. Search in Google Scholar

Bosio, E., & Waghid, Y. (2022). Global citizenship education in the global south: Educators’ perceptions and practices. BRILL. Series: Moral Development and Citizenship Education. 10.1163/9789004521742 Search in Google Scholar

Bosio, E., & Waghid, Y. (2023). Cultivating students’ critical consciousness through global citizenship education: Six pedagogical priorities. Prospects. 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11125-023-09652-x . Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, R. (1996). The contemporary reform of science education. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Issues in science education (pp. 1–14). Arlington: National Science Teachers Association. National Science Teachers Association. Search in Google Scholar

Cogan, J., Morris, P., & M. Print. (2002). Civic education in the Asia–Pacific region: Case studies across six societies. London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

De Castro, M. (2013). Where and how to introduce development education into schools schools. CCS. Search in Google Scholar

DeLeon, A. (2006). The time for action is now! Anarchist theory, critical pedagogy, and radical possibilities. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4(2), 72–94. Search in Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Search in Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1995). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Madrid: Morata. Search in Google Scholar

Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2020). Critical thinking about inequality: An emerging lens. In Feminist theory reader (pp. 108–116). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003001201-14 Search in Google Scholar

Dobson, A. (2005). Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and the environment. International Relations, 19, 259–273. 10.1177/0047117805055406 Search in Google Scholar

Dobson, A (2006). Thick Cosmopolitanism. Political Studies, 54, 165–184. 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00571.x Search in Google Scholar

Ennis, R. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 2(43), 1–2. Search in Google Scholar

Ennis, R. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills (pp. 9–26). New York: Freeman and Company. Search in Google Scholar

Ennis, R. (1996). Critical thinking. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Search in Google Scholar

Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Executive Summary “The Delphi Report”. California: California Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar

Facione, P. A. (2007). Critical thinking: What is it and why is it important? Insight Assessment, 23(1), 22–56. Search in Google Scholar

Feinberg, W., & Torres, C. (2014). Democracy and education: John Dewey and Paulo Freire. Cuestiones Pedagógicas, 23(1), 29–42. 10.7459/ept/23.1.03 Search in Google Scholar

Franco, A., Vieira, R. M., & Saiz, C. (2017). Critical thinking: The changes in the university context. Revista de Estudios e Investigación En Psicología y Educación, 7, 11–16. Search in Google Scholar

Freire, P. (1967). Education as a practice of freedom. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Search in Google Scholar

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Search in Google Scholar

Freire, P. (1997a). Pedagogy of autonomy. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Search in Google Scholar

Freire, P. (1997b). In the shade of this tree. Madrid: El Roure. Search in Google Scholar

Giroux, H. (1980). Critical theory and rationality in citizenship education. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(4), 329–366. 10.1080/03626784.1980.11075229 Search in Google Scholar

Giroux, H. (1997). Teachers as intellectuals: Towards a critical pedagogy of learning. Barcelona: Paidós. Search in Google Scholar

Giroux, H. (2003). Pedagogy of the depressed: Beyond the new politics of cynicism. In M. Peters, C. Lankshear, & M. Olssen (Eds.), Critical theory and the human condition; Founders and praxis (pp. 143–168). Barcelona: Peter Lang. Search in Google Scholar

Giroux, H. A., & Bosio, E. (2021). Critical pedagogy and global citizenship education. In E. Bosio (Ed.), Conversations on global citizenship education: Perspectives on research, teaching, and learning in higher education (pp. 1–10). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429346897-1 Search in Google Scholar

Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Citizenship education redefined – A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 170–183. 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.004 Search in Google Scholar

Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. 10.1037//0003-066X.53.4.449 Search in Google Scholar

Halpern, D. (2006). The nature and nurture of critical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg, R. Roediger, & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804632.002 Search in Google Scholar

Halpern, D. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Washington: Psychology Press. Search in Google Scholar

Hodorovská, M., & Rankovová, K. (2023). Reproducing hierarchisation and depoliticisation: Exploring discursive micro processes in global education. Critical Studies in Education, 65(2), 1–17. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2023.2249034 . Search in Google Scholar

Hurd, P. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407–416. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<407::AID-SCE6>3.3.CO;2-Q Search in Google Scholar

Jamatia, P. L. (2022). The role of youth in combating social inequality: Empowering the next generation. Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society, 2(6), 11–20. 10.55529/jlls.26.11.20 Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–96. 10.1080/09585170903560444 Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2012). Critical citizenship education in England and France: A comparative analysis. Comparative Education, 48(3), 283–301. 10.1080/03050068.2011.588885 Search in Google Scholar

Jones, S., & Manion, K. (2023). Critical literacy: An approach to child rights education in Uganda and Canada. Literacy, 57(2), 149–160. 10.1111/lit.12327 Search in Google Scholar

Jooste, N., & Heleta, S. (2017). Global citizenship versus globally competent graduates: A critical view from the South. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(1), 39–51. doi: 10.1177/1028315316637341 . Search in Google Scholar

Kincheloe, J. (2008). Critical pedagogy in the 21st century: Evolving to survive. In P. McLaren & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: What we talk about, where we stand (pp. 25–69). Barcelona: Graó. 10.1007/978-1-4020-8224-5 Search in Google Scholar

Kitts, H. (2022). Critical possibilities for teacher education. Research in Education, 112(1), 80–94. 10.1177/0034523720915738 Search in Google Scholar

Kurfiss, J. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice and possibilities. Washington: Association for Study for Higher Education. Search in Google Scholar

Leite, S. (2022). Using the SDGs for global citizenship education: Definitions, challenges, and opportunities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(3), 401–413. 10.1080/14767724.2021.1882957 Search in Google Scholar

Lipman, M. (1992). Philosophy in the classroom. Madrid: La Torre. Search in Google Scholar

Lipman, M. (1998). Complex thinking and education. Madrid: La Torre. Search in Google Scholar

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Madrid: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840272 Search in Google Scholar

Macedo, D. (1994). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed to know. London: Paradigm. Search in Google Scholar

Maithreyi, R., Prabha, K., & Viknesh, A. (2022). Decontextualized schooling and (child) development: Adivasi communities’ negotiations of early childhood care and education and schooling provisions in India. Children’s Geographies, 20(6), 774–787. 10.1080/14733285.2022.2026884 Search in Google Scholar

Mata, P., Ballesteros, B., & Padilla, M. (2013). Participatory and transformative citizenship: Analysis of discourses and proposals for learning. Teoría de la Educación, 25, 49–68. 10.14201/11573 Search in Google Scholar

McArthur, J. (2023). Rethinking authentic assessment: Work, well-being, and society. Higher Education, 85(1), 85–101. 10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y Search in Google Scholar

McLaren, J., & Kincheloe. (2008). Critical pedagogy: What we are talking about, where we are. Barcelona: Graó. Search in Google Scholar

McLaren, P., & Bosio, E. (2022). Revolutionary critical pedagogy and critical global citizenship education: A conversation with Peter McLaren. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 165–181. 10.1386/ctl_00089_1 Search in Google Scholar

McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. Oxford: Martin Robinson. Search in Google Scholar

Melber, H., Bjarnesen, J., Lanzano, C., & Mususa, P. (2023). Citizenship matters: Explorations into the citizen-state relationship in Africa. Forum for Development Studies, 50(1), 35–58. 10.1080/08039410.2022.2145992 Search in Google Scholar

Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Morín, E. (1987). Introduction to complex thinking. Barcelona: Gedisa. Search in Google Scholar

Morín, E. (2000). A well-ordered mind. Barcelona: Seix barral. Search in Google Scholar

Naiditch, F. (2010). Critical pedagogy and the teaching of reading for social action. Critical Questions in Education, 1(2), 94–107. Search in Google Scholar

Ortega, M. L. (2007). Education for development strategy for Spanish development cooperation. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. Secretariat of State for International Cooperation Directorate General for Planning and Evaluation of Development Policies. Search in Google Scholar

Ortega, M. L. (2008). Education for development: A strategic dimension of Spanish cooperation Spanish cooperation. Cuadernos Internacionales de Tecnología Para el Desarrollo Humano, 7, 15–23. Search in Google Scholar

Oxfam. (2008). Educating for global citizenship. Oxfam. Search in Google Scholar

Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. 10.1080/00071005.2013.798393 Search in Google Scholar

Pais, A., & Costa, M. (2020). An ideology critique of global citizenship education. Critical Studies in Education, 61(1), 1–16. 10.1080/17508487.2017.1318772 Search in Google Scholar

Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. California: Foundations for Critical Thinking. Search in Google Scholar

Paul, R. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. New Directions for Community Colleges, 130, 27–38. 10.1002/cc.193 Search in Google Scholar

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Search in Google Scholar

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). The mini-guide to Critical Thinking. Concepts and tools. http://www.criticalthinking.org/. Search in Google Scholar

Peach, S., & Clare, R. (2017). Global citizenship and critical thinking in higher education curricula and police education: A socially critical vocational perspective. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 7(2), 46–57. Search in Google Scholar

Philley, J. (2005). Critical thinking concepts. Professional Safety, 50, 26–32. Search in Google Scholar

Plummer, K. J., Kebritchi, M., Leary, H. M., & Halverson, D. M. (2022). Enhancing critical thinking skills through decision-based learning. Innovative Higher Education, 47(4), 711–734. 10.1007/s10755-022-09595-9 Search in Google Scholar

Saiz, C. (2017). Critical thinking and change. Madrid: Pirámide. Search in Google Scholar

Saiz, C. (2018). Critical thinking and effectiveness. Madrid: Pirámide. Search in Google Scholar

Santamaría-Cárdaba, N., Martínez-Scott, S., & Vicente-Mariño, M. (2021). Discovering the way: Past, present and possible future lines of global citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19(5), 687–695. 10.1080/14767724.2021.1878012 Search in Google Scholar

Santiuste, B., Ayala, C., Barriguete, C., García, E., Gonzales, J., Rossignoli, J., & Toledo, E. (2001). Critical thinking in educational practice. Barcelona: Fugaz Ediciones. Search in Google Scholar

Scott, D. (2007). Critical essays on major Curriculum theorists. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203461884 Search in Google Scholar

Solbes, J., & Torres, N. (2012). Analysis of critical thinking skills from the approach to socio-scientific issues: A study in the university environment. Didáctica de Las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales, 26, 247–269. Search in Google Scholar

Spivak, G. (2003). A conversation with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Politics and the imagination. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 609–624. 10.1086/342588 Search in Google Scholar

Spivak, G. (2004). Righting wrongs. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 103(2/3), 523–581. 10.1215/00382876-103-2-3-523 Search in Google Scholar

Stein, S., Andreotti, V., Suša, R., Ahenakew, C., & Čajková, T. (2022). From “education for sustainable development” to “education for the end of the world as we know it”. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(3), 274–287. 10.1080/00131857.2020.1835646 Search in Google Scholar

Tamayo, Ó., Zona, R., & Loaiza, Y. (2016). Critical thinking in the science classroom. Colombia: Universidad de Caldas. Search in Google Scholar

Tenreiro-Vieira, C., & Vieira, R. (2000). Promoting students’ critical thinking: Concrete proposals for the classroom. Oporto: Porto Editora. Search in Google Scholar

Tenreiro-vieira, C., & Vieira, R. M. (2013). Literacy and critical thinking: A framework for science and maths education. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 18(52), 163–242. 10.1590/S1413-24782013000100010 Search in Google Scholar

Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020). Global citizenship education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness. Prospects, 48, 99–113. 10.1007/s11125-019-09458-w Search in Google Scholar

Vieira, R. M. (2018). Online communities to promote critical thinking in science teaching. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro. Search in Google Scholar

Vieira, R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira, C., & Martins, I. P. (2010). Critical thinking and scientific literacy. Alambique, 65, 96–103. Search in Google Scholar

Walters, K. S. (1994). Re-thinking reason: New perspectives in critical thinking. New York: SUNY Press. Search in Google Scholar

Willis, P. (1988). Learning to work. How working-class kids get working class jobs. Akal. Search in Google Scholar

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Search the United Nations

• UNAI Principles
• Map of UNAI Members
• List of UNAI Members
• Special Series
• Select UN Events
• UNAI Events
• SDGs Best Practices
• SDGs Guidelines
• SDGs Training Sessions
• SDGs Workshops
• The Why Join Guide
• Tools for Researchers
• Bulletin Board
• Submit the 2024 Activity Report
• Become a Millennium Fellow
• UNAI Voices
• Sustainable Development Goals
• UN Agencies
• UN Information Centres
• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Stories Archive
• UN Publications
• Internships
• X (Former Twitter)

Global Citizenship Education for a More Just and Equitable World

Education is a vehicle for training and transformation to counter growing global challenges and threats, while ensuring the improvement of our own knowledge regarding the wide diversity of citizens around the world. In this sense, education for global citizenship provides a perspective focused precisely on developing a society actively committed to achieving a more equitable and sustainable world, promoting respect for dignity, diversity and human rights and, respecting the environment and fostering responsible consumption.

It is critical to foster educational models that promote critical thinking, greater social awareness and commitment, both locally and globally, taking into consideration the changing context of global dependence and interdependence where the well-being of the global community should be a common aspiration. Because of this, education for global citizenship implies not only knowledge per se but also a skill set complemented with particular attitudes.

Ana G. Méndez University System (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), the UNAI Principle Hub for Global Citizenship, is conducting a research project with the purpose of exploring the terms, words and concepts that better reflect educators' understanding of global citizenship. A review of the literature reveals that there are multiple definitions and a broad set of words that are used to define, illustrate and somehow explain global citizenship.

This finding motivated the design of a research project led by professors David Méndez, Sandra Guzmán and Angel Ginorio, to provoke reflections on the various aspects that affect the understanding of global citizenship. A key component of this is a 6-question survey (the GC-TWC Survey) for UNAI member institutions. The survey, available through an online form until 28 February, contains demographic variables, experiences and perception variables, and an alphabetically organized list of the terms, words and concepts most frequently mentioned in literature.

A descriptive statistics analysis will be used to identify the relevant elements for further study. The research will cover the relationship between global citizenship and cultural, geographical, historical, political and social aspects and, its impact on the teaching-learning process, particularly at the higher education level. The study aims to provide an updated and valuable framework related to education for global citizenship, in line with Goal 4 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Click here to access the questionnaire.

You can learn more about the UNAI Principle Hub for Global Citizenship, Ana G. Méndez University System, here .

UNITED NATIONS

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

TAKE ACTION

• Lazy Person's Guide
• UN Volunteers
• Youth Engagement
• Past Contests and Scholarships
• Request a Speaker
• Visit the UN

NEWS AND MEDIA

• UN News Centre
• Press Releases
• Office of the Spokesperson
• UN in Action
• UN Social Media
• The Essential UN

ISSUES AND CAMPAIGNS

• SDG of the Month
• Observances and Commemorations
• Celebrity Advocates for the UN

• Global Citizenship Education
• UCLA UNESCO Chair on Global Citizenship Education Advisory Committee
• Carlos Alberto Torres
• Challenges and Solutions
• Publications
• GLOBAL COMMONS REVIEW
• Video Gallery

UCLA UNESCO Chair

This website reflects the work done from 2015-2019 at ucla by professor carlos alberto torres as unesco chair on global learning and global citizenship education..

While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality, and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability. Global Citizenship Education is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies. Global Citizenship Education is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector program and builds on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education. It aims to instill in learners the values, attitudes, and behaviors that support responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation, and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.

Core Conceptual Dimensions of Global Citizenship Education

To acquire knowledge, understanding and critical thinking about global, regional, national and local issues and the interconnectedness and interdependency of different countries and populations.

Socio-emotional:

Behavioral:, teaching of global citizenship education, gce publications, global commons review.

Journée internationale pour l’élimination de la discrimination raciale (21 mars 2019) / International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (21 March 2019)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Critical global citizenship education: a study on secondary school students.

• Department of Language, Literature, and Social Studies Didactics, Grup de Recerca en Didàctica de les Ciéncies Socials (GREDICS), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

This article describes a study conducted in Catalonia (Spain) that examines the dimensions of global citizenship education (GCE) that emerge when secondary school students analyse images taken from the digital platforms of the mainstream media. We followed a mixed methodology for the research. To analyse the data, we employed content analysis, in the form of descriptive and inferential statistics. The results show that students in the final year of compulsory secondary education (aged 15–16) have great difficulty with analysing the information and images contained in media from a global citizenship perspective. While students tend to adopt a perspective of social responsibility, they do not have the tools necessary for critical interpretation of social facts and problems; they are still less able to formulate arguments or make decisions relating to actions within the parameters of social justice.

Introduction

Since the winter of 2020, people around the whole world have experienced how their lives have been conditioned because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This context has clearly demonstrated struggles and interrelations between local and global situations: such a planetary problem, experienced in very personal circumstances.

Inequalities, indeed, have increased and become unsustainable both on local and global scales: on the local, people have remained attached to personal situations, marked by gender, economic, social, and age unevenness. In the global, unfair inequities among countries and regions emerged explicitly when referring to health care and vaccination opportunities. Virus transmission knows no borders, but health policies do.

The pandemic context has also given rise to major reflections about citizenship: struggles between freedom and social control policies, social commitment, rights and responsibilities, public services, and national and global political agreements. In addition, facing increasing discriminatory narratives along with racist hate acts and speeches ( Griergson, 2020 ; Joubin, 2020 ; Nhiem and Morstatter, 2021 ) have become a social and political core problem, which again raise the question of whether we are all global citizens, or only some of us are global citizens ( Dower, 2008 ).

These social challenges are not new, but they have intensified during the recent global situation. There is increasing awareness among citizens that there are local and global problems which affect their daily lives, and that those problems are increasingly inter-related. This awareness on the part of citizens is a consequence of the economic, political, and cultural globalisation that has been taking place over the last three decades ( Pak, 2013 ). According to Castells (2005) , the effects of globalisation have been amplified by information technologies, not least the internet, which has contributed to creating a world that is ever more connected. The media have a direct influence on how society and participation are understood. The ability to read those media critically is crucial for education ( Santisteban and González-Valencia, 2013 ).

A range of interpretations of the globalisation process have been produced. Four distinct approaches can be taken from analysis of the theoretical frameworks constructed by Sklair (1999) ; Spring (2004) , and Torres (2015) : neoliberalism, global culture, global systems and post-colonialist interpretations. For her part, Shultz (2007) talks about three perspectives: neoliberal, radical and transformationalist. Those diverse interpretations of globalisation are related to different ways of understanding the world, social relationships or citizenship itself, which can also be translated into teaching on or research into global citizenship education ( Stromquist, 2009 ).

Globalisation has led to the concept of citizenship being called into question if it is considered to be associated with the schema of the nation-state. Gun Chung and Park (2016) reviewed the theoretical frameworks developed by Kymlicka and Norman (1994) ; Faulks (2000) , Janoski and Gran (2009) ; Delanty (1997) , Arthur et al. (2008) ; Reysen and Katzarska-Miller (2013) , and Tully (2014) to demonstrate that citizenship goes beyond legal recognition, since possession of an official document certifying that a person is a “citizen” does not mean that this individual accepts the rights and responsibilities associated with that recognition. Citizenship goes beyond legal recognition and should be associated with the values of a person seeking to improve coexistence within a community. As such, citizenship is linked to the right to participation in order to improve the society surrounding you because, as Cortina argues, citizens are those who try to construct a functioning polis, striving for the common good through their political participation (2009, p. 48).

According to Rauner (1999) and Delanty (1997) , citizenship can be constructed in relation to national and post-national models, such as the supranational, the international, the global and the virtual. Citizenship can also be understood as worldwide or global/local (glocal) ( Bromley, 2009 ). We share the view of Osler and Starkey (2003) that consideration must also be given to state-level citizenship, in other words, local, regional and, in some cases, national. Borders have played a very important role in the reconfiguration of the citizenship concept, both when they are opened for the free movement of goods and capital, and when they are opened or closed for crossing by people or certain groups. Supranational government bodies have also played a crucial role and have been increasing their influence over people’s lives through agreements between states (OECD, European Union, NAFTA, Pacific Alliance, Mercosur, etc.).

There has also been a less positive side to the advance of the globalisation process in the last three decades, in which economics becomes central to everything, to the cost of politics; this has brought about increased poverty, inequality, and pollution, among other things, across the world. In contrast with the negative effects of globalisation, however, there has been the emergence and growth of international charitable organisations, such as Save the Children, Oxfam, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Transparency International, and Greenpeace. These are supranational bodies that work with the idea of global citizenship and open up new avenues for action at the international level.

For Tully (2014) , when we try to connect citizenship with globalisation:

We are already thrown into this remarkably complex inherited field of contested languages, activities, institutions, processes, and the environments in which they take place. This conjoint field is the problematisation of global citizenship: the way that formerly disparate activities, institutions and processes have been gathered together under the rubric of “global citizenship,” become the site of contestation in practice and formulated as a problem in research, policy and theory, and to which diverse solutions are presented and debated (p. 4).

Social, cultural, political, and economic changes “hold special significance in educational settings, where preparing students for a global world has come to play an important role in citizenship education” ( Szelényi and Rhoads, 2007 , p. 25). Schools and teachers should consider the new setting because, according to Felices et al. (2016 , p. 236), they have the task of equipping people with the ability to interpret the reality that surrounds them, to engage with global problems and to play their part in building a better, more democratic future. The goal is for students to develop “the skills, values and attitudes that enable citizens to lead healthy and fulfilled lives, make informed decisions, and respond to local and global challenges through education for sustainable development and global citizenship education, as well as human rights education” ( UNESCO, 2018 , p. 1).

Although the concept of citizenship is associated with the nation-state, new forms of citizenship are growing in the face of globalisation, such as planetary citizenship ( Sant et al., 2018a ). “This means that new forms of education need to be developed. It is unlikely that new forms of education will be achieved by attempting to bolt very different formulations together” ( Davies et al., 2005 , p. 83).

In the light of this situation, education, and particularly social sciences instruction, must contribute to the understanding of these new citizenships and the new forms of participation ( Goren and Yemini, 2017 ; Goren et al., 2019 ). Critical global citizenship education (CGCE) fosters greater understanding of the interrelationships between citizenship, politics, democracy and the globalisation process, and of the consequences of political, economic, cultural, social, and environmental decisions that impact on people’s lives ( O’Meara et al., 2018 ; Bruce et al., 2019 ), emphasising the ethics of participating for the common good and social justice ( Akkari and Maleq, 2020 ). In that context, this paper seeks to answer the following question: do secondary school students apply the various dimensions of CGCE when analysing social facts or problems?

Frame of Global Citizenship Education

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) has emerged from reflections on citizenship in relation to the global world and the challenges of globalisation and its implications for the field of education ( Kerr, 1999 ). Since education, citizenship, and globalisation are core concepts in GCE, all of them complex issues, and there exist a wide multiplicity of visions, interpretations, objectives and conceptions of education for global citizenship ( Sant et al., 2018a ; Akkari and Maleq, 2020 ; González-Valencia et al., 2020 ; Sant and González Valencia, 2018 ). As Sant et al. (2018a , p. 21) explain: “Since there are different views on globalisation, citizenship and education, the views on GCE are, probably, even more diverse.”

As such a contested and diffuse term, Sant et al. (2018a) argue that it would be understandable if it lost meaning and use. However, its use is not only maintained, but consolidated and increased. The literature on education for global citizenship has an extensive corpus, which has increased remarkably over the last decade ( González-Valencia et al., 2020 ). All of these studies agree on the importance of including global citizenship education in social studies programmes. Some authors claim new study perspectives; for example, those who do not deny that there are alternative ways of doing GCE, such as the existence of peoples and nations beyond the concept of the state ( Avery, 2004 ).

Within the great diversity of approaches, two major trends are revealed in considering education for global citizenship ( Dill, 2013 ; Akkari and Maleq, 2020 ). The first is instrumental, geared to the acquisition of competences to be successfully developed in the globalised world, with a significant influence on neoliberal visions. The second is a critical trend (see Section Critical Global Citizenship Education) which includes attention to different perspectives, awareness of being part of a global community and ethics to act for the common good, change and social justice ( Akkari and Maleq, 2020 ). Nancy (2007) explains this duality from the choice between globalisation, on the one hand, and the creation of the world, on the other. They are understood from an exclusive dichotomy, as “one implies the exclusion of the other” ( Sant et al., 2018a , p. 14).

Critical Global Citizenship Education

A definition that serves as a general framework to understand global citizenship is that proposed by UNESCO (2018) , which states that it refers to the sense of belonging to a broader community and to a common humanity, where there is political, economic, and social and cultural interdependence, in interconnection with the local, national and world levels. This institution defines GCE as:

Essentially, GCE addresses three core conceptual dimensions of learning: for education to be transformative, knowledge (cognitive domain) must touch the heart (socio-emotional domain) and turn into action to bring about positive change (behavioural domain). This framework emphasises an education that fulfils individual and national aspirations and thus ensures the well-being of all humanity and the global community at large ( UNESCO, 2018 , p. 2).

The UNESCO’s definition, an institution that is part of the global governance framework, emphasises aspects closer to the psychology of learning and, to a lesser extent, to the political dimension or post-colonialist discourses ( Oxley and Morris, 2013 ). An approach close to a critical dimension of GCE is that of Reysen and Katzarska-Miller (2013) , for whom GCE is understood:

as awareness, caring and embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a sense of responsibility to act. Prior theory and research suggest that being aware of one’s connection with others in the world (global awareness) and embedded in settings that value global citizenship (normative environment) lead to greater identification with global citizens (i.e., prosocial values and behaviours) (p. 858).

This definition puts aspects such as social justice, diversity and awareness at the centre of its approaches; essential aspects in a critical approach: a Critical Global Citizenship Education (CGCE). Although it is true that there are a large number of definitions of CGCE, some authors such as Stromquist (2009) ; Dill (2013) , and Pak (2013) suggest that despite the lack of consensus, it is necessary to develop a greater global awareness among citizens. Following in the line of Dill (2013 , p. 50):

The global consciousness element of global citizenship (…) creates lofty moral expectations: it consists of an awareness of other perspectives, a single humanity as the primary level of community, and a moral conscience to act for the good of the world. The global citizen in this discourse is a moral ideal, a vision of a person who thinks and acts about the world in specific ways: as a universal community without boundaries whose members care for each other and the planet.

UNESCO definitions leave these aspects aside or at a secondary level. Along these lines, Tawil (2013 , p. 5), states that:

In “softer” approaches, the starting point for global dimensions of citizenship education is of a more moral variety based on the notion of a common humanity and a global or world ethic. In more “critical” approaches, the ethical starting point is the concept of social justice as farmed by the international normative instruments of human rights.

Our research assumed the goal of Oxley and Morris (2013) on CGCE:

Our goal is to develop a typology that includes both normative and empirically grounded conceptions of GC in terms of their ideological underpinnings (…). It is thus intended as a device to explore the critical features of a construct that is understood in diverse ways and is changing overtime” (p. 305).

Critical global citizenship education requires critical literacy to identify the ideological dimension of social problems and their stories, on a local and global scale, as well as making invisibilised people and groups visible ( Santisteban et al., 2016 ). It is necessary for CGCE to be accompanied by the teaching of plurality, by the understanding that there are people and groups with different ways of thinking, with different ideologies and interests. CGCE sets out from the imperative that people and peoples have to learn to live together, within ethnic, cultural and religious diversity ( UNESCO, 2018 ). Social studies must serve to teach us to organise ourselves locally and globally, to solve social conflicts and build a future together.

The project also took as reference points the approaches of Oxley and Morris (2013) who consider that there is a direct relationship between global citizenship, cosmopolitan citizenship, and advocacy types. Cosmopolitan citizenship is specified in: political global citizenship, moral global citizenship, economic global citizenship, and cultural global citizenship. For its part, advocacy types are specified in: social global citizenship, critical global citizenship, environmental citizenship, and spiritual global citizenship. Along these lines we find the proposal of the project “Putting the World into World-Class Education” ( Department for Education and Skills, 2004 ), in which it is proposed that in order to work on the global dimension in students the following aspects should be considered: Citizenship, Social Justice, Sustainable development, Diversity, Values, and perceptions and Interdependence, Instilling a global dimension into the learning experience of all children and young people.

From the perspective raised, CGCE is a type of education that seeks to train citizens who recognise, understand social problems and are willing to think and act globally. This perspective transcends the nation-state and is oriented to the search for the highest moral imperatives ( Cortina, 2009 ); that is, to the construction of social justice on a global scale ( Davies, 2006 ; Torres, 2017 ; Sant et al., 2018b ). On the other hand, faced with social problems, people have to analyse the historical, geographical, political, legal, sociological, anthropological, economic, and legal aspects, so that GCE serves to “Empower individuals: to reflect critically on the legacies and processes of their cultures and contexts, to imagine different futures and to take responsibility for their decisions and actions”( Andreotti, 2006 , p. 169). In this perspective we identify ourselves with the idea of an education for critical citizenship ( Andreotti, 2006 ; Tully, 2014 ).

For Scheunpflug and Asbrand (2006) GCE oriented to social justice is considered an appropriate framework to analyse educational proposals, because it includes the central concepts of global citizenship and, in turn, those related to other aspects of education for the critical citizenship. This conception of GCE echoes one of the roots of GCE theoretical framework which is Freirean pedagogy ( Scheunpflug and Asbrand, 2006 ). Because as Freire puts it: “For a more equitable and just society, at the heart of the development educational objectives, people must be able to critically reflect on the world, challenge assumptions that create oppression and reconstruct understanding based on this collaborative inquiry” ( Freire, 1970 , p. 53).

The CGCE must have as its final objective the commitment to social justice and not only have international awareness, according to Davies (2006) :

What seems to happen with global citizenship education is a confirmation of the direct concern with social justice and not just the more minimalist interpretations of global education which are about ‘international awareness’ or being a more rounded person (p. 6).

Can CGCE be a possible answer to what Sant et al. (2018a , p. 14) wondered: “Will global citizenship be part of a creating world for all or will it serve a more destructive project of mono-economic, mono-cultural and mono-political engagement that serves only a small elite?” In this case, it is essential to reflect on the challenges and commitments implied in social studies education to achieve it.

Critical Global Citizenship Education in Social Studies

Despite the reviewed literature, there are authors who consider that the term is still very broad and difficult to specify for teaching ( Tawil, 2013 ), since it does not include an identifiable area of educational theory or practice ( Myers, 2006 ). In this sense, Grossman (2017) considers that GCE would be related to different perspectives, such as multicultural education, peace education, environmental/sustainable education, human rights education and development education. These realities raise the need to define in our research what we understand by GCE.

In the review of the global citizenship frameworks, Stromquist (2009) and Tully (2014) identify three types of approaches: social, political and economic. For Oxley and Morris (2013) there are social, political, economic, cultural, environmental, and moral perspectives. These interpretations are made from the theory of world culture, social and critical citizenship, and world systems framed in post-colonialist theories of globalisation ( Andreotti, 2006 ). That is why they have been especially focussed on in Social Studies Education.

In the literature review on GCE and CGCE in social studies, there are studies that analyse their purposes ( Bruce et al., 2019 ), the evaluation of proposals or methodologies for teaching ( O’Meara et al., 2018 ), the influence of global education to train global citizens ( Larsen and Searle, 2017 ); the importance of educating in the plural concept of identities and a global identity ( Santisteban and González-Monfort, 2019 ); GCE from teaching history ( Metzger and Harris, 2018 ; Santisteban et al., 2018 ) and heritage education ( González-Valencia et al., 2020 ).

The teaching of social sciences, geography and history, from a critical and interdisciplinary perspective, helps people understand and participate in the solution of social problems. These problems are increasingly global and affect differently depending on which people and groups ( Torres, 2009 ; Pagès and Santisteban, 2014 ; Anguera et al., 2018 ). Ultimately, it is about understanding the relationship between citizenship and globalisation ( Rapoport, 2009 ). Different social sciences contribute essential elements to CGCE, which we summarise below ( Figure 1 ):

Figure 1. Social sciences contribution to critical global citizenship education.

• History shows the different ways of periodising history and temporal concepts such as simultaneity or contemporaneity.

• Geography helps to understand the interdependence between the different territorial scales and to defend sustainability throughout the planet.

• Political science reflects on local, national and international power, and transnational organisations in defence of democracy.

• The economy interprets exchanges at the local and global level, and imbalances in the distribution of resources and wealth.

• Sociology helps us to understand the structure and functioning of societies and their interrelationships at the local and global level.

• Anthropology interprets the processes of cultural construction and identities in contexts of diversity.

• The ethical and social justice aspects offer the necessary tools to identify injustices, as central themes of the social sciences.

Social studies education on a global scale is an obvious and yet unresolved challenge. It has been thought about for decades, for example from history education, as the teaching of history has traditionally been linked to the monolithic views of national history. Some attempts have been made to adopt multicultural approaches to world history projections. In these, however, there are some dangers and resistance ( Kocka, 2012 ; Brett and Guyer, 2021 ), such as the need for some minority groups to maintain identity spaces ( Sabzalian, 2019 ). Currently, diversity and multiperspectivity seem to be core concepts for history education from global perspectives ( Fontana, 2013 ; Kropman et al., 2021 ), attending Fillafer’s consideration: “If we want to dislodge the structuring assumptions connected with globality, interrogating the premise that the world has one history is a good way to start.” ( Fillafer, 2017 , p. 37)

Rüsen (2004) , for example, understands that historiographical ethnocentrism is characterised by an asymmetric assessment, theological continuity and centralised perspective, and proposes to address it through a “culture of recognition” (2004, p. 118) focussed on (1) normative equality; (2) the reconstruction of concepts from contingency and discontinuity, and (3) the multiperspective and polycentric approaches to historical experience. Fontana (2013) left some indications for the construction of a global approach on “people’s history”:

1) To abandon the narrative form and opt for a polyphonic account through life histories from choosing “the sufficient number of the high and low, large and small voices of history to articulate them in a more meaningful chorus” (2013, p. 192).

2) To learn from concrete events and not from pre-established solutions.

3) To abandon linearity, which should allow “not only to overcome Eurocentrism, but also determinism” (2013, p. 195).

Guldi and Armitage (2016) understand that the great challenge of building historical knowledge is to regain the public mission with future projection, from recovering experiences and alternative models that serve as inspiration to imagining a possible alternative future. They consider it essential to apply transnational and transtemporal perspectives. This would be achieved through (3) the articulation of the micro- and the macro-visions, through (4) the construction of macro-narratives that respond to current problems.

Proposals from decolonial perspectives raise the issue of epistemological deconstruction on which academic historical knowledge has been based ( Massip, 2021 ). De Oliveira (2018) proposes questioning all epistemological bases of the discipline from the silences of the gender at intersection with the ethnic and social class. Also, Alderete (2018) opts for the deconstruction of some basic premises of academic history, such as the conception of historical time. He argues that “the experiential recovery of sub-altered sectors” cannot be given from a conception of historical time “which attributes such as linearity, homogeneity and monoculture come directly from European philosophy” (p. 141). He stands for (1) questioning the hegemonic notion of time, showing different ways to live and understand, and to (2) altering the micro- and macro-scales so that we can deal with atypical issues and obtain a general picture of historical realities, including non-hegemonic realities.

Renner (2009) also proposes “connecting the curriculum with personal and local histories,” which relates to the importance of starting from recent history and explaining the experiences of oppressed people, their experiences, emotions, etc; (2) Participating from school in situations where action can be taken for social justice, and (3) favouring such participation outside the school centre. Ross (2018) also emphasises this (1) political participation from school. At content level, it raises the need (2) to address issues such as power, imperialism, marginalisation or exploitation from critical thinking. Finally, (3) emphasising the agency from intentional actions. Santisteban et al. (2018) , insist on the need for

1) the teacher being free to project global visions of the topics treated from independent decision-making;

2) breaking with national, nationalist and Eurocentric approaches, understanding that “global subdivision, we argument, is uncomfortable the antithesis of national consciousness” (p. 461), and that Eurocentric approaches to school history are what make most of the population excluded;

3) being based on the histories of humanity as a whole: “History Education for Global Expire shall look at the histories of the whole humanity and challenge any narratives of Western Supremacy” (p. 461);

3) the content being selected from relevant social problems. The proposal in the solo article by Pagès (2019) goes in the same direction: (1) to break with nationalist and Eurocentric approaches, and (2) to stem from relevant social problems. In this case, however, it adds an interesting nuance as regards the concept of relevant social problems, which is mentioned in many proposals, but which often does not specify just what type of problem is referred to. In this proposal by Pagès (2019) , they would be specified as common human problems.

The current study places the emphasis on problem-based projection on global perspectives, and the assumption that sociohistorical facts are analysed from the interaction of different sciences or disciplines.

Materials and Methods

Understanding the interaction between CGCE and the curriculum takes as reference the approaches of various authors ( Andreotti, 2006 ; Shultz, 2007 ; Oxley and Morris, 2013 ) and provides a teleological and conceptual structure for data analysis. This structure results from the assumption that social facts are analysed from the interaction of different sciences or disciplines, with which causal or multi-causal explanations can be built ( O’Meara et al., 2018 ). This enables the research team to keep track of the different dimensions of GCE in the responses of the research participants.

The study is comprehensive. The information has been obtained from students in the final year of compulsory secondary education ( Ministerio de Educación and Cultura y Deporte [MECD], 2015 ), which corresponds to an age between 15–16 years ( n = 253), from educational centres in Catalonia (Spain) in the 2018–2019 academic year. Regarding the educational stages to which GCE has been directed, Reynolds (2015) , in a review of 1,110 articles on global citizenship and global education, points out that 46% are higher education studies, 33% from secondary school, 17% from primary education, and 3% from early childhood education. These data indicate that more research is needed in non-university educational stages, bringing the research closer to what happens in school classrooms and clearly linking research and innovation.

The collection of information has been carried out by means of a questionnaire in which students are presented with a series of cases, based on the theoretical framework, which they must analyse and on which they must express their opinions. The central case, which explicitly represents the relationship between the local and the global, is a photograph of the G20 meeting taken on 7 July 2017 in the city of Hamburg, Germany ( Figure 2 ). The case, according to Santisteban (2019) , corresponds to a controversial issue, since it presents the international leaders at the same time that it makes evident a series of cultural conventions, the lack of diversity, the invisibility of people or groups and the gender imbalance.

Figure 2. Central image on research instrument: G20 meeting, July 2017.

The study is positioned on the methodological principles of quantitative content analysis and a qualitative and quantitative interpretation of the data is carried out. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses of the students’ texts are carried out, and the appearance-absence and textual density of the theoretical attributes of the proposed conceptual model ( Krippendorff, 1990 ; Bardin, 2002 ).

The data obtained have been transcribed and organised in a matrix for analysis ( Miles et al., 2014 ). A thematic coding has been carried out ( Flick, 2004 ; Schreier, 2014 ). The codes are defined based on the theoretical approach presented: temporality, territories, politics/democracy/ideology, economies, social structures, cultural practices, ethics, and social justice. In the analysis of the responses, it is identified whether or not the reference to the dimensions of the model appears, whether the presence is classified with a point, its absence with zero, in the case of appearing more than one reference to the same code, and the number of occasions that it does. This allows us to identify the frequency in which the dimensions of GCE appears.

With the results of the thematic coding, people are classified on a scale of three levels, which correspond to what the project assumes as levels of literacy. This is understood as “the ability to read between the lines and go beyond them; that is, to identify the socio-historical, ideological background and the intentions behind the books, images, videos or the media” ( Castellví et al., 2019 , p. 25). Similar scales have been used by Bruce et al. (2019) in their work. The scale proposed in the research is:

1. Students oriented to the description of the facts, who mention 1 or 2 codes.

2. Interpretation-oriented students with a certain social commitment, who mention 3 or 4 codes in their story.

3. Students oriented to critical appraisal and mention four or more codes and propose social actions.

The questionnaire was answered by 171 students in the 4th year of compulsory education (15–16 years), from seven secondary schools in Catalonia, all of them in the city of Barcelona and its metropolitan area. In the first phase of the analysis, the students’ responses are read and placed in one of the three proposed levels of analysis: focussed on description, oriented toward interpretation or with a critical perspective. The results show that in the case presented, the majority (61.4%) are located at the level of description, there being almost twice the number of students with an interpretive orientation in their answers (33.3%). The critical level is only present in 1.1% of the total. This information shows that the group of participants identifies the factual characteristics of the image, without actually reading beyond what is evident, without taking into account the possible readings of the implicit meaning at the political, cultural, economic level, etc.

When analysing the data by educational institution, it is found that the descriptive level is the highest in six of the seven institutions ( Figure 3 ). In two of them, the difference between the descriptive and the interpretive levels was 63.6 points, the highest difference in all the institutions. In general, the dispersion of the data is wide and ranges between 7.1 and 63.6 points of difference. In the institution where the interpretive level is the highest, there is a difference of 29.4 points from the descriptive one. Only two institutions have critical levels, but the values do not exceed 8%. These data reflect a significant weight of the descriptive level in the student responses.

Figure 3. Descriptive, interpretive, and critical answers.

The students’ responses have been processed through content analysis with two analytical procedures. The first is a process of coding the responses. The second is the identification of the words that appear most frequently. The first process consists of reading the responses and assigning one or more codes (political power, ways of dressing, annually, male power, strong economies, inequality, gender, Germany, injustice, etc.), and each one of these codes is associated in one of the dimensions of the CGCE (temporality, spaces, politics/democracy/ideology, economies, social structures, cultural practices, ethics, and social justice). In this phase, 264 codes were identified, taking into account that each student response could refer to different codes ( Table 1 ).

Table 1. Analysing codes.

The coding of the responses shows that the dimension “social structures” and “democracy, politics and ideology” are the ones with the highest incidence (81.1%). This shows that the descriptive level is characterised by relating these two dimensions which, on the other hand, are also central dimensions in critical citizenship education. At this point in the analysis, a possible relationship emerged between the critical level and the ethics and social justice dimension ( Figure 4 ). In the educational institution that obtained the highest score on the interpretive level, its students focus on aspects related to social structures and ethics and social justice. This last dimension is also the majority in one of the institutes that stands out at the critical level. For these reasons, it seems that students at the interpretive and critical levels are more likely to take into account aspects of social structures and social justice. The responses of the other school that achieved better results at the critical level focus on the dimensions of politics and democracy, social structures, and the economy.

Figure 4. Percentage of descriptive, interpretive, and critical answers, per school.

These results can help in the construction of educational proposals for critical citizenship. In fact, this is what Andreotti (2006) suggests, considering that critical citizenship education must be oriented to the values that promote critical analysis of societies and social justice. If we make a general balance, according to the data obtained as a whole, we can suggest that the interpretive and critical levels require an increasingly complex outlook, which includes significant references to a maximum number of dimensions of GCE and, especially, to the defence of social justice.

To identify the words that appear more frequently, the TermoStat software has been applied to carry out a lexicographic analysis of the response corpus. As a result of this analysis, we observe that the word that appears most frequently is “woman,” which occurs 113 times, in 100 responses out of a total of 171; that is, 58.5% of the responses used this word explicitly. It is followed by the word “man” that appears 85 times. When the words “woman” and “man” appear together, it is always to indicate the low presence of women in the photograph and, especially, the lack of women in the organs of representation or political power, as reflected in the image. These are the comments of two students:

“Both society and the government have to start accepting that as women we also know about politics… In this image you can see that the rulers of most countries are men, and I think this should change over time since women increasingly make themselves heard more and at least there are representatives, not like in the past when you were not allowed to govern as a woman.”

“Only one woman appears in the entire meeting. I observe that there are only four women, and the one that stands out the most since she is in the middle and wearing a distinctive colour is Angela Merkel, all the rest of the people are men.”

The responses reflect an analysis from the gender perspective, which is very significant in sociological terms, because it shows that the new generations identify, from a global perspective, the existence of inequalities between men and women in all political and social settings and, in a specific way, in the organisms or institutions of representation and power in the world. However, these results contrast with the high presence of responses that are located at a descriptive level, without looking deeper into the causes or consequences of the invisibility of women in certain areas.

In secondary education institutions in which the critical level is reached, even if it is a minority, the codes with the greatest presence are those of gender inequality (41/68) and that of male power, which has just confirmed the importance of the references to the situation of women within the set of responses. These references focus on pointing out the existence of inequalities that are reflected in the social structure.

This pattern of responses is common to all secondary education institutions in which we have carried out research; therefore, it can be noted that there is a significant number of responses that indicate the need to give more prominence to women in the social structure, politics and democracy. This is also associated with the idea that the greater the presence and participation of women the more social justice there will be.

“It seems to me a macho image, because only th

ree women appear in it and I at least understand by that that only men should govern and it does not seem fair to me.”

“This image when looking at it generates a lot of injustice to me when I see that in the countries of the world only three or four women govern as presidents and the other 25–30 are men.”

The analysis shows us that, although the descriptive level is the majority in the responses, the students manage to identify that the photograph reflects the inequality between men and women in political decision-making, where women are always in the minority. Identifying this situation in the image, which is evident, can be interpreted as a first level of analysis, but that does not go beyond the obvious, which is that it does not reflect what causes this situation or what consequences are derived from this marginalisation of women. Nor does it take into account that in these central spheres of power, decisions can be made against the injustices suffered by women in the world. Getting to establish this type of relationship is what could give more quality to the students’ stories, to go beyond the obvious or factual.

Given these results, we ask ourselves: what should characterise an education for critical global citizenship? The results offer us some revelations; for example, that students approaching the responses from the critical level prioritise ethical and social justice implications in their analyses. It seems clear that the critical level demands a critical citizen consciousness in the face of social problems, and requires capacities to identify inequalities or social injustices, and also that students are capable of proposing alternatives to these problems. We have obtained information that we find useful to make advances in critical global citizenship education and, in this sense, the dimensions described can help us to think about new educational proposals.

Discussion and Conclusion

The theoretical perspective that frames the research is critical global citizenship education (CGCE) ( Oxley and Morris, 2013 ; Davies et al., 2018 ), which places the education of people to identify and act at the centre of teaching against injustices on a global level. To this end, it is necessary to identify the ideological and hegemonic dimensions of the events or social problems, in order to work for global social justice ( Sant et al., 2018b ). In this process, progress must be made in improving critical literacy, developing cognitive skills in the critical interpretation of information, but also to intervene in society and produce social changes as global citizens ( Curley et al., 2018 ). It is about orientating students’ work toward a global transformative change, as O’Connor and Zeichner (2011) state.

In the students’ responses there are very few references to elements that we could relate, directly or indirectly, to post-colonial discourses. This may be due to the excessive presence of the Eurocentric perspective in the history and social sciences curriculum. Post-colonial discourse is in the centre of the theoretical approaches of GCCC ( Davids, 2018 ), as a response to the Eurocentric discourses, which are often hegemonic. It is important to make teaching proposals about the consequences of globalisation in different parts of the world ( Andreotti, 2006 ; Oxley and Morris, 2013 ).

The analysis shows that the students establish some relationships between the global and local scale, as demonstrated by Goren and Yemini (2017) or Çolak et al. (2019) , in their research. But this relationship, according to our results, remains in the statement of some dimensions of GCE to describe the facts or social problems, but only a small minority is capable of establishing the interdependence between territorial scales. The two research works cited agree on the need to educate on the implications of being a global citizen.

Our findings showed, in terms of literacy, that the majority of students are located at the descriptive level of social facts, although they are aware of the negative elements of some aspects of globalisation or of the social facts analysed, making mention of aspects such as inequality, injustice, marginalisation, poverty, exploitation, etc., which coincides with the results of the works of Torres (2015) . The interpretative level accounts for almost half of the descriptive level, and the critical level is only slightly more than 1%, although in two centres it is between 7 and 8%.

The textual dimension suggests that students place at the centre of their stories firstly social structures, then politics, democracy and ideology, and at a greater distance, ethics and social justice, and somewhat less cultural practices. The absence of references to temporality and territorial context is striking. The allusions to economic aspects were also scarce. This last aspect is surprising in the analysis of a fact that refers precisely to economic power. But the results are consistent with what is stated by Goren and Yemini (2017) in their research. We also agree in this sense with authors such as Hedtke (2018) , who considers an economic education essential to understand the logic of globalisation and sustainability, and to make decisions from a critical and social justice perspective.

The students who are located at the critical level have in common that in their answers they made reference to aspects associated with social structures and, especially, with ethics and social justice. This last dimension is the essential difference between those who were at the critical level and those who were not. These dimensions appear explicitly in the approaches of Andreotti (2006) ; Davies (2006) , Oxley and Morris (2013) ; Sant (2018) , and Sant et al. (2018b) , who coincide in pointing out the importance of an education for social justice in CGCE, with explicit attention to this dimension.

Let us remember the question that guided the research: Do secondary school students apply the CGCE dimensions when analysing events or social problems? These findings lead us to ask ourselves a new question: What and how should we educate students in the complexity of the various dimensions of CGCE in the analysis of facts or social problems? It is necessary to create more proposals and materials that facilitate the work of teachers to address CGCE, we need educational intervention proposals, especially from the teaching of social sciences, which address the different dimensions raised.

The data show that there is a certain global citizen awareness and a certain social commitment, given the fundamental problems that globalisation can pose, but the levels of critical literacy are very low, coinciding on this point with the study by Delacruz (2019) . We also agree with this author that young people are digital natives, but they need explicit work to train critical thinking. The causes of these needs detected may be, among others, the lack of practical teaching proposals aimed at critical reading of the media from GCE ( Tawil, 2013 ; Culver and Kerr, 2014 ; Pathak-Shelat, 2018 ; Kim, 2019 ).

On the other hand, more specific training of teachers at university or in their professional development, on the content of GCE is necessary ( Howe, 2012 ; Larsen and Searle, 2017 ; O’Meara et al., 2018 ; Sant, 2018 ; Tarozzi and Mallon, 2019 ). In this last aspect, we have to accept that without a teacher capable of teaching CGCE in secondary education, any type of educational change is impossible, which is why a new training in citizenship education is essential ( Yang et al., 2017 ), and that education contemplates historical, geographical, political, economic, socio-anthropological aspects and an ethical and social justice approach ( González-Valencia, 2013 ; González-Valencia and Santisteban, 2016 ).

The data show that ethics and social justice are two dimensions that are present at the critical level. This data is very important for thinking about educational proposals; for example, from the study of controversial issues, social problems or existing social issues on a local-global scale, as proposed by Davies et al. (2005) ; Davies (2006) , and Santisteban (2019) , from critical pedagogy, as an alternative to teaching social sciences, history, geography and new proposals for education for citizenship.

We know that the concept of education for global citizenship has different readings and meanings in each region of the world, as shown by studies on the representations of students and teachers from different continents or countries ( Davies et al., 2018 ). In Europe, for example, young people know and value human rights as an essential good for the development of humanity, but there are important differences between countries on what citizenship education should be and how it should be practiced and how it should be understood. In Catalonia our students show their commitment to social justice, but they lack critical literacy tools to move on to responsible social action. It seems that this situation could be common to many other countries and that it would be necessary to work together, as stated for example by Lee (2015) , for Asian countries.

The results obtained in this research lead us to subscribe to the reflection of Merryfield and Subedi (2001) :

In the new millennium, even a multicultural American centric curriculum will be inadequate. For no matter whether Americans choose to ignore or reject the realities of globalisation, they will increasingly be affected by the world’s human diversity, the acceleration of inequities from economic, ecological and technological dependence, and the repercussions of global imperialism, human conflict, poverty, and injustice. If we are to educate young Americans for effective citizenship in today’s global age, the social studies curriculum must go beyond European or American constructions of knowledge and also teach the experiences, knowledge, and perspectives of diverse peoples in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. A world-centred global education removes the nationalistic filters that only allow students to see events, ideas, and issues through the lens of their country’s national interests and government policy. It also challenges colonialist assumptions of superiority and manifest destiny (p. 277–278).

We also agree with other authors, such as Girard and McArthur, 2018 , who propose a teaching of history that sets aside Eurocentric approaches and that is an instrument at the service of social change. They propose that young people be helped to develop a global historical consciousness. On the other hand, the foundations of a national identity do not contradict the acceptance of belonging to a global citizenship, as also shown by various studies on identities and global citizenship ( Sant et al., 2015 ; Leek, 2016 ).

In short, we propose a CGCE to educate people with the skills to identify injustices and inequalities in the world, and act accordingly, which are part of a citizenry that Banks (2008) calls “transformative citizenship,” based on an education that: “helps students to develop reflective cultural, national, regional, and global identifications and to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote social justice in communities, nations, and the world” (p. 137).

Will this global world be a host home for everyone, or the disputed land? ( Garcés, 2018 ). The results of our research, contrasted with other international studies, lead us to consider that education for critical global citizenship can be defined with new criteria and dimensions, with special emphasis on the teaching of social sciences, based on research that we are aware of. Perhaps the time has come to rethink our goals, experiences and innovations as researchers, teachers and students, as global citizens, committed to education for social justice, to make sure this global world will be a host home for everyone.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethics aspects are under good practices guidelines from University Autonomous of Barcelona agreement (Consejo de Gobierno, el 30 de enero de 2013). Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the project PID2019-107383RB-I00.

Akkari, A., and Maleq, K. (2020). Global Citizenship Education: Critical and International Perspectives. Geneva: Springer.

Google Scholar

Alderete, P. F. (2018). For a historiography of the “abcences”: the lived experience and the historical present as fundamental categories for the study of Latin American peasant subalternity. Historia da Historiografia 28, 141–165.

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy Pract. Dev. 3, 40–51.

Anguera, C., González-Monfort, N., Hernández, A., Muzzi, S., Ortega, D., Pagès, J., et al. (2018). “Invisibles y ciudadanía global en la formación inicial,” in Buscando formas de enseñar: investigar para innovar en didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales , (Valladolid: Universidadad de Valladolid y AUPDCS), 403–412.

Arthur, J., Davies, I., and Hahn, C. (2008). Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy. London: Sage.

Avery, P. (2004). “Social studies teacher education in an era of globalization,” in Critical issues in social studies education , ed. S. Adler (Greenwich, CT: Information Age), 37–57.

Banks, J. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Edu. Res. 37, 129–139. doi: 10.3102/0013189x08317501

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bardin, L. (2002). El análisis de contenido. Madrid: Akal.

Brett, P., and Guyer, R. (2021). Postcolonial history education: issues, tensions and opportunities. Hist. Encount. 8, 1–17.

Bromley, P. (2009). Cosmopolitanism in civic education: exploring cross-national trends, 1970–2008. Curr. Issues Comp. Edu. 12, 33–44.

Bruce, J., North, C., and FitzPatrick, J. (2019). Preservice teachers’ views of global citizenship and implications for global citizenship education. Global. Societ. Edu. 17, 161–176. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2018.1558049

Castells, M. (2005). La era de la informacioìn economiìa, sociedad y cultura. Madrid: Alianza.

Castellví, J., Massip, M., and Pagès, B. (2019). Emociones y pensamiento crítico en la era digital: un estudio con alumnado de formación inicial. Revista de Investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales (REIDICS) 5, 23–41.

Çolak, K., Kabapınar, Y., and Öztürk, C. (2019). Social studies courses teachers’ views on global citizenship and global citizenship education. Ted Eðitim Ve Bilim 44:197. doi: 10.15390/EB.2019.7721

Cortina, A. (2009). Ciudadanos del mundo: Hacia una teoría de la ciudadanía. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Culver, S. H., and Kerr, P. A. (2014). Global citizenship in a digital world. Sweden: NORDICOM.

Curley, S., Rhee, J., Subedi, B., and Subreenduth, S. (2018). “Activism as/in/for Global Citizenship: Putting Un-Learning to Work Towards Educating the Future,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education , eds I. Davies, L.-C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, et al. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 589–606. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5_37

Davids, N. (2018). “Global Citizenship Education, Postcolonial Identities and a Moral Imagination,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education , eds I. Davies, L.-C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, et al. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 193–207. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5_13

Davies, I., Evans, M., and Reid, A. (2005). Globalising citizenship education? A critique of ‘global education’ and ‘citizenship education’. Br. J. Edu. Stud. 53, 66–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00284.x

Davies, I., Ho, L.-C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C., Peterson, A., Sant, E., et al. (2018). The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: abstraction or framework for action? Edu. Rev. 58, 5–25. doi: 10.1080/00131910500352523

De Oliveira, M. G. (2018). Os sons do silencio: interpelacoes feministas decoloniais a historia da historiografia. Historia da Historiografia 28, 104–140.

Delacruz, S. (2019). Building digital literacy bridges: connecting cultures and promoting global citizenship in elementary classrooms through school-based virtual field trips. TechTrends 63, 428–439. doi: 10.1007/s11528-018-0350-1

Delanty, G. (1997). Models of citizenship: defining european identity and citizenship. Citizensh. Stud. 1, 285–303. doi: 10.1080/13621029708420660

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Department for Education and Skills (2004). Putting the world into world-class education: an international strategy for education, skills and children’s services. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Dill, J. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education?: the moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age. London: Routledge.

Dower, N. (2008). “Are we all global citizens, or are only some of us global citizens? The relevance of this question in education,” in Educationg for Human Rights and Global Citizenship , eds A. Abdi and L. Shultz (Albany, NY: Sunny Press), 39–53.

Faulks, K. (2000). Citizenship. London: Routledge.

Felices, M., del, M., Moreno, C., and Jiménez, M. D. (2016). Ciudadanía global igualitaria y formación del profesorado. In Deconstruir la alteridad desde la Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales. Paris: Educar para una ciudadanía global, 236–245.

Fillafer, F. (2017). A world connecting? from the unity of history to global history. Hist. Theory 56, 3–37. doi: 10.1111/hith.12000

Flick, U. (2004). Introducción a la investigaciónn cualitativa. Madrid: Morata.

Fontana, J. (2013). La historia de los hombres: el siglo XX. Barcelona: Editorial Planeta.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Garcés, M. (2018). Ciutat Princesa. Barcelona: Galàxia Gutenberg.

Girard, and McArthur. (2018). “Global and World History Education,” in The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning , eds S. A. Metzger and L. M. Harris (New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell), 253–280. doi: 10.1002/9781119100812.ch10

González-Valencia, G. (2013). La formación inicial del profesorado y la educación para la ciudadanía: representaciones sociales, diseño de clases y prácticas de enseñanza. Enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales 12, 37–45.

González-Valencia, G., and Santisteban, A. (2016). La formación ciudadana en la educación obligatoria en Colombia: entre la tradición y la transformación. Revista Educación & Educadores 19, 89–102. doi: 10.5294/edu.2016.19.1.5

González-Valencia, G., Massip, M., and Castellví, J. (2020). “Heritage Education and Global Citizenship,” in Handbook of Research on Citizenship and Heritage Education , eds E. J. Delgado-Algarra and J. M. Cuenca-López (Hershey PA: IGI Global), 80–102. doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1978-3.ch005

Goren, H., and Yemini, M. (2017). Global citizenship education redefined – A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. Int. J. Edu. Res. 82, 170–183. doi: 10.1016/J.IJER.2017.02.004

Goren, H., Maxwell, C., and Yemini, M. (2019). Israeli teachers make sense of global citizenship education in a divided society- religion, marginalisation and economic globalisation. Comp. Edu. 55, 243–263. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2018.1541660

Griergson, J. (2020). Anti-Asian Hate Crimes up 21% in UK During Coronavirus Crisis. The Guardian. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/anti-asian-hate-crimes-up-21-in-uk-during-coronavirus-crisis (accessed May 13, 2020).

Grossman, D. L. (2017). “Global Education,” in The Wiley Handbook of Social Studies Research , eds M. McGlinn and C. M. Bolick (Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons), 518–568.

Guldi, J., and Armitage, D. (2016). Manifiesto por la Historia. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Gun Chung, B., and Park, I. (2016). A review of the differences between ESD and GCED in SDGs: focusing on the concepts of global citizenship education. J. Int. Cooper. Edu. 18, 17–35.

Hedtke, R. (2018). “Economy and Economics,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education , eds I. Davies, L.-C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, et al. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 315–330.

Howe, E. R. (2012). Alternatives to a master’s degree as the new gold standard in teaching: a narrative inquiry of global citizenship teacher education in Japan and Canada. J. Edu. Teach. 39, 60–73. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2012.733191

Janoski, T., and Gran, B. (2009). “Political citizenship: Foundations of rights,” in Handbook of citizenship studies , eds E. F. Isin and B. S. Turner (New York, NY: Sage), 13–52. doi: 10.4135/9781848608276.n2

Joubin, A. A. (2020). Anti-asian racism during COVID-19 pandemic. Washington, DC: GW Today

Kerr, D. (1999). Citizenship Education: An International Comparison. International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Paper 4. London: QCA.

Kim, Y. (2019). Global citizenship education in South Korea: ideologies, inequalities, and teacher voices. Glob. Soc. Edu. 17, 177–193. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2019.1642182

Kocka, J. (2012). Global History: opportunities, dangers, recent trends. Cult. Hist. Digit. J. 1, 1–4. doi: 10.36106/gjra/5605392

Krippendorff, K. (1990). Metodología de análisis de contenido. Barcelona: Paidoìs.

Kropman, M., van Boxtel, C., and van Drie, J. (2021). Multiperspectivity in lesson designs of history teachers: the role of schoolbook texts in the design of multiperspective history lessons. Host. Encount. 8, 46–69.

Kymlicka, W., and Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics 104, 352–381. doi: 10.1086/293605

Larsen, M. A., and Searle, M. J. (2017). International service learning and critical global citizenship: a cross-case study of a Canadian teacher education alternative practicum. Teach. Teach. Edu. 63, 196–205. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.011

Lee, K. (2015). A Comparative Study on Global Citizenship Education between Korea and ASEAN. Seoul: KICE (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation).

Leek, J. (2016). Global citizenship education in school curricula. A Polish perspective. J. Soc. Stud. Edu. Res. 7, 51–74.

Massip, M. (2021). “Por una historia de todas las personas,” in O ensino da História no Brasil e Espanha. Uma homenagem a Joan Pagès Blach , eds A. A. Santisteban and C. A. Ferreira (Porto Alegre: Editora Fi), 167–207.

Merryfield, M. M., and Subedi, B. (2001). “Decolonizing the Mind for World-Centered Global Education,” in The Social Studies Curriculum. Purposes, Problems and Possibilities , ed. E. W. Ross (Albany NY: State University of New York Press), 277–290.

Metzger, S. A., and Harris, L. M. (eds) (2018). The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. London: SAGE.

Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte [MECD] (2015). Real Decreto 1105/2014, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y del Bachillerato. Madrid: BOE (Boletín Oficial del Estado.

Myers, J. P. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization. Theory Res. Soc. Edu. 34, 370–394. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2006.10473313

Nancy, J. (2007). The Creation of the World, or, Globalization. New York, NY: SUNY.

Nhiem, H., and Morstatter, F. (2021). Stop Asian Hate!” Refining detection of anti-asian hate speech detection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

O’Connor, K., and Zeichner, K. (2011). Preparing US teachers for critical global education. Glob. Soc. Edu. 9, 521–536. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2011.605333

O’Meara, J. G., Huber, T., and Sanmiguel, E. R. (2018). The role of teacher educators in developing and disseminating global citizenship education strategies in and beyond US learning environments. J. Edu. Teach. 44, 556–573. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2018.1516347

Osler, A., and Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: theoretical debates and young people’s experiences. Edu. Rev. 55, 243–254. doi: 10.1080/0013191032000118901

Oxley, L., and Morris, P. (2013). ‘Global citizenship: a typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions’. Br. J. Edu. Stud. 61, 301–325. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2013.798393

Pagès, J. (2019). Ciudadanía global y enseñanza de las ciencias sociales: retos y posibilidades para el futuro. REIDICS 5, 5–22.

Pagès, J., and Santisteban, A. (2014). “Una mirada del pasado al futuro en la didáctica de las ciencias sociales,” in Una mirada al pasado y un proyecto de futuro. Investigación e innovación en didáctica de las ciencias sociales , eds J. Pagès and A. Santisteban (Barcelona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la UAB/AUPDCS), 17–39.

Pak, S.-Y. (2013). Global Citizenship Education Goals and Challenges in the New Millennium. Seoul: UNESCO-APCEIU.

Pathak-Shelat, M. (2018). “Social Media and Youth: Implications for Global Citizenship Education,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education , eds I. Davies, L.-C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, et al. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 539–556. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5_34

Rapoport, A. (2009). A forgotten concept: global citizenship education and state social studies standards. J. Soc. Stud. Res. 33, 91–112.

Rauner, M. (1999). UNESCO as an organizational carrier of civic education Infor- mation. Int. J. Edu. Dev. 19, 91–100. doi: 10.1016/s0738-0593(98)00061-3

Renner, A. (2009). Teaching community, praxis and courage: a foundations pedagogy of hope and humanization. Educ. Stud. 45, 59–79. doi: 10.1080/00131940802527209

Reynolds, R. (2015). “One size fits all? Global education for different educational audiences,” in Contesting and constructing international perspectives in global education , eds R. Reynolds, D. Bradbery, J. Brown, K. Carroll, D. Donnelly, K. Ferguson Patrick, et al. (Rotterdam: The Netherlands: Sense Publishers), 27–41. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6209-989-0_3

Reysen, S., and Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: antecedents and outcomes. Int. J. Psychol. 48, 858–870. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.701749

Ross, E. W. (2018). Humanizing critical pedagogy: what kind of teachers? What kind of citizens? What kind of culture? Rev. Educ. Pedagogy Cult. Stud. 40, 371–389. doi: 10.1080/10714413.2019.1570792

Rüsen, J. (2004). How to overcome ethnocentrism: approaches to a culture of recognition by history in the twenty-first century. Hist. Theory 43, 118–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2004.00301.x

Sabzalian, L. (2019). The tensions between Indigenous sovereingnty and multicultural citizenship education: toward an anticolonial approach to civic education. Theory Res. Soc. Edu. 47, 311–346. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2019.1639572

Sant, E. (2018). We, the non-global citizens: Reflections on the possibilities and challenges of democratic global citizenship education in higher education contexts. Citizenship Teach. Learn. 13, 273–292. doi: 10.1386/ctl.13.3.273_1

Sant, E., and González Valencia, G. (2018). “Global Citizenship Education in Latin America,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education , eds I. Davies, L.-C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, et al. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 67–82. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5_5

Sant, E., Davies, I., and Santisteban, A. (2015). Citizenship and identity: the self-image of secondary school students in england and catalonia. Br. J. Edu. Stud. 64, 235–260. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2015.1070789

Sant, E., Davies, I., Pashby, K. Y., and Shultz, L. (2018a). Global Citizenship Education. A critical introduction to key concepts and debates. Chennai: Bloomsbury.

Sant, E., Lewis, S., Delgado, S., and Ross, E. W. (2018b). “Justice and Global Citizenship Education,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education , eds I. Davies, L.-C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, et al. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 227–243. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5_15

Santisteban, A. (2019). La enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales a partir de problemas sociales o temas controvertidos: estado de la cuestión y resultados de una investigación. El Futuro Del Pasado 10, 57–79. doi: 10.14516/fdp.2019.010.001.002

Santisteban, A., and González-Monfort, N. (2019). “Education for Citizenship and Identities,” in Handbook of Research on Education for Participative Citizenship and Global Prosperity , eds J. A. Pineda-Alfonso, N. De Alba-Fernández, and E. Navarro-Medina (Hershey PA: IGI Global), 551–567.

Santisteban, A., and González-Valencia, G. (2013). Sociedad de la información, democracia y formación del profesorado?qué lugar debe ocupar el pensamiento crítico? In Medios de comunicacion y pensamiento crítico: nuevas formas de interacción social. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones, 761–770.

Santisteban, A., Pagès, J. Y., and Bravo, L. (2018). “History Education and Global Citizenship Education,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education , eds I. Davies, L.-C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, et al. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 457–472. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5_29

Santisteban, A., Tosar, B., Izquierdo, A., Llusà, J., Canals, R., González, N., et al. (2016). “La literacidad crítica de la información sobre los refugiados y refugiadas: construyendo la ciudadanía global desde la enseñanza de las ciencias sociales,” in Deconstruir la alteridad desde la didáctica de las ciencias sociales: educar para una ciudadanía global , eds C. R. GarcíaRuiz, A. Arroyo, and B. Andreu (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Universidad de Las Palmas y AUPDCS), 550–560.

Scheunpflug, A., and Asbrand, B. (2006). Global education and education for sustainability. Environ. Edu. Res. 12, 33–46. doi: 10.1080/13504620500526446

Schreier. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis in The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE, 170–183.

Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: conflicting agendas and understandings. Alberta J. Edu. Res. 53, 248–258.

Sklair, L. (1999). Competing conceptions of globalization. J. World-Syst. Res. 2, 143–163.

Spring, J. (2004). How educational ideologies are shaping global society. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Stromquist, N. (2009). Theorizing global citizenship: discourses, challenges, and implications for education. Interam. J. Edu. Democ. 2, 6–29.

Szelényi, K., and Rhoads, R. A. (2007). Citizenship in a global context: the perspectives of international graduate students in the united states. Comp. Edu. Rev. 51, 25–47. doi: 10.1086/508640

Tarozzi, M., and Mallon, B. (2019). Educating teachers towards global citizenship: a comparative study in four European countries. London Rev. Edu. 17, 112–125. doi: 10.18546/LRE.17.2.02

Tawil, S. (2013). Education for “global citizenship”: a framework for discussion. UNESCO Edu. Res. Foresight 7, 1–8.

Torres, C. (2017). Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global Citizenship Education. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Torres, C. A. (2009). Globalizations and education: collected essays on class, race, gender, and the state. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.

Torres, C. A. (2015). Global citizenship and global universities. Age Glob. Interdep. Cosmopol. 50, 262–279. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12129

Tully, J. (2014). On global citizenship: James Tully in dialogue. London: Bloomsbury.

UNESCO (2018). Preparing teachers for global citizenship education: a template - UNESCO Digital Library. Bangkok: UNESCO.

Yang, M., Kim, J., and Kim, K. (2017). A study on variables related to global citizenship teaching efficacy of secondary school pre-service teachers and in-service teachers. Assoc. Glob. Stud. Edu. 9, 77–104. doi: 10.19037/agse.9.3.03

Keywords : global citizenship education, critical citizenship, social studies education, secondary education, controversial issues

Citation: González-Valencia G, Massip Sabater M and Santisteban Fernández A (2022) Critical Global Citizenship Education: A Study on Secondary School Students. Front. Educ. 7:867113. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.867113

Received: 31 January 2022; Accepted: 18 March 2022; Published: 12 May 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 González-Valencia, Massip Sabater and Santisteban Fernández. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Gustavo González-Valencia, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Knowledge and Skills for Becoming Global Citizens

Subscribe to the center for universal education bulletin, allison anderson allison anderson former brookings expert.

January 30, 2013

The current education e-discussion for the post-2015 development agenda on the  World We Want platform offers an opportunity for all stakeholders to weigh in on the issues of global citizenship, jobs and skills. This consultation, taking place from January 23 to February 6, is gathering views from around the world to build a collective vision for the education sector on priorities for a post-2015 development framework.  This discussion is not only important in building education sector consensus, but it is also important because a summary of these opinions will be given to the United Nations General Assembly and world leaders when they meet in September to propose a new development agenda. The Center for Universal Education encourages all stakeholders to add their voice to this discussion .

As pointed out within the World We Want consultation, ensuring that education produces individuals who can read, write and count is an important but insufficient step toward global development. The 2012 Education for All Global Monitoring Report Youth and Skills: Putting education to work noted that, beyond the foundational skills of literacy and numeracy, transferrable skills—such as problem solving and leadership skills—and technical and vocational skills that impart specific technical know-how are needed.  To be relevant, education must provide young people with the necessary knowledge and skills to become “ responsible global citizens who can take joint actions .”  Just which knowledge and skills will enable young people to reach this goal is a current matter of debate.

While there are clearly many important ways in which education contributes to global citizenship knowledge and skills, based on our research, one issue is clear: Given the global, interconnected challenges of sustainable development, peaceful and inclusive society building, and climate change mitigation and adaption, it is essential to prioritize knowledge and skills that are linked to 21st century livelihoods, conflict resolution and sustainable development. These skills include critical thinking, problem solving, and relevant content knowledge like environmental and climate change education, disaster risk reduction and preparedness, sustainable consumption and lifestyles, and green technical and vocational education and training.

Learning for Resilient, Sustainable Societies

The past 20 years have seen an accelerated process of globalization that has impacted countries around the world.  However, not all have benefited equally and many have benefited little or not at all from this process.  Moreover, a global economy based on current patterns of consumption and production is placing heavy stresses on many ecosystems.  As such, sustainable development—or development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs—continues to be an unrealized goal.

As expanded upon in a recent Environment Magazine article and Brookings Center for Universal Education commentary on learning for sustainable development, the education sector can help shift the global demand away from resource- and energy-intensive commodities and towards green products, the production of such commodities, and in sustainable lifestyles.  Empowering learners to contribute to sustainable development helps to make education more relevant and responsive to contemporary and emerging challenges.  For instance, a green economy calls for seizing opportunities to advance economic and environmental goals simultaneously.  Education can assist in the process of shifting the global demand away from resource- and energy-intensive commodities and towards greener products and technologies, sustainable lifestyles and less pollution.  Moreover, restructuring towards a green economy will require transferable skills, ones that are not necessary linked to specific occupations.  Thinking critically, solving problems, collaborating and managing risks and uncertainty are core competencies that are critical for employment in a green economy and living together peacefully in a sustainable society.

Since the effects of climate change are already being felt, the education sector can also play a critical role in teaching relevant skills for successful climate change adaptation and mitigation.  Teaching and learning should integrate environmental education, climate change and scientific literacy, disaster risk reduction and preparedness, and education for sustainable lifestyles and consumption.  Learners need a basic understanding of scientific concepts, including knowledge of the history and causes of climate change; knowledge of and ability to distinguish between certainties, uncertainties, risks and consequences of environmental degradation, disasters and climate change; knowledge of mitigation and adaptation practices that can contribute to building resilience and sustainability; and understanding of varying interests that shape different responses to climate change and the ability to critically judge the validity of these interests in relation to the public good.  Furthermore, evidence shows that educational interventions are most successful when they focus on local, tangible and actionable aspects of sustainable development, climate change and environmental education, especially those that can be addressed by individual behavior.

For instance, in the Philippines , communities have worked with the ministry of education, Plan International and other partners to prepare children and young people to adapt to climate change, thereby reducing vulnerabilities and building resilient societies.  Children learned about climate change adaptation and how to reduce their vulnerability to disasters through education and training in early warning systems.  This included education on rain gauges, disaster simulation and drills as well as carrying out risk mapping and learning first aid, swimming and water safety.  Children were then encouraged to express what they had learned through theater and music activities, thus delivering information on potential hazards and the practical solutions to the hazards to their communities.  These efforts have already saved lives.  For example, in 2006 after three days of continuous rain in Liloan and San Francisco villages, children and adults used the knowledge they gained from adaptation-focused risk reduction contingency planning and evaluation procedures to evacuate before landslides covered their homes.

In another example, the Global Action Network for Energy Efficiency Education (GANE) is using a multi-disciplinary teaching and learning approach to change energy consumption behavior within education programs and training institutions.  In order to prepare the next generation of workers for an energy-efficient future, GANE engages young people in hands-on experiential learning that will prepare them for the energy efficiency job market. GANE’s Green Schools Program  in the United States provides training and tools that make students the focus of green schools by placing them in leadership positions to carry out energy diagnostics in their school building.  The green building becomes a learning lab for students to apply science, math and language arts to solve the sustainable energy and global climate change challenge.  Through basic changes in operations, maintenance and individual behavior, schools participating in the GANE Green Schools Program have reduced their energy consumption and equipped students to promote energy efficiency in their homes and communities.  Outside of the classroom, teachers, students and administrators’ knowledge and advocacy can influence their families, markets and decision-makers.

In order for education to truly be transformative and cultivate global citizens with a shared concern for the world, various strategies must be pursued, including: curriculum development for climate mitigation and adaptation community engagement and labor market partnerships, experiential learning opportunities outside the classroom, and safe and sustainable school environments. We must ensure that education systems work closely with community leaders and possible employers to cultivate experiences and knowledge that prepares young people for the labor market and for their future lives.  As is clear in these two examples, and supported by research from Bangladesh, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, the Philippines, Zambia and elsewhere, for global citizenship knowledge and skills to truly take hold, it is essential that community members, and especially young people, are empowered as active agents of change.

Global Education

Global Economy and Development

Center for Universal Education

Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly, Landry Signé, George Ingram, Priya Vora, Rebecca Winthrop, Caren Grown, Belinda Archibong, Brad Olsen, Jennifer L. O’Donoghue, Sweta Shah, Ghulam Omar Qargha

September 19, 2024

Nasrin Siddiqa, Atenea Rosado-Viurques

April 23, 2024

Christopher J. Thomas

July 7, 2021

The Critical Global Citizen

• First Online: 26 June 2018

Cite this chapter

• Angela Hill 5 ,
• Peta Salter 5 &
• Kelsey Halbert 5  

1062 Accesses

Policy imperatives around mobility encourage students to take up international experiences to increase their marketability. These imperatives are framed in narrow ways by neoliberal metanarratives of globalization. As a result, peripheral mobility experiences are often positioned as key to internationalization and developing global citizenship. This individualized notion of the global citizen is counter to qualities of critical global citizenship, such as resilience, empathy, understanding one’s place in the world, and an ethical understanding of inequalities. Higher education institutions have an important role in shaping the social and disciplinary norms that construct these notions and in recognizing the diversity of local and international experiences that perpetuate them. This chapter puts forward a challenge to institutions to create supportive environments for the facilitation of critical global citizenship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Internationalisation and migrant academics: the hidden narratives of mobility

Neo-Liberalism and Configuring Global Citizenship in Higher Education: Outbound Mobility Programs

Diverse socio-economic backgrounds and international pathways: European mobility opportunities through a scholarship programme for Mexican doctoral students

Ang, I., Tambiah, Y., & Mar, P. (2015). Smart engagement with Asia: Leveraging language, research and culture (Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies). Retrieved from www.acola.org.au .

Ball, S. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary . London, England: Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Bennett, L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learning: Two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age (A report for the Civic Learning Online Project). Retrieved from http://engagedyouth.org/uploads/2008/08/youngcitizens_clo_finalaug_l.pdf .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bernstein, B. (1971–1990). Class, codes and control . London, England: Routledge.

Britt, L. (2009). Developing students as learners, citizens, and activists: A proposed taxonomy of service-learning approaches. In Proceedings of the Institute for Ethical and Civic Engagement Conference (p. 29). Boulder, CO.

Calhoun, C. (2006). The university and the public good. Thesis Eleven, 84 (2), 7–43.

Camicia, S., & Franklin, B. (2011). What type of global community and citizenship? Tangled discourses of neoliberalism and critical democracy in curriculum and its reform. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9 (3–4), 311–322.

Caruana, V. (2014). Re-thinking global citizenship in higher education: From cosmopolitanism and international mobility to cosmopolitanisation, resilience and resilient thinking. Higher Education Quarterly, 68 (1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12030 .

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). (2016). New Colombo Plan . Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/new-colombo-plan/about/Pages/about.aspx .

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education . New York, NY: The Free Press.

Engberg, M. (2013, September/October). The influence of study away experiences on global perspective-taking. Journal of College Student Development, 54 (5), 466–480.

Freire, P. (1970, 1986). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York, NY: Continuum.

Gilbride-Brown, J. (2011). Moving beyond the dominant: Service-learning as a culturally relevant pedagogy. In T. W. Stewart & N. Webster (Eds.), Exploring cultural dynamics & tensions within service-learning (pp. 27–44). Charlotte, USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Green, M. (2012). What is global citizenship? IAU Horizons, 17 (3), 27 – 29. Retrieved from http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/files/IAU_Horizons_Vol17_3_18_1_EN.pdf .

International Association of Universities (IAU). (2012). Call to action . Retrieved from http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/files/Affirming_Academic_Values_in_Internationalization_of_Higher_Education.pdf .

Lilley, K. (2014). Educating global citizens: Translating the ‘idea’ into university organisational practice . Retrieved from http://federation.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/197433/IEAA-symposium_Lilley2014.pdf .

Lilley, K., Barker, M., & Harris, N. (2015a). Exploring the process of global citizen learning and the student mind-set. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19 (3), 225–245.

Lilley, K., Barker, M., & Harris, N. (2015b). Educating global citizens: A good ‘idea’ or an organisational practice? Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (5), 957–971.

Local Global Project. (2016). Resources: Mapping community based learning . Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/learning-and-teaching/university-wide-projects/local-global-learning/resources .

Malicki, R., & Potts, P. (2013). The outcomes of outbound student mobility: A summary of academic literature . Retrieved from http://aimoverseas.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/UAAsiaBoundOutcomesResearch-Final.pdf .

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1, 58–63.

Morais, D., & Ogden, A. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of International Education, 15 (5), 445–466.

Nerlich, S. (2015). Students from Australian universities studying abroad. Australian Universities Review, 57 (1), 52–59.

Power, A., & Bennett, D. (2015). Moments of becoming: Experiences of embodied connection to place in arts-based service learning in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (2), 156–168.

Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards cosmopolitan learning. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30, 253–268.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy . New York, NY: Routledge.

Salter, P., & Halbert, K. (2017). Constructing the [parochial] global citizen. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15 (5), 694–705.

Tarrant, M. (2010). A conceptual framework for global citizenship development. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14 (5), 433–451.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. Education Research Journal, 41 (2), 237–269.

Wood, B., & Black, R. (2014). Performing citizenship down under: Educating the active citizen. Journal of Social Science Education, 13 (4), 56–65.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

Angela Hill, Peta Salter & Kelsey Halbert

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Hill .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Business, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

Timothy Hall

School of Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

Department of Anthropology, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Greg Downey

Michael Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hill, A., Salter, P., Halbert, K. (2018). The Critical Global Citizen. In: Hall, T., Gray, T., Downey, G., Singh, M. (eds) The Globalisation of Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74579-4_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74579-4_6

Published : 26 June 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-74578-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-74579-4

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research