Today there is a renewed interest in a global notion of citizenship, as in ‘global citizenship’ or ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ (Dower, 2003). While the concept of global citizenship is contested (Miller, 2011; Bowden, 2003; Parekh, 2003), education is certainly one of the fields where this idea is most seriously used, particularly in the literature that theorises the need for a new citizenship education with a global orientation (Pashby, 2011). Global citizenship has “taken on the status of a ‘global’ or ‘travelling’ educational policy” (Oxley & Morris, 2013:301) and in the past two decades, Global Citizenship Education (GCE) has moved from the margins to the mainstream. Tarozzi and Torres (2016) identify the United Nations Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) as the “start of a new global sensitivity” (2016: 6). Mannion et. al. (2011) talk about a “curricular global turn” characterising the educational policies of many countries. Across Europe, in particular, the embedment of GCE in the education systems at all levels continues to be a priority for decision makers and practitioners that, through the Global Education Network Europe (GENE) and the North South Centre of the Council of Europe, are working to expand GCE and improve its quality. 

In many European countries, the language and practice of GCE has undoubtedly entered formal education and as a result, the focus of much discussion and scholarly work progressively changed. Research on GCE shifted from debating whether global citizenship is a legitimate term worth talking or writing about, to developing pedagogical frameworks that facilitate an understanding of GCE (Andreotti, 2015; Pike, 2008; UNESCO, 2015).In response to calls for more empirical research into contemporary GCE practice, obstacles and incentives to uncover the ways schools are dealing with the global (Marshall, 2011), scholars have also begun to study how GCE is understood and practiced in schools (Blackmore, 2014; Bryan and Bracken, 2011; Rapoport, 2015). Theoretical and empirical work on GCE highlights a constellation of conceptual, curricular and perceptual barriers which expose the ideological tensions that pervade the curriculum, and mitigate against the effective implementation of GCE within schools. The main conceptual barriersto the embedment of GCE in school practice are related to the nation-state centred nature of citizenship education and the conceptual vagueness that characterises GCE (Rapoport, 2015). The curricular barriersare linked to the fact that the school curriculum usually focuses on the disciplines and as a result, GCE, as an inherently multi- and interdisciplinary area, has an “unfixed status” in the curriculum (Rapoport, 2015). GCE lacks “disciplinary heritage” (Gaudelli, 2009: 78). Lastly, perceptual barriersare linked to teachers attitudes towards GCE. A high level of commitment to global justice issues is not sufficient as teachers often feel that they lack the theoretical knowledge, the expertise, the resources, and therefore the confidence to translate their positive attitudes towards GCE into classroom practice (Bryan & Bracken, 2011). 

This paper focuses on the emergence of GCE in the educational discourse of a province in northern Italy and outlines how teachers construct GCE as a pedagogical framework for schooling in the 21st century. The specific questions addressed in the paper are: What does GCE mean for teachers? What curricular devises are used by teachers in relation to GCE?

This paper is based on a PhD research that used Grounded Theory (GT), in particular the constructivist interpretation promoted by Charmaz (2014) and the informed version suggested by Thornberg (2012). Constructivist and Informed GT was chosen because the research interest was not to ascertain the extent to which GCE in the Italian province investigated lived up to particular GCE pedagogical frameworks or models of good practice, but rather understand which meanings were conveyed through GCE by different stakeholders and how these meanings were then translated into policies and practices. The research explored meaning-making processes on GCE in a variety of contexts (provincial government, training centres, secondary schools). Therefore, constructivist and informed GT with its focus on investigating processes rather than static themes and structures, and its emphasis on constructing a theory that explains a process, rather than applying current theories, was considered particularly suitable for the study. The data collection process, in line with Constructivist GT, was characterized by flexibility and iterative strategies of simultaneously going back and forth between data collection and analysis. Intensive interviews with teachers and key local informants was identified as the main data gathering method. Intensive interviewing in fact “facilitates conducting an open-ended, in-depth exploration of an area in which the interviewee has substantial experience” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 85). It is particularly suitable for constructive GT as it enables learning about the participants’ words and meanings while at the same time allowing researchers to explore areas of emerging theoretical interest when participants bring them up. In the period February to November 2017, intensive interviews were conducted with 21 teachers from 9 local secondary schools and 6 key informants (provincial decision-makers and officers, representatives of training centres). A documentary analysis of provincial legislative and policy documents, plans and guidelines on education and on international development cooperation and GCE was also carried out. The process of data analysis included the construction of initial, focused and theoretical codes. Theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2014) was used in the period April to August 2018 to gather additional data to elaborate and refine the provisional interpretative categories. A number of methods were used for theoretical sampling, namely a “theoretical thematic analysis” (Braun and Clarke, 2006) of the curricular guidelines, participation in a “new social world” (a group of experts), interviews with new research participants (2 additional key informants), and re-interview of research participants through a group interview (9 teachers already interviewed).

In the Province studied, GCE has a distinctive moral dimension. On the one hand, GCE is constructed as a new ‘moral pedagogy’, that reflects teachers’ adherence and commitment to a universal value structure centred on cosmopolitan values. On the other hand, GCE is not an educational imperative demanded by the provincial education policies and curricular guidelines. It is not embedded in teachers’ practice in a systematic manner, but is rather a personal ‘moral’ choice, essentially a ‘moral optional’ in the hands of ‘willing and able teachers’ who are committed to cosmopolitan values. Three main strategies are used by teachers in relation to GCE: a) Avoidance; b) Pioneering; and c) Building communities of peers. Avoidance is used by those teachers that follow a traditional curriculum and do not engage with global citizenship perspectives and issues. Pioneering characterizes motivated and willing teachers who interpret and ‘manoeuvre’ the curriculum to provide students with opportunities to explore the global dimension of their citizenship. These teachers use imaginatively their freedom and autonomy of teaching, draw on the fact that the curricular guidelines are broad and competency-based, and use three different strategies to integrate a global perspective in their practice: a) Designing specific GCE projects; b) Responding to prompts arising in class; c) Making choices about the curriculum. Each of these strategies has distinctive strengths and weaknesses, but overall they require teachers to be ‘masters’ in shaping a curriculum informed by a global citizenship perspective. These pioneering teachers tend to engage with GCE themes and topics mainly in the ‘isolated’ spaces of their classrooms and subjects. But some teachers do not resign themselves to this situation and strive to build communities of peers. They bring GCE topics to the attention of formal school structures, but mainly work with ‘like-minded’ teachers and build informal communities of practice.

Andreotti, V. (2015). Global citizenship education otherwise: Pedagogical and theoretical insights. In A. Abdi, L. Schultz & T. Pillay (Eds.), Decolonizing Global Citizenship Education (pp. 221-230). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Blackmore, C. (2014). The Opportunities and Challenges for a Critical Global Citizenship Education in one English Secondary School. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Department of Education, University of Bath, Bowden, B. (2003). The perils of global citizenship. Citizenship Sudies, 7(3), 349-362. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1362102032000098913 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bryan, A., & Bracken, M. (2011). Learning to Read the World? Teaching and Learning about Global Citizenship and International Development in Post-primary Schools. Dublin: Irish Aid. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd Edition ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage. Dower, N. (2003). An Introduction to Global Citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1), 68-85. Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 443-456. doi:10.1080/14767724.2011.605327 Marshall, H. (2011). Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: Theorising the contested space of global citizenship education in schools. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 411-426. doi:10.1080/14767724.2011.605325 Miller, D. (2011). The idea of global citizenship. Nuffield's Working Papers Series in Politics . Retrieved from https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2011/David%20Miller_working%20paper%202011_02.pdf Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301-325. doi:10.1080/00071005.2013.798393 Parekh, B. (2003). Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship. Review of International Studies, 29(1), 3-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097831 Pashby, K. (2011). Cultivating global citizens: Planting new seeds or pruning the perennials? Looking for the citizen-subject in global citizenship education theory. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 427-442. doi:10.1080/14767724.2011.605326 Pike, G. (2008). Citizenship education in a global context. In M. O'Sullivan, & K. Pashby (Eds.), Citizenship Education in the Era of Globalization. Canadian Perspectives (pp. 41-51). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Rapoport, A. (2015). Global aspects of citizenship education. Challenges and perspectives. In B. Maguth M., & J. Hilburn (Eds.), The State of Global Education. Learning with the World and its People (pp. 27-40). New York and London: Routledge. Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C., Alberto. (2016). Global Citizenship Education and the Crisis of Multiculturalism. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 1-17. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 UNESCO. (2015). Global Citizenship Education. Topics and Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO.