07 SES 02 A, Citizenship Education Part 1
Paper Session to be continued in 07 SES 03 A
The purpose of this study is to investigate how Korean teachers perceive GCED through school education and curriculum. Specifically, this study conceptualized the concepts of GCED and analyzed teachers’ perception of the GCED definition. In the preparation of the 2015 World Education Forum, the Korean government announced that it would play an active role in achieving the goals of global citizenship education (UNESCO, 2015b). In the educational field, due to the necessity of GCED, the citizen education practice has been implemented in various ways, but the academic interest and discussion is still insufficient (Park Hwan Bae, Joo Hee Seung, 2016. GCED realizing through school education can be understood as education through policy programs that are related to education activities conducted by teachers. Therefore, it needs to explore how teachers recognize GCED and concepts, and what kind of education should be applied by focusing on a unit school in which global citizen education is actually operated
As GCED was emphasized in the 2015 World Education Forum, the policy interest in the global citizen education was raised, and researches in various fields began to actively proceed. The concept of GCED varies according to previous studies. First, GCED centering on UNESCO started from the concept developed in tradition such as international understanding education, European civic education and development education, and environmental education (Peters et al, 2008). GCED has been used in a variety of ways, including international understanding education, peace human rights education, multicultural education, sustainable development education, and global education. UNESCO-centered global citizenship education focuses on establishing a national identity, cooperation and peace between nations, and universal interest and respect for diversity at the global level, beyond the boundary of each country (Lee, Kyung, et al., 2017). Although the initial GCED has been centered on UNESCO cooperative schools and civic groups, it is now being operated in conjunction with regular curriculums such as social studies in general schools or using comparative and linkage programs. The way in which GCED is taught within the school is applied through school curriculum or is realized by various programs related to the education of citizens in the world. According to Ji, Moon, and Kim (2014), 1) the majority of teachers have never received GCED, and the recognized concept of global citizenship education is very insufficient; 2) the current curriculum is not suitable for GCED; and 3) the teachers' global citizenship level is overall high and qualified to take charge of global citizen education, but global community consciousness needs to be further developed.
Since GCED has been emphasized around the world, various institutions have introduced the concept of GCED and key concepts and learning themes that can be effectively implemented at schools. Based on the literature review, GCED can be combined into three main areas of definition as follows: 1) "Knowledge" which means "content," and “subject,” 2) "Emotion" which means "justice," "attitude," "value," and "personality," and 3) “Practice” which means “action.” This definition emphasizes Bloom's educational objectives that emphasize the harmonization of “Cognitive,” “Affective,” and “Psychomotor” domains. Based on this area, Asia Pacific Institute of Education (APCEIU) and UK Oxfam guide global citizen education through conceptualization based on the concept and meaning of GCED. Consequently, GCED are conceptualized as such: 1) "Knowledge education" which understands the main themes such as peace, human rights, globalization, cultural diversity, and values, such as empathy, diversity, communication, and critical thinking; 2) "Emotional education" which understands the main themes such as attitude and personality; and 3) "practical education" which understands that the knowledge and emotional education are directly transferred to action.
Method The target of this study is limited for elementary-, middle-, and high-school teachers at Seoul. As this study defined the concepts of GCED includes “cognitive (knowledge education),” “affective (emotional education),” and “psychomotor (practical education),” this study applied a mixed method design. This study applied survey to diagnose the teachers' perceptions on GCED and interviewed for the main issue surrounding the concept and application of GCED at school setting. I developed questionnaires to investigate teachers’ perception based on the GCED definition of APCEIU. The questionnaires include understanding about core concept, core area, and related topic of the GCED. The questionnaire sent voluntary participation through elementary school, junior high school and high school, and utilized the Eureka survey online system. The survey period lasted about 2 weeks. A total of 2,304 teachers responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaires were analyzed through descriptive statistics and statistical significance difference (ANOVA) between the major responses according to teachers' individual and school background factors. Next, based on the results of the survey on the GCED questionnaire, I conducted in-depth interviews focusing on the major issues and improvements of GCED. In-depth interviews were conducted through email contacts using semi-structured questionnaires. Interviewees were recommended by teachers who have actively practiced GCED in various ways within a school and selected as a total of 6 students that include elementary, middle, and high schools. On the last day of the in-depth interview, a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was held with respondents and researchers.
Tentative Findings The results presented that teachers had the highest awareness of GCED and the highest percentage of respondents answered that they did not know GCED. Most of the teachers in Seoul recognized their awareness of GCED but they were also likely to have more heard of it. The answer to the understanding of "embracing, peace and justice," a key concept emphasized by GCED, the teachers responded that "acceptance, peace and justice" is 54.3%, peace 60.1% and justice 55.0%. The result of “cognitive (knowledge education)” for the understanding and practice of the goals of the GCED show that 58% of the teachers answered "well" and 29% very well. Regarding “affective (emotion),” 57.9% answered "well" to the understanding of social and emotional areas, and 32.8% "very well". Regarding “psychomotor (practice),” teachers showed a high degree of understanding, where58% "well," and 31.6% "very well." According to the results by school level, the average value of perception on the definition of GCED was higher in the order of elementary, middle and high schools. On the experience of practicing the global citizen education, some teachers emphasized that the education of the world is not new; rather it is the essence of the education itself, directing the pursuit and the ultimate goal of our education. Based on the results, this study will demonstrate various findings. Also, this study will discuss more how the results would have policy implications that would be informational and helpful for policy makers. In addition, this study will discuss more about the practical application at diverse school settings. In general, this type of study has various limitations, which will be further investigated, discussing how it can be supplemented.
Chi, E., Moon, B., and Kim. H. (2014). A survey on secondary school teachers' consciousness and developmental strategies for global citizenship education Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 99-122. Oxfam.(2015). Education for global citizenship: a guide for schools. UK: Oxfam. Park H. and Joo, H. (2016). Analysis of Korea's Global Citizenship Education Research Trend. Korean Journal if Educational Research, 54(2), 197-227. Peters, M.A., Britton, A., & Blee, H. (2008). Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy Theory, and Pedagogy, Rotterdam: Sense Publisher. Lee, K. (2015). UNESCO World Citizen Education and Global Geographical Linkage Analysis. Journal of Education for International Understanding,, 10(2), 45-75. Lee, K., Kim, H., Kang, S., and Kim, D. (2017) The Review of concepts related with education for international understanding and discussion of its directives in the 21st century, Journal of Education for International Understanding, 12(1), 1-47. UNESCO(2015a). Global Citizenship Education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO(2015b). Incheon Declaration. Incheon: UNESCO.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.