The research aims at analysing teachers’ engagement with alternative discourses in Global Citizenship Education (GCE) through developing a pedagogical tool for critically reflecting on global issues, and exploring with teachers its potential for integrating critical approaches in practice.

It responds to the need for more dialogue between theory and practice in the context of GCE. It focuses in particular on formal education as a setting for a comparative study on how upper primary and secondary school teachers from Italy and UK engage with and respond to critical perspectives in GCE. As such, it combines research with a curricular ‘intervention’. This draws on the co-researchers’ experience as facilitators of GCE and their contributions to emerging research on teacher perceptions of GCE (Franch, 2020) and the relationship between theory and practice (Bullivant, 2020). 

​​The effective delivery of GCE in schools is largely dependent on the motivation, understanding and ability of teachers (Bourn, et al., 2017). Research on teachers’ attitudes towards GCE suggests, however, that a high level of commitment to global justice issues is not sufficient as teachers often feel that they lack the theoretical knowledge, the expertise and the resources to translate their positive attitudes towards GCE into classroom practice (Bryan & Bracken, 2011).

Responses to these concerns highlight the importance of creating formal and sustained ‘GCE spaces’ within in-service teacher education as a means to motivate teachers, and enhance their confidence and skills to incorporate GCE and more critical approaches into their practice (Bourn, et al., 2017; Bryan & Bracken, 2011; Peterson, et al., 2018). Underlined in scholars’ responses is the importance of increasing teachers’ understanding of GCE in terms of alternative discourses and moving from ‘soft’ to more critical reflection on dominant narratives, and the kind of ‘critical literacy’ (Andreotti, 2006; 2010; 2012; 2015) argued as necessary for establishing more equal and ethical bases for responding to global issues (Blackmore, 2014; Pashby and Sund, 2020). At the same time, arguments are made that critical GCE might focus too much on theory, abstraction and an alternative educational ideal, without fully acknowledging the contextual, pedagogic and curricular ‘realities’ that affect teachers’ ability to integrate critical GCE in their practice (Marshall, 2011). 

Responding to calls for more empirical research, scholars have begun to study teachers’ understanding of GCE and related concepts (Franch, 2020, Rapoport, 2015), and how teachers engage with critical GCE and include critical perspectives in their practice (Blackmore, 2014; Pashby and Sund, 2020). Pashby and Sund’s work, in particular, offers an important example of research involving teachers in Sweden and the UK. Their study underlines the possibilities and complexities of teaching global issues through critical and post-colonial lenses like Andreotti’s HEADSUP tool (Andreotti, 2012). However, more research is needed to expose teachers to critical GCE tools, explore their responses and draw indications on how best to bring critical GCE frameworks from the realm of academia to the realities of teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical practice. Pashby and Sund’s study goes in this direction, but did not seek to make a comparative analysis of Swedish and UK teachers’ responses specifically. 

By developing a pedagogical tool for critically reflecting on global issues, this research responds to the need to facilitate opportunities for teachers of two different European countries  to engage with critical perspectives on GCE. It builds on Pashby and Sund’s exploratory study by drawing similarly on a theoretical framework informed by critical and post critical perspectives (Dillon, 2017), and Andreotti’s work in particular. It also responds to calls for more comparative analysis of European teachers’ perceptions and practice (Hunt, 2020).

The research started in February 2021 and is currently ongoing. It is articulated in three phases: 1. Co-construction of an online interactive and comparative tool on GCE for teachers 2. Delivery of the tool in online teacher education webinars and courses 3. Comparative analysis of teachers’ responses to the tool The research is supported by a methodological approach which draws on the researchers’ experience of facilitating GCE with practitioners, using Freirean-inspired participatory processes of critical reflection on experience and practice (Hope and Timmel, 1984). It began by developing a pedagogical tool which could be applied to any issue identified as a Single Story (Adichie, 2009), and incorporating this into a series of activities in online webinars for teachers. These combined visual and film-based stimuli with group activities which exposed teachers to critical GCE perspectives, provoked dialogue and made teachers’ perceptions and understandings explicit for analysis and comparison (Clark et al, 2013). So far, the research has provided rich data on teachers’ perspectives and reactions to critical GCE. It has also opened a space for teachers to increase their knowledge and confidence to engage with critical GCE perspectives. The methodological approach has also provided a space to bring teachers' voice to scholarly discourses on critical GCE, counteracting the danger suggested in the literature (Marshall, 2011) that such discourses remain confined in ‘academic ivory towers’ detached from teachers’ experiences and practices. Providing a space for teachers to exchange learning with each other, and with the researchers, it enabled possibilities for sharing experiences of ‘doing’ GCE in schools which could both ‘action’ theory and inform the development of pedagogy (Pashby and Sund, 2020). A preliminary comparative analysis of teachers’ responses to the tool was conducted to shed light on the similarities and differences in the way UK and Italian teachers engage with critical GCE perspectives and innovative pedagogical approaches. This involved an analysis of the verbal discussions held in the webinars and of the visual representations done by participants (Starbust identity charts, use of the tool to deconstruct singles stories). This initial comparative analysis was used to inform adaptations to the tool which was then incorporated into new and existing GCE online courses for Italian and UK teachers. Teachers are encouraged to try the tool out in practice in what we hope would be an ongoing process of experimentation and ‘collaborative reflexivity’ between teachers and between teachers and researchers (Hense and McFerran, 2016).

GCE is becoming a “distinctive pedagogical approach that in many ways is counter-hegemonic and challenges the dominant orthodoxies and ideologies that have historically influenced educational theory and practice” (Bourn, 2020:20). The research has brought to the fore critical perspectives in GCE and has addressed the lack of both empirical and comparative studies in GCE. The main output of the project, the pedagogical tool, will be of interest to scholars and practitioners engaged in critical GCE. It could be subjected to further analysis and development by other researchers and practitioners, including exploration of its uses in different contexts. The initial comparative analysis of UK and Italian teachers’ reactions to the tool has highlighted a number of common themes, which both stimulated ideas for the further development of the tool and raised questions for us as researchers. The key themes that have emerged so far and that will be more deeply explored through further data gathering and analysis are the following: ● Teachers in both contexts welcomed the space to share and reflect on complex issues, and experiment with the tool. They shared ideas about how they might use the tool in practice, including adaptations for different age groups ● The concept of single stories resonated with teachers’ experiences personally and in their teaching with young people. They reflected on the responsibility of schools and available resources in perpetuating the ‘single story of progress’ about “developed” and “underdeveloped” countries (Andreotti, 2015). ● When reflecting on their own identities and the way in which single stories originate and persist, many teachers tended to remain at the level of superficial analysis of factors shaping identity and perceptions of self and others, rather than more critical analysis of the roots and power dynamics influencing these.

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40-51. 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. Bourn, D. (2020). The Emergence of Global Education as a Distinctive Pedagogical Field. In D. Bourn (Ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning. London & New York:: Bloomsbury Academic Bourn, D., Hunt, F., & Bamber, P. (2017). A Review of Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education. Background Paper Prepared for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report. London: UCL Institute of Education. 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. Bullivant, A. (2020). From Development Education to Global Learning: Exploring conceptualisations of theory and practice amongst practitioners in England. PhD Thesis. Lancaster University Clark, J., Laing, K., Tiplady, L. and Woolner, P. (2013) Making Connections: Theory and Practice of Using Visual Methods to Aid Participation in Research. Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle University. Franch, S. (2020) ‘Global citizenship education discourses in a province in northern Italy’. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 12 (1): 21–36. Hense and McFerran, (2016). Hope, A and Timmel, S. (1999) Training for Transformation: A handbook for community workers. Book 1. Warwickshire: Practical Action 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. Pashby, K. and Sund, L. (2020) Decolonial options and foreclosures for global citizenship education and education for sustainable development. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE). 4(1), pp.66-83, Peterson, A., Milligan, A., & Wood, B. E. (2018). Global citizenship education in Australasia. In I. Davies, L. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck L., A. Peterson, E. Sant & Y. Waghid (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education (pp. 3-20). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rapoport, A. (2015). Global citizenship education. Classroom teachers' perspectives and approaches. In J. Harshman, T. Augustine & M. Merryfield (Eds.), Research in Global Citizenship Education (pp. 119-135). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.