The concept and practice of global citizenship education (GCE) is now widespread in schools and universities across the world. At a surface level, the meaning of the term appears self-evident. Yet, within the context of U.S. higher education, Stein (2015) has argued that ‘global citizenship remains untheorized’ (p.242). Nevertheless, various scholars have sought to understand the different ways in which GCE is conceptualised as an agenda for education, often with reference to its implications for global and local policy and curriculum (Gaudelli, 2009; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pashby et al., 2020; Bourn, 2021). A further study conducted  by Goren & Yemini (2017) has aimed to identify differences in regional approaches to GCE. According to their analysis, European research on GCE is: often framed by the context of population changes related to immigration; viewed as an alternative model to national citizenship, and; aimed at inclusion and social cohesion (p.174). The typical European approach to GCE, they argue, is connected to moral and cultural concern rather than, for example, political advocacy.

The intentions behind GCE raise questions about its function and role in education settings. While GCE is often thought about in connection to the curriculum, the focus of this paper is on the practice of teaching. The first key question driving the analysis is: what do the teaching choices related to GCE suggest about how it is conceptualised? In responding to this question, we have adapted the now common way of framing different orientations to assessment (Schellekens et al., 2021), to consider three orientations in teaching GCE: teaching of, as, and for, global citizenship. Teaching of global citizenship can be understood as teaching about global citizenship as something connected to but distinct from, for example, national citizenship. This orientation may aim for impartiality, or a dispassionate approach. Teaching as global citizenship can be understood as a politicising orientation, whereby the teaching of global citizenship is connected to enacting global citizenship. For example, experiential service learning. Teaching for global citizenship can be understood as a moralising orientation, whereby students are encouraged - perhaps even implored - to embrace the values and dispositions connected to global citizenship as a moral response to global issues.

Commonly, scholars have concerned themselves with conceptualisations of global citizenship (ie. the ‘G’ and the ‘C’). However, the second key question raised in this paper asks what each of the above orientations suggest about the nature and role of education (ie. the ‘E’) within the construct of GCE. Responding to this question, the current paper is primarily conceptual. However, our theorising draws on data collected in Austria, Azerbaijan, and Australia pertaining to how GCE is enacted in the classroom and how teachers describe their understanding of GCE.  These perspectives on the teaching of GCE problematise abstract conceptualisations of GCE from ‘above’ and instead suggest that global citizenship is understood by teachers in relation to grounded everyday experiences, both within and outside the classroom. In this paper, we make the argument that GCE from both ‘above’ and ‘below’ tends to involve moralisation and politicisation, and that this raises questions about the role and nature of education itself within GCE practice. In other words, this paper asks whether teaching as and for global citizenship can properly be considered education and, if so, how contested views regarding globalism and citizenship can be addressed in a way that allows students to genuinely inquire into such matters.

This paper is primarily conceptual insofar as it is a philosophical inquiry into the nature of GCE. It is driven by the questions posed above, namely: Can teaching for moral and political aims be considered education and if so, how can such teaching ensure genuine student inquiry? While these questions are attended to philosophically, they emerge from empirical considerations in line with other such conceptualisation (see Tarozzia and Mallon, 2019, for example). The empirical work previously conducted that has given rise to this particular philosophical inquiry was based on Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) for data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2014). One sample comprised 33 teachers, parents and students sharing their perspectives on the development of GCE. The second school was a sample of administrators and teachers. The data was obtained through interviews and observation. Some document analysis was also used to triangulate some participant articulations and events. The third ongoing sample has involved interviews with rural teachers about their understanding and practice of GCE stemming from changing perspectives on globalisation and education (Palmer and Chandir, 2023)

This paper does not make an argument for one of the above orientations of GCE over the other. Instead, we draw the tentative conclusion that while politically and morally motivated teaching for and as global citizenship can be properly considered as education, this is contingent on such teaching leaving space for students’ open and critical inquiry. Such open inquiry means that the prior commitments of the teacher, and the values and ideas promoted in the dominant global citizenship discourse, are always open to question and reasonable contestation. The implications of this is that GC and GCE are constructs that should always be under interrogation rather than simply promoted as unquestioned ‘goods’ for today’s world. GCE, then, is not simply something to be promoted but a process in which issues of global significance are subjected to ethical and political questions. Such deliberation, we suggest, may well best be achieved through an approach to GCE that involves all three orientations (of, as, for). This conceptualisation of GCE has the potential to not only influence the teaching of GCE in schools and universities, but also policy and research related to GCE.

Bourn, D. (2021). Pedagogy of Hope: Global Learning and the Future of Education. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 13(2), 65-78. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of Global Citizenship Discourses towards Curriculum Enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theory, 25:1, 68–85. https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/GAUDHEU/22 Goren, H., and M. Yemini. 2017. “Global Citizenship Education Redefined – a Systematic Review of Empirical Studies on Global Citizenship Education.” International Journal of Educational Research 82:170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.004. Oxley, L., and P. Morris. (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 Palmer, N., & Chandir, H. (2023). Education Beyond Techno-global Rationality: Transnational Learning, Communicative Agency and the Neo-colonial Ethic. Journal of Creative Communications, 09732586231206651. Pashby, K., da Costa, M., Stein, S. & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education, Comparative Education, 56:2, 144-164, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352 Schellekens, L. H., Bok, H. G. J., de Jong, L. H., van der Schaaf, M. F., Kremer, W. D. J., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2021). A scoping review on the notions of Assessment as Learning (AaL), Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment of Learning (AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, Article 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094 Stein, S. (2015). Mapping Global Citizenship, Journal of College and Character, 16:4, 242-252, DOI: 10.1080/2194587X.2015.1091361 Tarozzi, M., & Mallon, B. (2019). Educating teachers towards global citizenship: A comparative study in four European countries. London Review of Education, 17(2), 112-125.