Despite growing recognition of Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in formal education, little is known about how in-service teachers perceive and implement it. Most available studies focus on single country. Additionally, no comparative studies exist between these two countries, despite the importance of context in qualitative research and GCE's emphasis on epistemological diversity.

The justification for choosing comparison of Polish and Portuguese teachers was based on their significant similarities (Not main European actors, semi-peripheral status; strong Catholic tradition and post-regime countries; members of EU, UN, signatories of climate agreements) and differences (Portugal as a historical empire vs Poland entangled in triple relation with colonisation; relatively multicultural society in Portugal vs relatively homogenous Poland). These will be talked about in detail during the presentation. A key difference lies in GCE’s official status: Portugal has integrated it into national policies, while Poland lacks a formal strategy, with GCE marginalized in recent years. 

This study addresses the research gap by exploring how in-service teachers in Poland and Portugal understand and practice GCE. It examines their perceptions, implementation strategies, and the factors shaping GCE in schools. The key research question is: How is GCE understood and practised by in-service teachers in schools in Poland and Portugal, and what factors significantly shape it?

By shedding light on how teachers construct and apply GCE, this research may enhance understanding of contextual influences on GCE practices. It aims to contribute not only to academic discourse but also to practical advancements in GCE implementation.

Viewed through a critical and postcolonial lens, GCE serves as a pathway to global social justice by challenging systemic inequalities and responding to shifting global dynamics. (Pashby et al., 2020). It builds on critiques of mainstream theories—critical pedagogy and postcolonial theory. From the former, it views education as an emancipatory tool, recognizing that learning is never neutral and that teachers must address inequalities and power dynamics. From the latter, it examines colonialism’s lasting impact, including imperialism’s educational legacy, epistemic racism, and global power imbalances. By integrating these perspectives with pedagogical practice, GCE offers a challenging yet empowering approach to fostering global citizenship.

I adopted a qualitative case study approach, defined as an in-depth, multifaceted examination of a complex issue in its real-life context (Crowe et al., 2011). To capture diverse perspectives, I selected multiple cases using an "intensity" strategy (Miles et al., 2020), identifying the most engaged GCE teachers from prior Focus Group Interviews. Selection criteria focused on high engagement in GCE, defined as exceptional commitment compared to peers. Teachers were chosen based on: - A clear understanding of GCE’s global dimension - Participation in multiple GCE trainings - Coordination of at least one GCE project - Integration of GCE topics into lessons - Active leadership in GCE within their schools - Demonstrated expertise in both personal and systemic aspects of GCE during interviews Subject taught, location, and gender were not selection factors, though similarities in school contexts enabled comparison. Six teachers (three from Poland, three from Portugal) and their headteachers were invited, providing broader institutional insights. Other teachers and students were not included, as the study focused on teachers' GCE perceptions and practices. In order to gain access to a variety of relevant data I utilised a few sources: school documentation, individual interviews and class observations. For data analysis I chose Reflexive Thematic Analysis. It is based on Thematic Analysis, rather popular analysis method for recognizing and capturing patterns in qualitative study, but emphasises the researcher's active participation in the knowledge production process (Braun, Clarke, 2019; 2021)

Teachers in Poland and Portugal conceptualized and practiced Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in distinct ways, shaped by local and national contexts. In Poland, GCE was primarily framed through a liberal model, with some references to a critical approach. It was strongly linked to global interdependencies and emphasized its global dimension. GCE was mostly practiced through extracurricular activities, such as special days and long-term projects, with some integration into subjects like Geography or foreign languages. These efforts were often initiated by individual teachers, often with little external support. In response to unfavorable conditions, teachers used strategies like "smuggling" content or avoiding controversial topics. Polish teachers also faced challenges due to the socio-political climate and lack of GCE policies, but showed creativity, resourcefulness, and commitment in their teaching. In Portugal, GCE was also framed within a liberal model, but with a closer connection to citizenship, sometimes focusing on local or national aspects. This was closely tied to the Citizenship and Development (CeD) subject, which integrates GCE in formal education. GCE was not controversial in Portugal, with national and school policies supporting its teaching. Portuguese teachers adopted a more structured approach, often working in pairs or groups. Despite enjoying flexibility and autonomy, they faced challenges such as limited time and a national emphasis on exams. However, they received strong support from school actors like headteachers and parents and demonstrated high levels of engagement and creativity in teaching GCE. This study emphasizes the contrasts in how GCE is conceptualized and practiced in Poland and Portugal, along with the factors that shape these differences. The conclusions, which will be discussed in detail during the conference, could be valuable for not only academics but also for practitioners and policymakers..

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360 Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100 Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Fourth edition). SAGE. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352.