In a period of “poly-crisis”, including climate change, democratic backsliding, and rising nationalism, teacher education is expected to prepare future teachers to engage learners with global challenges. In this context, the concepts of agency and global citizenship are recognised as crucial capacities for pre-service teachers as they are expected to be globally conscious and socially responsible educators in diverse and interconnected settings (Goren & Yemini, 2017). Influenced by Bandura’s social cognitive theory, agency is conceptualised as a dynamic process, and it is shaped by perceived self-efficacy, outcome expectations, goals, and self-evaluative practices (Bandura, 1989). Global citizenship is defined as awareness of one’s role as a world citizen, valuing cultural diversity, understanding global interdependencies and interconnectedness, and further taking responsibility for action towards social justice and sustainability (Hartung, 2017; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013; UNESCO, 2015). Moreover, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) directly introduce global citizenship as SDG 4, Target 4.7 states that every learner should be provided with the knowledge and skills required to foster sustainable development, and global citizenship is one of the associated competencies (United Nations, 2023). As a result, higher education institutions can be placed as key stakeholders in the achievement of SDG 4.7 by helping pre-service teachers to perceive themselves as a part of a broader global community and to use their pedagogical knowledge and skills in a manner that fosters global wellbeing and sustainability.

Building on this perspective, the present study examines whether pre-service teachers’ multi-measure agentic personality traits of self-esteem, purpose in life, internal focus of control, and self-efficacy predict their global citizenship, including social responsibility, global competence, and global civic engagement. Accordingly, the research aims to explore the structural relationships between pre-service teachers’ multi-measure agentic personality traits and their levels of global citizenship and its subdimensions. This study is significant because it adopts a structural approach to clarify whether pre-service teachers’ agentic personality is a meaningful predictor of global citizenship, which has only been examined in a limited number of studies. By modelling these relationships, the study examines whether agentic personality is similarly related to the dimensions of global citizenship, including social responsibility, global competence, and global civic engagement. This study provides implications for teacher education curricula and support mechanisms. Particularly, the results on the predictive role of agentic personality can help teacher education programmes design targeted interventions to enhance both teacher development and outcomes of global citizenship education.

Acknowledgement: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aylin Kirisci-Sarikaya’s conference attendance was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkiye (TUBITAK).

A cross-sectional quantitative research design was employed based on structural equation modelling (SEM) to investigate the predictive relationships between agentic personality traits and global citizenship among pre-service teachers in higher education. The sample was recruited through convenience sampling and consisted of 491 pre-service teachers enrolled in faculties of education at universities in Turkiye. Agentic personality was measured using the Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale, originally developed by Cote (1997) and adapted into Turkish by Atak et al. (2013). The scale conceptualises agentic personality as a multidimensional construct encompassing self-esteem, purpose in life, internal focus of control, and self-efficacy. Global citizenship was assessed using the Global Citizenship Scale developed by Morais and Ogden (2011). The short form of the scale was later proposed by Lo et al. (2016), and its Turkish adaptation was conducted by Gezer and Ilhan (2023). The instrument measures global citizenship through the dimensions of global competence, social responsibility, and global civic engagement. Before testing the structural model, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to examine the construct validity of the scales. For the Global Citizenship Scale Short Form, one item (Item A4) was removed due to a low standardised factor loading below the recommended threshold of 0.40. Following this removal, the original three-factor structure demonstrated acceptable-to-excellent model fit (χ²/df =2.34; RMSEA=0.052; CFI=0.960; TLI=0.947). The remaining items showed statistically significant factor loadings ranging from 0.47 to 0.91. Composite reliability values ranged between 0.72 and 0.86. Although average variance extracted values for social responsibility and global competence were slightly below 0.50, composite reliability values exceeded 0.70, indicating acceptable convergent validity. For the Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale, one item (Item B11) was removed due to a low and negative factor loading. Further analyses revealed that the factor of internal focus of control did not meet acceptable psychometric criteria, with a composite reliability value of 0.41 and an average variance extracted value of 0.27. Consequently, this factor was removed. The final three-factor model, comprising self-esteem, purpose in life, and self-efficacy, demonstrated excellent fit (χ²/df=2.30; RMSEA=0.051; CFI=0.972; TLI=0.961), alongside satisfactory reliability. The data were analysed using AMOS v24. CFA was first applied to test the measurement models, followed by SEM to examine the hypothesised predictive relationships. Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, SRMR, and PClose.

The predictive role of multi-measure agentic personality traits was examined for global citizenship among pre-service teachers in higher education using SEM. It was found that agentic personality was selectively associated with the dimensions of global citizenship, particularly global competence, while showing limited explanatory power for civic-oriented outcomes. The final structural model demonstrated acceptable-to-excellent fit to the data (χ²/df=1.85; RMSEA=0.042; CFI=0.95; TLI=0.941; SRMR=0.055; PClose=0.991), which indicates that the proposed relationships adequately represented the observed data. Path analyses revealed that self-esteem had a strong and positive predictive effect on global competence (β=0.49; p<0.001), while self-efficacy also significantly and positively predicted global competence (β=0.31; p<0.001). These findings suggest that pre-service teachers who perceive themselves as confident and capable are more likely to feel competent in global issues and intercultural contexts. In contrast, purpose in life did not significantly predict global competence (β=−0.05; p=0.491). None of the retained agentic personality traits demonstrated statistically significant predictive relationships with social responsibility or global civic engagement (p>0.05). These non-significant relationships indicate that while agentic personality is associated with perceived global competence, it does not directly contribute to attitudes of social responsibility or active engagement at the global level. Overall, the findings point to a clear distinction between perceived global competence and civic or behavioural dimensions of global citizenship. While agentic personality is more closely associated with pre-service teachers’ sense of global competence, it is not sufficient to promote social responsibility or global civic engagement. These results suggest the need for experiential learning, civic-oriented pedagogies, and institutional support within teacher education programmes.

Atak, H., Kapci, E. G., & Cok, F. (2013). Evaluation of the Turkish version of the multi-measure agentic personality scale. Dusunen Adam Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 26(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2013260104 Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 Cote, J. E. (1997). An empirical test of the identity capital model. Journal of Adolescence, 20(5), 577–597. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1997.0111 Gezer, M., & Ilhan, M. (2023). Adaptation of the global citizenship scale-short form (GCS-SF) into Turkish. Baskent University Journal of Education, 10(1), 135–147. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/4277942 Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (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 Hartung, C. (2017). Global citizenship incorporated: Competing responsibilities in the education of global citizens. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1104849 Lo, K. W. K., Kwan, K. P., Chan, S. C. F., & Ngai, G. (2016, 10–12 January). Cross-cultural validation of the global citizenship scale for measuring impacts of international service-learning in Hong Kong setting. The Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Service-Learning (pp. 12–17), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Morais, D. B., & Ogden, A. C. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1028315310375308 Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858–870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749 UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/gcedtopicsandlearningobjectives_01.pdf United Nations (UN). (2023). Sustainable development goals fast facts: What is sustainable development? Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2023/08/what-is-sustainable-development/