contesting and constructing international perspectives … · contesting and constructing...

Contesting and Constructing International Perspectives in Global Education

R. Reynolds, D. Bradbery, J. Brown, K. Carroll, D. Donnelly,

K. Ferguson-Patrick and S. Macqueen (Eds.)

Spine12.725 mm

Contesting and Constructing International Perspectives in Global EducationR. Reynolds, D. Bradbery, J. Brown, K. Carroll, D. Donnelly, K. Ferguson-Patrick and S. Macqueen (Eds.)

S e n s e P u b l i s h e r s

Contesting and Constructing International Perspectives in Global EducationR. ReynoldsUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

D. BradberyUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

J. BrownUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

K. CarrollAustralian Catholic University, Australia

D. DonnellyUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

K. Ferguson-PatrickUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

and

S. Macqueen (Eds.)University of Newcastle, Australia

This volume addresses the need for an international perspective on global education, and provides alternate voices to the theme of global education. The editors asked international educators in different contexts to indicate how their own experience of global education addresses the broad and contested concepts associated with this notion. Following the lead of the internationally acknowledged authors from North America, Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia, perspectives were provided on a wide variety of contexts including tertiary education, and teacher education; various pedagogies for global education, including digital pedagogies; and curriculum development at school, tertiary and community levels. Contesting and Constructing International Perspectives in Global Education explores the tensions inherent in discussions of global education from a number of facets including spatial, pedagogical, temporal, social and cultural; and provides critical, descriptive and values-laden interpretations. The book is divided into five sections, “Temporal and Spatial Views of Global Education”; “Telling National Stories of Global Education”; “Empowering Citizens for Global Education”; “Deconstructing Global Education”; and “Transforming Curricula for Global Education”. It is envisaged as a starting point for a stronger international conception of global education and a way to build a conversation for the future of global education in a neo-liberal and less internationally confident time.

ISBN 978-94-6209-987-6

DIVS

Contesting and Constructing International Perspectives inGlobal Education

Contesting and Constructing InternationalPerspectives in Global Education

Edited by

R. ReynoldsUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

D. BradberyUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

J. BrownUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

K. CarrollAustralian Catholic University, Australia

D. DonnellyUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

K. Ferguson-PatrickUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

and

S. MacqueenUniversity of Newcastle, Australia

SENSE PUBLISHERSROTTERDAM / BOSTON / TAIPEI

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-94-6209-987-6 (paperback)ISBN 978-94-6209-988-3 (hardback)ISBN 978-94-6209-989-0 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,P.O. Box 21858,3001 AW Rotterdam,The Netherlandshttps://www.sensepublishers.com/

Printed on acid-free paper

All rights reserved © 2015 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or byany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without writtenpermission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purposeof being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements vii Introduction: Interpreting Global Education 1 Ruth Reynolds, Deborah Bradbery, Joanna Brown, Kay Carroll, Debra Donnelly, Kate Ferguson-Patrick & Suzanne Macqueen Section 1: Temporal and Spatial Views of Global Education 1. Re-Imagining Global Education in the Neoliberal Age: Challenges and Opportunities 11 Graham Pike 2. One Size Fits All? Global Education for Different Educational Audiences 27 Ruth Reynolds 3. Global Perspectives on Global Citizenship 43 Hilary Landorf & Eric Feldman Section 2: Telling National Stories of Global Education 4. The Significance of Schooling, Teaching and Education: A South African Perspective 55 Patrick Themba Sibaya 5. Educating Diverse Teachers in a Diverse Country: An Issue of Connectivity 63 Udan Kusmawan 6. The Neglect of Politics and Power Analysis in Development Education 77 Mags Liddy 7. The Implications for Secondary Teacher Training of Large-scale Polish Immigration into England 89 Trevor Davies Section 3: Empowering Citizens for Global Education 8. Democratising Schools 107 Javier Calvo de Mora

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vi

9. Where’s the Action in Global Education? Employing Global Education for Lasting Change through Teacher Education 115 Suzanne Macqueen & Kate Ferguson-Patrick 10. Teaching with a Values Stance for Global Citizenship: Integrating Children’s Literature 125 Deborah Bradbery & Joanna Brown Section 4: Deconstructing Global Education 11. Service Learning as Post-colonial Discourse: Active Global Citizenship 135 Fran Martin & Fatima Pirbhai-Illich 12. Going Global 151 Kay Carroll Section 5: Transforming Curricula for Global Education 13. Historical Culture and Peace Education: Some Issues for History Teaching as a Means of Conflict Resolution 161 Henrik Åström Elmersjö 14. The Digital Studio as a Global Education Site: Imaging to Examine Issues of Social Justice and Human Rights 173

Debra Donnelly & Kathryn Grushka

15. A Global Citizenship Perspective through a School Curriculum 187 Murray Print

16. It Takes a Global Village: Re-conceptualising Global Education within Current Frameworks of School and Curricula 199 Kay Carroll 17. Educating for Global and Local Peace: Emerging Visions, Hopeful Practices 209 Toh Swee-Hin (S.H. Toh) Authors’ Biographies 223 Editorial Committee Biographies 229

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editors would like to acknowledge the wonderful support we have received from some key people. First and foremost many thanks to our diligent and hardworking Research Assistant, Monica Gendi. We would never have completed this without her painstaking attention to detail. Secondly to Cecilia Chiu who is a copy editor of exceptional expertise. She chased up every comma and full stop with a vengeance that we now appreciate mightily. We would like to acknowledge our Editorial Committee who provided much needed commentary on articles and gave us direction when we needed it most. Members of this committee are listed in the back of this text. We would also like to thank our various authors who revised and revised, engaging in much professional discussion around their ideas of a global education. They have managed to do what we hoped they would – provide us with wide and varied perspectives to lift our visage beyond what our limited contextual experiences have thus far taught us about Global Education. We have learned a lot by the process and we hope readers will also. Also many thanks to Sense Publishers and Peter de Liefde, Publisher and General Manager, who are so responsive to our queries and helpful at all times.

R. Reynolds et al. (Eds.), Contesting and Constructing International Perspectives in Global Education, 1–7. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

RUTH REYNOLDS, DEBORAH BRADBERY, JOANNA BROWN, KAY CARROLL, DEBRA DONNELLY, KATE FERGUSON-PATRICK

& SUZANNE MACQUEEN

INTRODUCTION: INTERPRETING GLOBAL EDUCATION

This text addresses the need for an international perspective on global education and to provide alternate voices to the theme of global education. It takes key themes that require a global perspective and asks educators to indicate how their own experience of global education addresses them. Global education is a broad and contested concept imbued with varied values, understandings and practices. The term ‘Global Education’ is ascribed with a multiplicity of definitions depending on the context of the proponents. The aim of this book is to construct concepts of global education using international perspectives from experts rather than provide one definitive view, definition or approach. We followed the authors’ lead. Some chose to write on global citizenship, some on global education; some gave it an historical lens, some a futures lens. To us this was what we wanted from this book – to tap into a variety of views in order to reveal them to a wider audience. We identified authors who could contribute broad perspectives on global education and key questions were provided. We asked how they defined the area of global education; the key focuses in their field as they related to their national context; their personal contributions to the field; and the key tensions and challenges for global education in the future. We attracted internationally acknowledged authors from North America, Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia who provided perspectives on a wide variety of contexts including tertiary education, teacher education, various pedagogies, including digital pedagogies, and curriculum development at school, tertiary and community levels. The text explores the tensions inherent in discussions of global education from a number of facets including spatial, pedagogical, temporal, social and cultural; and provides critical, descriptive and values-laden interpretations. We envisage this text as a starting point for a stronger international conception of global education and a way to build a conversation for the future of global education in a neo-liberal and less internationally confident time.

Definitions

Global education is about ‘preparing students for the increasing interconnectedness among people and nation’ (Zong, Wilson, & Quashiga, 2008, p. 199). Exponential

RUTH REYNOLDS ET AL.

2

technological and societal change has made us increasingly interdependent and has flattened and converged global boundaries creating a need for global education and learning about all dimensions of humanity (Banks, 2004; Friedman, 2005; Tye, 2003). Global education comprises knowledge, consciousness, intercultural awareness, transnational efficacy and informed advocacy (Lorenzini, 2013). Global knowledge informs students about structural and social inequalities and dominant discourses. This knowledge frames global awareness, citizenship and consciousness (Davies, 2006; Dower, 2014; Dower & Williams, 2002; Carpenter, Weber, & Schugurensky, 2012). Global consciousness is an informed view of rights and responsibilities in the global community (UNESCO, 2012). This consciousness comprises an understanding of the interrelationships between the collective and individual responsibility. It recognises the importance of human rights issues, environmental sustainability and intercultural understanding and creates an impetus towards global citizenship. The notion of a multifaceted multidimensional citizenship embodying personal, social, spatial and temporal dimensions (Cogan & Grossman, 2009) is one way in which global consciousness can be envisaged. It is characterised by engagement with the challenges and opportunities afforded by the issues identified by globalisation. It is a transformative and empowering concept to deconstruct the contemporary and international discourses. The global consciousness enables students to respond to contemporary issues of poverty, social injustice, persecution, exploitation or environmental concerns with transnational efficacy to enact change and seek, through global advocacy, alternative solutions to these issues and contexts. This text connects these constructs of global education and considers how global frameworks are played out in a range of international sites and experiences.

Key themes and ideas

Chapters have been grouped around emergent themes of global education and seek to provide an explorative pathway for the reader. Beginning with the thematic thread of Temporal and Spatial Views of Global Education, Pike compares views on the concepts of global education and international education while Landorf and Feldman examine evolving literature on the meaning and application of the term global citizenship. Reynolds uses research literature on all of these themes to clarify the different contexts in which they may be used. All three papers acknowledge ongoing discussions around how global education could possibly be conceived and implemented in different venues and some of the contemporary issues associated with the notion. Pike (‘Re-imagining Global Education in the Neoliberal Age: Challenges and Opportunities’) points to the rise of neoliberal discourses which has moved education increasingly towards a resource rather than a moral focus on building communities. Using Nussbaum’s two poles of education for profit and education for freedom (Nussbaum, 2009) and his own continuum from privilege to common good, Pike develops criteria for the resultant four quadrants that will expose the predominant values and beliefs that inform the practice of global and international education if that position is taken. This


3

provides an incredibly useful platform for global educators at the local and global level to position their actions in different ways and in different times. This theme of pragmatic opportunity as a central feature of global education is taken up by Reynolds (‘One Size Fits All? Global Education for Different Educational Audiences’), when she argues that, despite the different terms used, the ideas espoused and the strategies implemented are dependent on the educational context. Thus much of the confusion around the use of terms associated with global education is as a result of the way that practitioners at different levels of education envision what is possible. Landorf and Fredman (‘Global Perspectives on Global Citizenship’) provide another very important perspective for this discussion by including voices from non-Western sources to the discussion of what global citizenship means. As it is an avowed aim of this text to provide multiple voices on a theme which is most often discussed in a small number of Western, privileged groups, Landorf and Feldman’s perspectives are critical. By engaging global educators from many different corners of the world they argue that the development of human capability rather than corporate gain is a crucial element of global citizenship and a guiding framework. Additionally both local and global actions, skills, and interconnectedness are required to be truly global citizens and so debates that argue for one or the other are not helpful in augmenting notions of global citizenship. It is obvious from our authors’ opinions that national perspectives continue to be very important in influencing global viewpoints. Many authors see their own nation’s actions as a way of understanding global education. We have grouped these together to put the spotlight on this idea. Telling National Stories of Global Education brings together diverse national narratives of the history and enactment of global education. Stories from South Africa and Indonesia provide unique experiences of global education but ones that can be linked to other places in the world. Sibaya offers the view that experiences of education in South Africa offers perspectives on the importance of overall global values that imbue education, a view influenced by the years of South Africa being isolated from the rest of the world and subject to racial divisions. Kusmawan from Indonesia perceives global education as a matter of connectivity and has the view that information and communication technology (ICT) can help build global connections and local connections in the diverse nation that is Indonesia. The Indonesian challenge of creating social and national cohesion through technology and the vast numbers, diverse cultures, languages and educational settings this involves is confronting. These studies provide real and positive examples of how global education and global citizenship can be achieved within a national context. Additionally in this section stories from Ireland and from England provide examples from nations who are reaching out to the world with authors reflecting on the issues associated with such global interaction. Liddy provides an Irish perspective (‘The Neglect of Politics and Power Analysis in Development Education’), arguing that what is called development education in Ireland has a strong history of charity and mission work in its conception of global education and global citizenship. Liddy argues that there needs to be a more critical approach: that neglect of the power and political


4

aspects of global citizenship in development education could be seen as encouraging issues such as human rights and social justice as personal and individualised concerns rather than structural issues at cultural, economic and/or political levels. Davies (The Implications for Secondary Teacher Training of Large-Scale Polish Immigration into England), who surveyed trainee teachers on their attitudes to global education, found that respondents believed that people from different cultures can be good neighbours but there was an alarmingly low regard for England being socially just and some confusion as to their role as individuals and the wider role of government generally. They recognised that they should exercise individual responsibility and contribute to volunteering and community activity; but few trainees believed that teachers should make their values about other cultures explicit. Both of the latter national narratives portray mixed views on global education, weighing up the constraints of individual rights and responsibilities and the international rights and responsibilities involved. Many teachers seemingly do not see themselves as active global citizens but instead as good global neighbours. The section Empowering Citizens for Global Education is a compilation of articles envisaging new global futures and strategies to achieve future global citizens with an emphasis on schools. Calvo de Mora argues that democratising schools is an important way to model for students and the wider community how a better society could evolve; Macqueen and Ferguson-Patrick argue that enabling students to take action on important events is a crucial but seemingly rare event in schools and bodes ill for future global citizenship; and Bradbery and Brown argue that the values of global education are crucial for future global citizens. Calvo de Mora (‘Democratising Schools’) points out that if we want a more equitable global community we need to collaboratively bring together families, teachers, administrators, and students in schools, because they possess complementary information that can be used to solve educational problems. Often non-formal knowledge such as social and emotional issues, neighborhood issues, and family status builds democratic school communities and such participation is the process by which public concerns, needs, and values are incorporated into governmental and corporate decision-making processes. School community-building can provide direction for the wider world. Macqueen and Ferguson-Patrick (‘Where’s the Action in Global Education? Employing Global Education for Lasting Change through Teacher Education’) critique a pre-service teacher global education program from the point of view of teaching future teachers to take action to engage students in important global issues. They argue that enacting global values is essential for the better world and any action that helps to link the local experience with the global one will assist with this. Despite some degree of reticence in dealing with issues that could be seen as controversial, global ways of acting, being and feeling need to be embraced by teachers. Another chapter by Bradbery and Brown (‘Teaching with a Values Stance for Global Citizenship: Integrating Children’s Literature’) identifies the empowering potential of children’s literature as a vehicle for teaching the values and dispositions of global citizenship and


5

provides some examples of key global issues that can be addressed by such techniques. Furthering the theme of pursuing a stronger sense of agency for global education in Deconstructing Global Education, Carroll (‘Going Global’) argues that critical literacy, critical inquiry and critical understanding are needed for a global context and engagement. She outlines the impact of contemporary digital and social media practices on global citizenship and suggests a framework for a critical approach to global literacy in schools. Martin and Pirbhai-Illich (‘Service Learning as Post-Colonial Discourse: Active Global Citizenship’) reframe service learning in a post-colonial context and deconstruct examples from Canada and India. Transforming Curricula for Global Education concentrates on critically focused strategies and pedagogies for the promotion of global education precepts. All five chapters address initiatives in curriculum to provide a reflexive approach to global education. Although, as Andreotti (2006) notes, soft approaches to global education such as raising awareness of global issues and promoting campaigns are appropriate in some contexts, critical approaches where there are safe spaces established to consider multiple perspectives on inequality and injustice, are also possible. Curriculum can provides some of those spaces. Elmersjo (‘Historical Culture and Peace Education’) examines the links between historical culture and peace education. He argues that history education acts in a dialectic relationship with its society and when a cultural group moves towards building more peaceful and equitable relationships history education often uncritically follows. A critical approach to history education would be to expose the conflicts in the narratives of past events and to embrace these as part of a well functioning democracy. Donnelly and Grushka investigate social justice and human rights using images in the digital studio. They found that the independent self-directed learning structure of the digital studio environment provided learners with a sense of agency and autonomy in their learning and a space to explore global themes. In the Australian context, the new Civics and Citizenship syllabus is arguably a good model for global citizenship education. Print (‘A Global Citizenship Perspective through a School Curriculum’), who was instrumental in developing this curriculum document, points out that there are many opportunities provided in the document to explore notions of global citizenship. The issue is that any form of citizenship education, whether it be global or national or local, is poorly regarded in education curriculum internationally and requires both formal and informal approaches to build engaged citizens. Carroll (‘It Takes a Global Village: Re-Conceptualising Global Education Within Current Frameworks of School and Curricula’), also addressing the Australian Curriculum, maps the cross curricular priorities of Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures; and sustainability across the newly implemented Australian curriculum and concludes that education is the means through which the global village can be envisaged and enacted. Toh (‘Educating for Global and Local Peace: Emerging Visions, Hopeful Practices’) provides a vision of hope for us with his deep passion for encouraging peace and peaceful critical pedagogy. He argued that global education must employ multiple pathways including Human Rights Education,


6

intercultural understanding and personal inner peaceful mindfulness. The possibilities are there for us all as educators to provide multiple ways to address global education despite the evident constraints. The emergent themes and trends identified in this book represent the many voices of global educators on several continents and the interplay of these. The various frames and lenses through which global education is viewed allow us to present a problematised approach enabling us to confidently engage with global discourses and global citizens. This text provides some initial insights into how we, as researchers and educators from diverse nations, see the world of global education. The editorial team have collated unique/different/rich/compelling stories and ideas, providing a comprehensive statement of what global education means internationally and how this relates to the implementation of global perspectives in educational settings. This is only the beginning. We can see some themes that require further investigation and some ideas that are worthy of providing direction in the field: 1. There is a need to further explore non-Western perspectives on global education.

To be truly global we must learn to engage with others who have a view with which we may not be familiar.

2. Readers from the Western world need to apply our critical, post-colonial scrutiny to discourses of globalisation, common good and international imperatives. What would truly global, non-judgemental and mutually supportive communications truly look like? Why would we have such conversations? How would we have such conversations?

3. How have national citizenship narratives been interrupted by global citizenship narratives? What examples of this have not yet been explored?

4. From a curriculum perspective how well have we positioned ourselves for a globally connected world and what are the implications of this? What are the emerging pedagogies of such a world?

We encourage the continuing debate.

REFERENCES

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 1(3), 40–51.

Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2004). Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspective. San Franciso: Jossey Bass.

Carpenter, S., Weber, N., & Schugurensky, D. (2012). Views from the blackboard: Neoliberal education reforms and the practice of teaching in Ontario, Canada. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(2), 145–161.

Cogan. J. J., & Grossman, D. L. (2009). Characteristics of globally minded teachers: A twenty first century view. In T. Kirkwood-Tucker (Ed.), Visions in global education (pp. 240–270). NT: Peter Lang.

Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5–25.

Dower, N. (2014). Global ethics: Dimensions and prospects. Journal of Global Ethics, 10(1), 8–15. Dower, N., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2002). Global citizenship: A critical reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.


7

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Lorenzini, M. (2013). From global knowledge to global civic engagement. Journal of Political Science

Education, 9(4), 417–435. Nussbaum, M. (2009). Education for profit, education for freedom. Liberal Education, 95(3), 6–13. Tye, K. A. (2003). Global education as a worldwide movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 165. United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO]. (2012). A roadmap on

global consciousness: Thinking and learning for the 21st century. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/cultureofpeace/flagship-programmes/global-consciousness

Zong, G., Wilson, A. H., & Quashiga, A. Y. (2008). Global education. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 197–216). New York and London: Routledge.

SECTION 1

TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL VIEWS OF GLOBAL EDUCATION


GRAHAM PIKE

1. RE-IMAGINING GLOBAL EDUCATION IN THE NEOLIBERAL AGE

Challenges and Opportunities

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, I want to explore the lasting impact of neoliberalism on the development of global education, in both K-12 and higher education sectors, in the United Kingdom and Canada. In so doing, I hope to illustrate the urgent need for a reassessment of, and reinvestment in, global education’s visionary goals at a time when economic interests, as determined by the global free market, trump the broader concerns of planetary health and the common good. Conflict and controversy, in political as well as educational domains, have always shaped the global education narrative but the neoliberal values that dominate contemporary discourse on public education pose a challenge of an entirely different magnitude. These are personal reflections on an era that has witnessed monumental changes in geopolitical and economic systems, all of which, inevitably, have influenced educational thinking. The probable continuance of such rapid change, allied to the uncertainty of its outcomes, is the context for proposing a re-imagining of global education at a time when its central values are often proclaimed but rarely practised.

GLOBAL EDUCATION AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: RESPONSES TO GLOBALISATION

Global education (at the primary and secondary levels of education) and international education (at the tertiary level) are both reform movements that have attempted to broaden students’ understanding of the world in the wake of the impacts of globalisation. Public education systems, inevitably, have emerged from – and have been deliberately shaped to promote – the nation as the primary geographical and political concept. For more than a century, nationalism has been integral to the purpose and practice of education (Green, 1990, 1997). Educational institutions have laboured to produce workers who will meet the nation’s need for certain skills and talents, civilians who will perform the requisite duties as voters, parents and tax-payers, and citizens who will defend their sovereignty – even being prepared, when necessary, to sacrifice their own lives in the interests of the nation (Smith, 1998). In the latter half of the 20th century, building on some earlier attempts and strategies (Heater, 1980, 1984), educators in the global North began to argue, from

GRAHAM PIKE

12

both pragmatic and moral perspectives, that education should better acknowledge and reflect the nature of the contemporary world. The pragmatic viewpoint emerges from the inexorable rise of globalisation: in an era when national economies are increasingly interdependent and the passage of goods and services is indifferent to political boundaries, an understanding of the world as a global village is more attuned to the everyday realities that link people, cultures and places in a vast interconnected web. Whether for good or ill, the argument goes, globalisation has forever changed the way the world works and education shoulders a responsibility to prepare students to adapt and contribute to this enlarged community. The moral argument draws credibility from the realities of globalisation but goes further than the pragmatist view. Given that we now live in a global village, we have duties and responsibilities that are similarly far reaching in their scope (Dower, 2003). As we are intimately interconnected, and the impacts of our actions and decisions will have consequences for people around the globe, we should extend our ‘circle of compassion’ to include those who live beyond our nation’s border and to ‘give the circle that defines our humanity special attention and respect’ (Nussbaum, 1996, p. 9). The care and concern for neighbours, one of the defining characteristics of a well-functioning community, becomes a global, rather than just a local or national, ethic. It is an argument grounded more in moral principles than in law, though many of the key pronouncements that it draws upon (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) carry considerable weight. Education’s role then, in this regard, is to sensitise national citizens to the stark inequalities and injustices of the global system and to equip them with the tools necessary to help ameliorate the lives of the less fortunate, wherever they may reside. Global education, at the K-12 level, draws from both pragmatic and moral arguments. Building on earlier attempts in peace education to shape public education as a vehicle for developing more tolerant young people who can resolve conflicts without resorting to violence (Heater, 1980), global education continues to focus on the development of the skills and values of cooperation and conflict resolution while also imparting knowledge about global systems, global issues and the interconnectedness of humans and other species. Common to many manifestations of global education is the concept of the global community, incorporating the idea that citizens of one nation should not only understand the global implications of their decisions and actions but also should feel respect and concern for the citizens of other nations who may be impacted by those decisions or may simply need their attention and care. In the intimate milieu of the primary and secondary classroom, where the inculcation of values such as tolerance, respect, fairness and compassion is relatively easy to justify as falling within the mandate for public education, teachers can feel confident about dwelling on these aspects, whether at local, national or global levels. At the tertiary level of education, international education has become one of the fastest-growing and most influential developments in colleges and universities in recent years (Taylor, 2004). Drawing from earlier traditions in comparative

RE-IMAGINING GLOBAL EDUCATION IN THE NEOLIBERAL AGE

13

education suggesting that national systems of education could benefit from a cross-fertilisation of relevant ideas and practice from other systems (Dolby & Rahman, 2008) international education has sought to facilitate the movement and exchange of knowledge, students and professors between institutions in different nations and to promote the benefits of an international study experience. One of the early manifestations of international education, built on the altruistic visions integral to the field of international development, saw many college and university students engage in a volunteer experience through organisations such as the Peace Corps and Voluntary Service Overseas. Today, the rationale for international education is most usually steeped in pragmatism: studying abroad will enhance a student’s prospects of employment at a time when the workforce demands skills such as adaptability and cross-cultural sensitivity. Furthermore, creating a cosmopolitan campus at one’s own institution facilitates the interchange of perspectives from around the world and thus allows even domestic students to benefit from something of an intercultural experience. In the contested environment of academic freedom that pervades most higher education institutions, the value-laden ideals of global education are less in evidence, though they may still motivate many students and faculty to embark upon international study and research experiences. Such ideals may also be implicit in institutional pronouncements about the value of international education for the development of global citizens.

THE IMPACTS OF NEOLIBERALISM

Global education

Running parallel to the development of the global and international education movements has been the increasingly pervasive influence of neoliberalism (Harvey, 2005) in education systems. During the 1980s, at about the same time as the global education movement was beginning to identify its key tenets and attract interest from primary and secondary teachers in the developed world, the market-driven ideology of neoliberalism was finding a foothold in the governance of school systems and in the struggle for control of curriculum. The major thrust of neoliberal initiatives was a shift away from the ‘ethical liberalism’ (Manzer, 1994) of the post-war years towards requiring school curricula to focus principally on developing the knowledge and skills required for global competitiveness, based on a perception that schools were failing to adequately prepare students for ensuring their nation’s success in the rapidly expanding global economy (Mitchell, 2003). The classic hallmarks of neoliberal thinking in education include: curricula increasingly oriented to the imperatives of a free-market global economy and the honing of skills necessary to perpetuate it; an insistence on ‘learning outcomes’ that are closely allied to the perceived needs of employers; the prioritisation of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects over the ‘softer’ and more creative arts, humanities and social sciences; an attribution of greater value to learning that can be immediately measured; and an increasing

GRAHAM PIKE

14

commercialisation of education that views learning as a product to be acquired, rather than as a lifelong way of being. The pragmatic goals of global education were not necessarily viewed as incompatible with the neoliberal agenda; in fact, lists of essential skills for the late 20th century employment produced by corporate and industrialist think-tanks were often remarkably similar to skill sets promoted by global educators and were used by some in advocacy campaigns for global education (O’Sullivan, 1999). The moral arguments found in the global education literature, however, were often viewed as a threat to the efficient production of suitably qualified workers for the increasingly competitive global economic system. As mathematics, science and technology achieved higher status in the politics of curriculum development, the softer ideals of global education embedded in the social sciences, especially ideas related to the widening of the circle of compassion and to the pursuit of social justice globally, were subjected to more frequent attack in many countries or were squeezed out of an increasingly crowded and regulated curriculum (Pike, 2008; Tye, 2009). The guiding principles of a neoliberal approach to education – standardisation of curriculum, quantifiable outcomes, accountability through performance measurement – presented considerable challenges to the fundamental tenets of global education that view learning as a journey with an undetermined destination and adopt the beliefs and values of the student as the starting point for that journey. The predominant neoliberal focus on the acquisition of a fixed body of knowledge, inevitably prioritised by educational goals that insist on measurable outcomes, was largely at odds with the nascent global education movement that was struggling to define its epistemological parameters and which, in any case, wished to give more weight to skills development and the exploration of values. In the UK, following a decade of significant growth in world studies (the preferred term at the time), attacks by Roger Scruton (1985), a junior minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government, and others of like mind (e.g., Marks, 1984; Cox & Scruton, 1984) marked a serious and significant shift in the political discourse surrounding the leading movements in social and political education. From having enjoyed some, albeit limited, support from the Department of Education and Science, world studies was now directly under attack by government ministers and influential academics. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the freedom enjoyed by teachers to debate the place and scope of teaching contemporary global issues in the K-12 curriculum was severely restricted by the multiple impacts of the 1988 Education Reform Act that heralded the arrival of the first National Curriculum in England and Wales. Not only was the National Curriculum, for the most part, unreceptive to the substance and style of teaching advocated by world studies, but also the pervasive and relentless shift towards the standardisation of curriculum and assessment left teachers with little time or energy to explore ways to integrate topics that were deemed to be peripheral, despite some evidence of initial resistance on the part of global educators (Vulliamy & Webb, 1993). In Canada, the federal government, under the auspices of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), had committed significant funding to global education projects in eight of the ten provinces beginning in 1987.


15

Innovative projects undertaken in collaboration with teachers’ unions, including the development of ‘global schools’ in some provinces, nurtured a generation of global educators that built on best practice ideas from many countries. School boards actively promoted global education as a key strand in the social studies curriculum and funded teachers’ workshops and summer institutes. However, by the mid-1990s, the tide of widespread support for global education in Canada was rapidly turning. CIDA, without warning, cut its funding for the provincial global education projects in 1995, leaving many projects and organisations struggling for alternative funds and destroying the provincial and national dialogues and support networks that were so important to teachers. Recently established Global Schools discovered that their visions were no longer in line with school board mandates and withered on the vine. Inexorably, the hallmarks of neoliberal ideology began to take hold in education thinking and systems in Canada as elsewhere throughout the developed world. Global education was patently unprepared for the neoliberal onslaught. Not only were some of its key principles a poor fit with neoliberal thinking, but also the movement itself had paid insufficient attention to the fundamentals of gaining credibility within either academic or political establishments. Indeed, being essentially a grassroots movement, global educators had eschewed the idea of aligning themselves with establishment thinking, arguing that such thinking was at the roots of many contemporary global crises and, therefore, needed to be challenged. Additionally, global education proponents had made many assertions about the efficacy of their favoured teaching and learning strategies, but had devoted little time to providing supporting, research-based evidence (Lister, 1987; Merryfield, 1998). When faced with the sweeping reforms of curricula and assessment practices that neoliberal thinking instigated, global educators were ill-equipped to demonstrate the validity of their beliefs and practice or to adapt to the changing circumstances in education thinking. Challenges to global education’s credibility have been further exacerbated by the pervasive impacts of subsequent global events, notably 9/11 and the economic collapse of 2008. The irony, of course, is that global educators believe that their vision for education is key to developing safer and more sustainable societies, but they are struggling to be heard amidst the strident neoliberal voices.

International education1

In contrast to global education, international education has thrived under the influences of neoliberalism. As public higher education institutions across many parts of the developed world have endured consistent, and sometimes drastic, cuts to their funding from governments, those institutions have actively pursued other revenue sources to make up the deficit. At the same time, the attractions of a cross-border educational experience have been recognised in many fast-developing economies, particularly China, India and the oil-rich nations of the Middle East, by increasing numbers of college and university students who view the status of ‘international student’ as a passport to higher paid employment in their home

GRAHAM PIKE

16

country or, in many cases, as a bridge to obtaining permanent residence in a more developed country. This has created a burgeoning pool of eager international students who are willing to pay premium tuition fees, often many times the cost of tuition in their home country, to pursue a dream. This is neoliberalism in education writ large: educational institutions with a desperate need for funds and, in many cases, a dwindling local population, selling the credentials demanded by a growing elite of wealthy students from beyond their national borders. As the market for educational credentials is largely unregulated and global in scope, it offers those students who can afford the fees a wide choice of education providers and thus sets up intense competition between educational institutions worldwide wishing to mine this rich seam of additional revenue. Of course, higher education institutions that are key players in this market offer cogent and passionate arguments, often supported by government policy (Government of Canada, 2014), senior politicians (Gillard, 2009), and university presidents (Toope, 2011) in defence of their international student recruitment strategy. Such arguments generally focus on the social advantages of diverse, multicultural and multilingual classrooms, the benefits of international exchange partnerships that provide opportunities for domestic students to study in other countries, the potential for faculty exchange and cross-border research collaborations, and the impetus that international students provide in many ways to the development of global citizenship on national campuses. These loftier, more palatably altruistic goals are undeniably beneficial: the vibrancy of the cosmopolitan campus is infinitely preferable to the limited vision of the college or university that caters principally to the needs of its local middle-class neighbourhoods; in a global economy and an increasingly interdependent global system, it makes eminently good sense for future employees to gain experience of other cultures, languages and ways of knowing at the same time as earning their required credential. The desirability of what the forces of neoliberalism have helped to create in higher education institutions, I would submit, is not in question; however, the predominance of economic need as a key – and often unquestioned – driver of the current trends in international education raises many questions that sit uncomfortably with the rhetoric emanating from these same institutions. As the authors of the 4th Global Survey on the Internationalization of Higher Education note, the finding that ‘increased/diversified revenue generation’ is not regarded as important by institutions is ‘surprising’, given the evidence to the contrary; they suggest that ‘it is quite likely … that respondents offered a more “politically correct” answer to this question’ (Egron-Polak & Hudson, 2014, pp. 51–52). The rhetoric emanating from government policy statements and institutional strategic plans may talk of the benefits of international collaboration for knowledge exchange and student preparedness while the reality, notwithstanding the actual benefits that may accrue from student and faculty mobility, is mired more in economic self-interest and institutional competitiveness. The moral dilemma inherent in this reality is summarised succinctly in an internal report from a Canadian university:


17

The future for Ontario (and indeed all western) universities will be a difficult, even perilous, journey. The ability of society to fund expensive education for a large percentage of a diminishing local population is in question. One possible aspect of this future is for the publicly funded universities to market education to other jurisdictions at a profit to finance their public (provincial) obligation. This is a significant development and should be debated in the context of the mission of the publicly supported post-secondary education system of Ontario. (Carleton University, 2011, p. 15)

Recent trends suggest that this reality is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. While revenue from international education activity has largely benefited, to this point, countries in the North, nations that used to be net exporters of students, such as China, are now successfully marketing their own educational products to students from other nations. Furthermore, the emergence of ‘education hubs’, backed by significant private investment, in locations such as the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Malaysia indicates that the more prosperous nations in the global South are determined to become serious players in the international education marketplace (Knight, 2011). As governments in the North become increasingly reliant on international tuition revenue to offset reductions in higher education funding, competition for international students looks set to intensify. This is the paradox of international education: a movement born out of the ideals of internationalism and enrichment through cultural exchange, and still able to deliver on those ideals at the micro level, seems inextricably caught up at the macro level in the web of commercialisation that the very different ideals and practices of neoliberalism have forced upon higher education (Knight, 2008; de Wit & Brandenburg, 2011). In critiquing this trend I do not wish to downplay the significance of the enormous benefits that institutions, individual students and faculty have gained through international education; nor would I wish to doubt the motives of those involved in the international education movement who strive daily to create more global understanding, knowledge exchange and intercultural sensitivity through their actions. Whatever the primary motivation, the internationalisation of higher education would seem to offer the only sensible path for institutions to take in the pursuit of greater human development and international security. However, as the vice chancellor of a British university points out, international education as a movement seems profoundly uneasy with the idea of engaging in debate with ‘alternative forms of globalisation’, even though internationally mobile students often ‘play a key role in developing these new global social movements and forms of political action’ (Scott, 2010, p. 3). Such debate is no more, and no less, than should be expected at institutions of higher learning that value the notion of academic freedom and the rights of the academic community to comment on the decisions of their governments and employers.2

GRAHAM PIKE

18

RE-IMAGINING GLOBAL EDUCATION: THE NEED FOR PRAGMATIC ALTRUISM

At a time when public education has been made more accessible to people in more and more communities, through both economic and technological advances, the potential for influencing the development of communities and societies through education has never been greater. However, the same economic and technological advances have stimulated expectations for education that are increasingly focused on the satisfaction of a relatively narrow set of goals, largely oriented towards the pursuit of economic prosperity and Western-style material comforts. While the very human desire for personal and social improvement is entirely understandable, I would suggest that a key role for public education at this critical stage in human development is to instill a much more sophisticated vision of personal and planetary well-being. Such vision has to be global in scope, rather than designed to fuel national or regional competitiveness; it needs to be long term and non-partisan, rather than tied to transient political mandates; fundamentally, it needs to recognise the inherent incompatibility between two key ideals that are often perceived as both desirable and attainable, namely ‘development’ and ‘equity’ (Sachs, 2013). Over the past 30 years the negative impacts of the fruits of development enjoyed by the wealthy top 15% of humanity, resulting largely from the exploitation of fossil fuels, have become increasingly clear. At the same time there has been a growing acceptance of the idea that such benefits constitute human rights in that, if they are available to some, they should be available to all, regardless of geographic location, wealth, ethnicity, class or gender. Unfortunately, equal access to all the comforts enjoyed by the wealthy elite is, in all likelihood, not possible on a planet with finite and diminishing resources (including water), limited useable space for increased food production and waste disposal, and a steadily growing population. This incompatibility creates a moral dilemma for humankind of immense proportions: do we continue to pursue the current path of development, fuelled by neoliberal visions and values, and accept that access to its desired goals will remain unequal? Or do we strive for equity on a global scale and recognise that our prevailing concept of development will need to undergo quite drastic revisions that will undoubtedly challenge and change the lifestyles of the privileged? Central to informed discussion of such dilemmas is global education, in many forms and fora: from the necessity of basic schooling for the one billion trapped in poverty, especially girls, to the need for broader public information in the developed world about the global realities we face and for a concerted focus on the development of creative solutions. Indeed, it could be argued that the current global crises represent, in some measure, a failure of public education, particularly in the developed world. Eliminating abject poverty and reducing climate change have been within our grasp for several decades; the opportunities have been missed due to the choices we have made. To be fair, these choices have been made unwittingly in most cases: the majority of people have simply not received sufficient information through formal or informal education to understand the


19

interconnectedness of all peoples and environments and to appreciate the full global impacts of their decisions as consumers, voters, workers and home-makers. School curricula have remained largely nation state-oriented and obsessed with discipline-specific and disconnected knowledge, thereby inhibiting students from seeing the ‘big picture’ and creating alternative visions of the future. Critical information about key global systems, notably the economic system and its inextricable connectedness to environmental and social systems, has been withheld as the province of ‘experts’, resulting in widespread public ignorance about the harmful and discriminatory effects of everyday actions. It has to be the role and responsibility of public education to nurture citizens who are able and prepared to make informed and ethically sound decisions with regard to the major global issues of the day. There is no other social institution that has the reach and capacity to furnish future decision makers with the knowledge, skills and determination necessary to come to grips with moral questions of this magnitude. This is why global education is so urgent and so crucial. It is why, in the current era of neoliberalism, global education must find a way to be heard among the global cacophony that is steering humankind in the direction of unsustainable development with scant regard for the long-term consequences (Monbiot, 2014; United Nations, 2012). What is most needed, I would suggest, is a kind of pragmatic altruism – a blend of international education’s responsiveness to the opportunities presented by the forces of globalisation, but with a critical lens that reflects the longer-term vision and social justice ethic of global education. Globalisation, for good or ill, is here to stay but neoliberalism is just one of many possible doctrines that can infuse and direct education’s response to it. In buying into the neoliberal agenda, education systems in many countries have allowed the mandates of the free market to determine the content and goals of education, to align it with a restrictive and singular economic vision and, in fact, to distort the very concept of value in the 21st century. As Stefan Collini (2011) notes in his review of higher education in Britain:

British society has been subject to a deliberate campaign, initiated in free-market think tanks in the 1960s and 1970s and pushed strongly by business leaders and right-wing commentators ever since, to elevate the status of business and commerce and to make ‘contributing to economic growth’ the overriding goal of a whole swathe of social, cultural and intellectual activities which had previously been understood and valued in other terms. (p. 9)

While the ‘knowledge economy’ is often touted as the key driver of prosperity in the 21st century, the knowledge that is deemed valuable tends to be that which supports dominant models of economic growth, rather than sustainable and equitable visions of human development. The desire to ‘manage’ knowledge, so that intelligence, innovation and creativity can be better packaged to benefit business and industry, leads to the standardisation, measurement and accountability reforms of the neoliberal era (Bottery, 2006). Key to a broader, more visionary interpretation of a knowledge economy is the concept of a ‘learning

GRAHAM PIKE

20

society’ (Stiglitz & Greenwald, 2014), a society that promotes continuous learning for all, not for the limited goal of economic advancement but for the more holistic purpose of individual and societal improvement. This is not to advocate a return to the naïve optimism that promulgated the birth of the global education movement. Pragmatic altruism demands a firm and unyielding grip on the visionary goals of global education while being nimbly responsive to prevailing economic, political and social trends. It demands hawkish monitoring of current educational trends and a determination to vocally critique those that are invested solely in short-term economic and material gains. It demands, too, a realisation that the desire for self-improvement, including economic advancement, remains the primary driver of the pursuit of knowledge; the necessary intellectual leap is the understanding of how the needs of self and society, of person and planet, are inextricably intertwined.

MAPPING THE MOTIVATIONS FOR GLOBAL AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: AN ANALYTICAL MATRIX

A central problem of dominant paradigms is that their larger goals are rarely contested; the paradigm’s orthodoxy becomes the prevailing legend through which most people make sense of their daily lives. The pursuit of economic growth, regardless of whether such growth is equitable, just or sustainable, has become such a legend and its influence on education at all levels is pervasive. In an era in which ‘education for employment’ has become synonymous with ‘education’, it is not hard to see how school systems have bought into the neoliberal agenda or why the liberal arts and humanities are feeling under threat in higher education (Edmundson, 2013). As noted earlier in this chapter, global and international education are similarly under pressure – if they are to be deemed to have value – to become aligned with neoliberal values. Indeed, the importance of a global perspective has already been appropriated by those advocating for the skills required for the world of international business, as seen in this Canadian provincial economic strategy report:

We will need more entrepreneurs, financiers and managers. We need people who are comfortable doing business globally, with multiple languages and cross-cultural skills. To seize the opportunities offered by an economy that functions as an interconnected grid, people need to be attuned to the world and prepared to participate in global networks. The education system at all levels has an important role to play in fostering this mindset. (Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy, 2011, p. 64)

In the spirit of fostering debate in our respective institutions and achieving more focused and informed policies and practice in global and international education, the following matrix (Figure 1) is offered as a tool with which to plot and analyse the primary motivations that stimulate a range of activities. Such motivations, I

would steer tcontinuand ‘Ethe vienrichhumanof wheducator theany acpotentany inpredomeducat

Placor clasand imthe foleducat

suggest, prothe course ofuum betweenEducation foriew of educment with

n developmenthose intereststion: those whe larger massctivity is notial to do so). Tnstitution, or minant values tion.

cement of anyssroom to ano

mplemented, anllowing chart tion sectors, m

RE-IMAGIN

ovide an indicf activity at an Martha Nur Freedom’ (Ncation’s primathe belief tt and emancips are primaho are alreads of people it likely to bThe four quad

classroom, aand beliefs th

y activity in a other accordingnd its resultinto indicate w

might be placed

NING GLOBAL

cation of the any institutionussbaum’s twoNussbaum, 20ary role as that educatiopation. The verily served

dy privileged in a society enefit everyo

drants thus creand the resuhat inform the

Figure 1.

certain quadrg to the motivg impact. Suc

where sample d.

EDUCATION IN

underlying vn. The horizoo poles of ‘009), throughpreparing st

on is principertical axis resthrough glob(economicallyor social gro

one, but it meated can be usulting map we practice of g

rant might varvation behind ch variations n

activities, in

N THE NEOLIBE

values and belontal axis reprEducation fo

h which she tudents for epally a vehsponds to the bal and intey, politically, oup (recognis

may at least hsed to plot act

will likely expglobal and inte

ry from one init, how it is c

notwithstandinboth K-12 an

ERAL AGE

21

liefs that resents a

or Profit’ contrasts

economic hicle for

question ernational

socially) sing that have the tivities in pose the

ernational

nstitution construed ng, I offer nd higher

GRAHAM PIKE

22

The point of such a mapping exercise is not to pass judgment on activities that are located within one quadrant compared with another. Each activity may have merit, to some degree, depending on how much thought has been given to its potential contribution to a just and sustainable global community. Furthermore, as the matrix is intended to map activities from the perspective of their primary motivation, not from the point of view of how the individual experiences each activity, it is quite possible that the recruitment of an international student (a ‘for profit’ motive) could result in an emancipatory experience for the student (a ‘for freedom’ result). At the macro level however, such mapping can assist teachers and institutions in determining the desirability of the path they are pursuing in their global and international education initiatives and the degree to which stated goals are being met. An additional reason for offering this matrix is to stimulate debate about the purpose and direction of global and international education at the macro level. It would appear that prevailing trends in international education, closely allied to general drifts towards the commercialisation of higher education, are moving

Quadrant 2: Shared Prosperity

– Strengthening international/intercultural content of curriculum

– Fundraising for worthy global causes – Scholarships for deserving

international students – International development projects

(designed and led by developed country teams)

Quadrant 4: Global Community

– International research collaboration and capacity building, among equal partners

– Developing holistic and transformative global education curriculum

– Sustainability initiatives that permanently reduce consumption and waste

– Exploring creative and equitable solutions to global problems

Quadrant 1: Sustained Elitism

– Recruiting fee-paying international students

– Provision of programmes/establishment of branch campuses abroad

– Field trips/study tours to other countries

– Developing skills for international business

Quadrant 3: Targeted Internationalism

– Study abroad opportunities for students

– Connecting classrooms via technology

– Exchange opportunities for faculty/staff

– Foreign language teaching as part of the curriculum


23

incrementally but inexorably towards a higher concentration of activity in Quadrant 1, stimulated and supported by governments that equate international education with economic stimulus and job creation. Global education too, in seeking credibility, is subject to similar pressures. For example, the Premier of British Columbia has targeted K-12 and post-secondary international student recruitment, which already contributes nearly $1.8 billion to the provincial economy (Kunin, 2011), as a key plank in the future job creation strategy for that Canadian province (Government of British Columbia, 2011). This view of global and international education’s purpose, steeped in the philosophy of neoliberalism, is a far cry from the spirit of internationalism that is at the heart of what motivates and sustains most teachers and professionals working in the field. That spirit flourishes in many of the activities in Quadrants 3 and 4, where the rationale is couched more in the belief that respectful and mutually beneficial connections among diverse peoples and cultures, and the development of holistic visions for the global community, are fundamental to sustainable and equitable development, including but not limited to economic enhancement, for all global citizens. With the current trend favouring those activities that are directly tied to economic benefits for individual institutions and nations, the more altruistic and communitarian goals of global and international education are under threat.

NOTES

1 For a fuller discussion of the impacts of neoliberalism in higher education, see Pike (2012). 2 For a thoughtful and principled statement on internationalisation in education, see the Accord on the

Internationalization of Education, published by the Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2013: http://www.csse-scee.ca/docs/acde/Accord_Internationalization_EN.pdf

REFERENCES

Bottery, M. (2006). Education and globalization: Redefining the role of the educational professional. Educational review, 58 (1), 95–113.

Carleton University. (2011). Report on international recruitment. Ottawa: Author. Collini, S. (2011). From Robbins to McKinsey. London Review of Books, 33(16), 9–14. Cox, C., & Scruton, R. (1984). Peace studies. A critical survey. London: Institute for European Defence

and Strategic Studies. de Wit, H., & Brandenburg, U. (2011). The end of internationalization, International Higher Education,

62, 15–17. Dolby, N., & Rahman, A. (2008). Research in international education. Review of Educational Research,

78(3), 676–726. Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Edmundson, M. (2013). Why teach? In defense of a real education. New York: Bloomsbury. Egron-Polak, E., & Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of higher education: Growing expectations,

fundamental values. IAU 4th Global Survey. Paris: International Association of Universities. Gillard, J. (2009). Australia: International education’s contribution. University World News, 78.

Retrieved from http://universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090528173114651 Government of British Columbia. (2011). The BC jobs plan. Canada starts here. Victoria, Canada:

Government of British Columbia.

GRAHAM PIKE

24

Government of Canada. (2014). Canada’s international education strategy. Retrieved from http://international.gc.ca/global-markets-marches-mondiaux/education/index.aspx?lang=eng

Green, A. (1990). Education and state formation: The rise of educational systems in England, France and the USA. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Green, A. (1997) Education, globalization and the nation state. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heater, D. (1980). World studies: Education for international understanding in Britain. London: Harrap. Heater, D. (1984). Peace through education: the contribution of the Council for Education in World

Citizenship. Lewes: The Falmer Press. Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam:

Sense Publishers. Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand or an innovation? EAIE Forum, Spring, 34–37. Kunin, R. (2011). The economic impact of international education in British Columbia. Vancouver:

British Columbia Council for International Education. Lister, I. (1987). Global and international approaches in political education. In C. Harber (Ed.), Political

education in Britain (pp. 47–62). London: Falmer. Manzer, R. (1994). Public schools and political ideas: Canadian educational policy in historical

perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Marks, J. (1984). Peace studies. Propaganda for defencelessness. London: Women and Families for

Defence. Merryfield, M. M. (1998). Pedagogy for global perspectives in education: Studies of teachers’ thinking

and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(3), 342–379. Mitchell, K. (2003). Educating the national citizen in neoliberal times: From the multicultural self to the

strategic cosmopolitan. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28(4), 387–403. Monbiot, G. (2014, May 28). The impossibility of growth. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.monbiot.com/2014/05/27/the-impossibility-of-growth/ Nussbaum, M. (1996). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In J. Cohen (Ed.), For love of country:

Debating the limits of patriotism (pp. 3-17). Boston: Beacon Books. Nussbaum, M. (2009). Education for profit, education for freedom. Liberal Education, 95(3), 6–13. O’Sullivan, B. (1999). Global change and educational reform in Ontario and Canada. Canadian Journal

of Education, 24(3), 311–325. Pike, G. (2008). Global education. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of

education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 468–480). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Pike, G. (2012). From internationalism to internationalization: The illusion of a global community in

higher education. Journal of Social Science Education, 11(3), 135–152. Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy. (2011). Shaping Alberta’s future: Report of the Premier’s

Council for Economic Strategy. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. Sachs, W. (2013). Liberating the world from development. New internationalist, 460, 22–27. Scott, P. (2010). International education: Alternatives to the market, International Higher Education, 61,

2–3. Scruton, R. (1985). World studies: Education or indoctrination? London: Institute for European

Defence and Strategic Studies. Smith, A. D. (1998). Nationalism and modernism. London: Routledge. Stiglitz, J. E. & Greenwald, B. C. (2014). Creating a learning society: A new approach to growth,

development, and social progress. New York: Columbia University Press. Taylor, J. (2004). Towards a strategy for internationalisation: Lessons and practice from four

universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 149–171. Toope, S. (2011, January 26). Stephen Toope: How international students change Canadian schools. The

Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/leading-thinkers/stephen-toope-how-international-students-change-canadian-schools/article1883278/


25

Tye, K. A. (2009). A history of the global education movement in the United States. In Kirkwood-Tucker (Ed.), Visions in global education: The globalization of curriculum and pedagogy in teacher education and schools (pp. 3-24). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

United Nations. (2012). Resilient people, resilient planet: A future worth choosing. Report of the United Nations Secretary General’s high-level panel on global sustainability. New York: United Nations.

Vulliamy, G., & Webb, R. (1993). Progressive education and the National Curriculum: Findings from a global education research project. Educational Review, 45(1), 21–41.

Graham Pike Faculty of International Education Vancouver Island University


RUTH REYNOLDS

2. ONE SIZE FITS ALL? GLOBAL EDUCATION FOR DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL AUDIENCES

INTRODUCTION

The term global education means different things to different people and there has been longstanding discussion about how to define it, and how best to teach it (Subedi, 2010). Terms such as development education, peace education, global citizenship education, international education and multicultural education are often used interchangeably in connection with global education; without critique. From the United States, Hanvey’s model of An Attainable Global Perspective (1976) provided the basis for the later work of Pike and Selby (1988) in the United Kingdom with its emphasis on social and action skills at local and global levels (Heater, 2004). Kirkwood (2001) also built on Hanvey’s dimensions in her essential elements of global education encompassing multiple perspectives, comprehension and appreciation of cultures, knowledge of global issues and the world as interrelated systems (Zong, Wilson, & Quashiga, 2008). The term global education is used with values attached. Most definitions include ideas of human rights, equity, conflict resolution and social justice. For instance Osler and Vincent (2002) suggested that global education:

is based on the principles of co-operation, non-violence, respect for human rights and cultural diversity, democracy and tolerance [and] is characterised by pedagogical approaches based on human rights and a concern for social justice which encourage critical thinking and responsible participation. (p. 2)

The terms global education and global citizenship education are often used interchangeably. Oxfam (1997) for instance defined a global citizen as someone who ‘knows how the world works, is outraged by injustice and who is both willing and enabled to take action to meet this global challenge’ (p. 1). According to Ibrahim (2005):

effective mainstreaming of global citizenship depends on the balance between citizenship as specific curriculum area and cross-curricular themes to allow in-depth coverage of issues and coordinated learning. It is important for students to develop skills of communication, critical reflection and active participation in the context of understanding global structures and processes and human rights and responsibilities. This is more likely to facilitate

RUTH REYNOLDS

28

understanding of the complexity of global issues, promote dialogue and discussion between and within different groups and allow opportunities for reflection on values. (p. 191)

Davies, Reid and Evans (2005) argued that global citizenship education is not about adding international content into citizenship programmes but that some of the ethos of global education should be applied to citizenship education programmes. A further refinement to the concept of global education comes with many researchers referring to a critical global education. A critical global education is a curriculum that fosters critical dialogue and action on global issues (Subedi, 2010). Such a curriculum would investigate historical factors that help students understand unequal global relationships. It would deal with issues beyond the nation state, examining power and privilege; it would have a reflective ethical perspective; and it would value marginalised knowledge such as third world traditions and perspectives (Merryfield, 2009).

METHODOLOGY

The author identified key texts which provided an overview of the field and searched for key authors in global education and global citizenship in education and key words like values education, peace education, global education, global citizenship, globalisation, sustainability, environmental education, human rights, internationalisation, and international education to clarify the sector of education they addressed. An issue for global education is that related fields – peace education, environmental education, intercultural education and development education – all have their own separate identities but can also be linked to global education and citizenship education. Thus the study did not use a systemised randomised literature research process and the researcher was obviously influenced by her social and cultural context, including access to research papers through her university data base references, and her use of terms approximating to her views of what global education could entail. Of the 1,110 articles collated, primarily written after 2000, most were related to higher education including teacher education (508), then came secondary education (365), then primary/elementary education (185), then early childhood education (35) and community education (42). Most were studies undertaken in the USA (20%), Australia (20%) and UK (11%), reflecting the researcher’s Anglophile world and the terminologies used. Nevertheless the results provided direction for future research and for this paper divisions were made among preschool education, teachers and classroom education, teacher education, tertiary education, and community education.

EARLY CHILDHOOD

Early childhood studies emphasise the importance of seeing the young child as a fully functioning individual human being who interacts, constructs and adapts her

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

29

world as she experiences multiple encounters. In the Australian context, The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009) argues that children must feel that they belong, must interact and engage with their present life situations, and also must be open to change in their lives. These could be called global dispositions and examining the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1989) there is an implicit expectation that children have access to opportunities to address cultural differences and can participate in activities that consider others’ rights. Articles 29, 30 and 31 state:

Children’s education should respect each child’s personality, talents, and abilities to the fullest. It should encourage children to respect others’ human rights and their own and other cultures. It should also help them to learn to live peacefully, protect the environment and respect other people. … Minority or indigenous children have the right to learn about and practise their own culture, language and religion. … Children have the right to relax and play, and to join in a wide range of cultural, artistic and other recreational activities. (UNICEF, 1989)

Key themes identified in the research literature in this sector included: learning for civic participation; moral and character education; social skill development; broadly focused sustainability themes; intercultural understanding; and technology when it is used to develop possible global themes. A few sample studies are provided. Martin and Evaldsson (2012) argued for the importance of rule making in their Reggio Emilia school. For them it was considered important that children be seen as active agents ‘that creatively utilise and transform cultural experiences from the adult world through participation in communicative practices with other children’ (Martin & Evaldsson, p. 54). Related is the development of moral and character education as a key theme in early childhood. For example more than half the teachers in the study by Boulton-Lewis, Brownlee, Walker, Cobb-Moore, and Johansson (2011) believed that social issues alone constituted good moral behaviour and so emphasis was placed on teaching how to behave rather than exploring judgements and considering issues associated with human rights and justice. McNamee and Mercurio (2007) argued for the value of using picture books to encourage children’s ability to care, Singer (2010) pointed to the value of Dr Seuss in the development of character, while Stove (2010) advocated for the importance of teaching for self restraint. Alternatively Mills-Bayne (2008) recommended that children in early childhood settings be taught philosophical inquiry and critical thinking skills to foster effective moral reasoning. Another key theme in global education is sustainability and Davis (2009), Davis, Cooke, Blashki, and Best, (2010) and Ferreria and Davis (2010) point out that a systems approach, ensuring students learn about the interdependence of all aspects of the global ecological system, when teaching for sustainability, works very well in a preschool setting and is transformative. Both Miller (2012) and Gadotti (2010) made the point that holistic approaches to sustainability promotes

RUTH REYNOLDS

30

opportunities for rich and deep explorations on a range of topics relevant to children’s lives and allows them some control of their lives and Lloyd (2010) argued for the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in elementary and Early Childhood settings to help develop sustainable approaches. Intercultural understanding is also advocated in pre-school and early childhood education. Souto-Manning (2009) targeted cultural responsive pedagogy using multicultural literacy and democratic literacy while Shaw (2010) argued that student voice in global citizenship and intercultural understanding was crucial. Technology was seen as an asset in this area with Struppert, Guo, and Waniganayake, (2010) focusing on the importance of using technology to develop intercultural competence play-based computer-based technologies.

SCHOOL BASED APPROACHES TO GLOBAL EDUCATION: SCHOOL TEACHERS

In many cases classroom teachers assume a role that is less globally minded than might be expected due to their perception that the wider community see education as simply an industry, subject to the same commercial negotiations as any other industry, and they see no advocacy role in their job description (Codd, 2005). They are demoralised by public opinion and perceive themselves as restricted by the curriculum. Schweisfurth (2006) noted there were some unusual teachers who did not see the tightening of curricular expectations as reducing opportunities for incorporating global education priorities. Carano (2013) provided some evidence for this by pointing out that globally minded teachers, who did attempt to implement wide ranging global programmes, were influenced by a number of factors, apart from their formal teacher education programmes and their curriculum interpretations, these being: (a) family, (b) exposure to diversity, (c) minority status, (d) global education courses, (e) international travel, (f) having a mentor, and (g) professional service. Cogan and Grossman (2009) pointed out that teachers needed to be globally minded if students are to learn to be globally minded and it is simply the case that many school teachers do not have international knowledge, skills and perspectives; that global education can be seen as inherently controversial; and the lack of global perspectives in curriculum national standards makes it hard to teach. Thus it is not surprising that when asked to rank themes important to globally minded citizens, teachers in Cogan and Grossman’s study agreed that cooperation with others, and problem solving skills were the most important citizen characteristics with understandings, accepting and tolerating cultural differences, and willingness to change one’s lifestyle and consumption habits to protect the environment also highly rated. They thus emphasised generic good citizenship skills. Cogan and Grossman (2009) argued that many of these skills can be developed out of school, thus pointing to the value of increased community/school linkages. Although intercultural awareness and understanding did not seem to be of interest to teachers, there has been much interest from researchers in how to encourage this in the classroom. Work by Martin and Griffiths (2012), Merryfield (2009) and Young (2010) emphasised the need for teachers to develop their own

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

31

intercultural awareness and to implement culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom particularly focusing on the fact that intercultural understanding is situational and the context from which participants of such knowledge learned their global skills is crucial. In the Australian context the white paper on Australia in the Asian Century (Australian Government, 2012) focussed on the need to teach and learn Asian languages and engage in Asian studies as national objectives integral to national productivity, but as Merryfield (2009) pointed out there is a need for teachers to experience marginalised world views and cultural views, not simply see other cultures as a source of economic gain.

SCHOOL BASED APPROACHES TO GLOBAL EDUCATION: THE CLASSROOM

Tye (2009) argued that all school students must learn how the systems of the world work – the descriptive side of global education; and also the normative side of global education, analysing values and planning action for global problems such as human rights, social justice and intercultural relations. However while most researchers emphasise the importance of values-based, and systems-based, issues-focused approaches to global education in schools this may not actually occur in many classrooms. Pike (2000) found that school programmes studying countries and culture seemed to dominate US classrooms while approaches involving moral values and personal growth were more evident in classrooms in Canada and the UK. Zong et al. (2008), using reports of a number of school-based research studies into Global Education, noted that activities such as travel programmes, building classroom connections through technology, and strategies to develop cross cultural awareness were the main focuses in schools and these varied in success. For example although Germain (1998), Wilson (1993) and Bates (2012) found that international experiences for K-12 students made a big impact in countering stereotyping and developing empathy with immigrant groups, few US teachers had international experience, skills and perspectives (Cogan & Grossman, 2009) and upon reaching tertiary institutions most students were focused on global and intercultural awareness rather than any deeper understandings (Carano 2013). Technology was increasingly seen as having possibilities to build connections between classrooms, especially trying to build cross cultural awareness (Tye, 2009, Merryfield, 2003) but positive results are at best preliminary. Merryfield (1998) argued that exemplary teachers taught interconnectedness, global issues and global connections across disciplines using a variety of strategies and resources including higher order thinking. However critical approaches to teaching and learning about global societies were rare in classrooms and study of others as exotic reinforced neo colonial divisions (Subedi, 2010). Tye (2003) argued that schools were still very much about national issues and focuses rather than international issues. There are, however, some promising glimpses of what schools do offer as their approach to Global Education with action participatory approaches to issues that cross national boundaries (Tsevrini, 2011), a focus on classroom ethos or climate (Davies, Reid & Evans (2005), issues-based discussions (Hicks, 2006; Hicks & Holden, 2007), and classroom strategies such as culturally

RUTH REYNOLDS

32

relevant or culturally responsive pedagogy (Morrison, Robbins, & Rose, 2008; Gay, 2000).

TEACHER EDUCATION AND GLOBAL EDUCATION

Teacher educators play a crucial and often underestimated part in preparing future teachers who are globally minded (Reynolds, Ferguson-Patrick, & McCormack, 2013; Williams, 2014; Zong et al., 2008). Many teacher educators interested in global education have experienced some degree of ‘border crossing’ whether it be having experienced some element of racial discrimination or by having been in an alternate culture for some time. Merryfield (2000) argues that they have experienced a loss of power due to not knowing the cultural norms associated with a new context. Some subject disciplines tend to provide more opportunities for global education content than others with geography being seen as the foremost opportunity to provide global citizenship content. Best results in teacher education appear to emerge when there is a coordinated approach across the teacher education programme, rather than individual lecturers incorporating their own particular emphasis (Ferguson-Patrick, Macqueen, & Reynolds, 2014; Robbins, Francis, & Elliott, 2003). Teacher education students themselves were primarily focused on the teaching strategies associated with global education, a finding supported by the second Citizenship Education Policy Study (CEPS 2) study which found student teachers were much more interested in applied skills and abilities such as problem solving and on personal development than either in-service teachers or education policy makers (Cogan & Grossman, 2009). The strategies described in the research literature seem to be linked to a number of key areas; cross cultural competence, study abroad programmes, using technology to develop global skills, resources and knowledge building, mediation strategies/problem solving techniques, and civics and citizenship skills. Pre-service teachers are expected to emerge from their teacher education programmes with some degree of cross cultural competence, not only to address the diversity of students in their classes but also to be able to view the world with diverse cultural lenses to combat racism, prejudice and discrimination and to be able to work within their community on issues associated with these (McAllister & Irvine, 2000). Culturally relevant pedagogy is advocated as one way to achieve intercultural competency defined by Ladson-Billings (1994) as a ‘pedagogy that [empowers] students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes’ (pp. 17–18). She saw it as comprising the rigorous application of academic success for all students, developing cultural competence for each student’s own culture as well as the culture in which they lived, and socio-political consciousness where inequality was revealed for all to see. Young (2010) argued however that this process was inconsistently understood and applied in teacher education and in teaching and that ‘the void in scholarly research is not in the knowledge of theories but in the knowledge of how to implement them, particularly in a way that has a wide-

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

33

reaching and sustainable impact on teacher education’ (p. 259). Cushner (2009), advocating for study abroad programmes of any variety, supported this when he argued that:

Schooling in general, and teacher education in particular, continues to address culture learning primarily from a cognitive orientation. That is, students read, watch films, listen to speakers, observe in classrooms and hold discussions around issues of cultural difference. This continues in spite of the growing body of research that demonstrates the critical role that experience plays in enhancing intercultural development … must address the interpersonal and intercultural dimensions of communication, interaction and learning. (pp. 27–28)

Rapaport (2013) argued that such experiences can rectify misconceptions, reverse stereotypes and significantly contribute to the internationalisation of social studies curricula. However Poole and Russell (2013) found few substantial changes in programmes to globalise teacher education in the US context, and younger teachers were not more globally aware than older or more experienced teachers. Disappointedly they found that many study abroad programmes incorporated little interaction with others not of their culture and so the achievements were minor. Technology is also used as a tool in teacher education primarily, it appears, to enhance cross cultural competency (Maguth, 2014; Merryfield, 2003) but also to enable more in depth conversations and to help provide some anonymity when engaging in discussions of a controversial nature (Merryfield, 2000; Zong, 2002). The Internet also provides a means for instant access to updated worldwide information from various sources. As Carano (2013) found, being able to access and knowing where resources could be found was the most cited asset by pre-service teachers as helping develop global education including resources to enable travel. GERT (2013) and Ferguson-Patrick et al. (2014) also found that this was a common theme in their studies of the views of pre-service teachers. Carano (2013) found strategies and resources associated with service learning, global literacy and social justice were most commonly neglected in teacher education programmes with studies of globality (state of the planet awareness; knowledge of global dynamics; awareness of human choices and spatial-temporal awareness) and intercultural understanding dominating global education initiatives as they did in students’ schooling years. However, further knowledge building of fundamental aspects of the world was required in teacher education. For example Osunde, Tlou and Brown (1996) found many misconceptions of Africa among preservice teachers while Kirkwood-Tucker (2002) found it was still necessary to point out that there was a difference between international education, learning about other cultures, and global education with some international education necessary before global education could be seen to be appropriate. With pre-service teacher education obviously making linkages between strategies for civics and citizenship education and global education there was also evidence in the research literature of mediation and problem solving strategies

RUTH REYNOLDS

34

appropriate for a more global world view by use of such techniques as a mock United Nations debate (Kirkwood-Tucker, 2004). Kubow (1999) argued of a need for democratic deliberative dialogue, with Hahn (2001) advocating more decision making, and civic action. Hahn also encouraged teacher educators to promote dialogue with colleagues cross-nationally arguing that social studies educators should better prepare students ‘for their roles as knowledgeable, caring, and effective civic actors in pluralistic democracies in a globally interdependent world’ (p. 21).

GENERAL TERTIARY EDUCATION

Che, Spearman and Manizade (2009) pointed out that a current focus on internationalisation and globalising higher education was seen in two ways. There was the notion of internationalisation focusing on encouragement of international students and staff to join the global competition for resources, research and prestige. There was also another vision of internationalisation with an ideological dimension focusing on global ethics and global citizenship, developing domestic and international students and staff to operate effectively in globalised environments (Grimshaw, 2011). The first vision leads to the ranking of tertiary institutions globally and is largely linked to research grants that dominate above all else and; while universities in the USA have the most weight in shaping global trends, they are the least subject to externally-driven transformation. In contrast universities in emerging nations are colonised by the ‘brain drain’ of key personnel and ideas, by foreign research conversations and agendas, and by the ‘in-your-face’ visibility and robustness of the leading foreign institutions (Marginson, 2006, p. 2). Heilman (2009), pointed out that ‘students are encouraged to know the Other in a potentially exploitive way that situates the Other as a technology or tool that can serve as a means to personal ends, … building capital wealth’ (p. 39). The second vision argues that internationalising of teaching, research and services provides an intercultural or global dimension in all functions of the university and attempts are made to make the curriculum (both formal and informal) more relevant and engaging for international students and by considering internationalisation at home to prepare all students for life and work in a global economy (Robson, 2011). This vision offers opportunities for education focused on social inclusion embracing three notions of access, participation and success representing degrees of social inclusion as signifiers of quality (Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler, & Bereded-Samuel, 2010) and is linked to more collaborative and normative ideologies such as those grounded in social justice and human potential. Technicist interpretations of social inclusion and quality are problematised as being too narrow and the participation of a more diverse group of students than currently appears to be the case are encouraged (Bourke, Bamber, & Lyons, 2012; Jones & Killick, 2013; Landorf, 2013). Study abroad programmes in higher education settings appear to be largely about increased understandings about themselves, the world or their particular area of study and Root and Ngampornchai (2013) warned that that while experiences

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

35

abroad have an obvious impact on students’ cognitive, affective, and behavioural skills, they do not necessarily help to develop deeper levels of intercultural competence. Overall Marginson and Sawir (2011) suggested that international education was failing to meet its potential for intercultural development and that ‘the ethnocentrism traditional to English-speaking nations has hardly been dinted’ (p. 6).

COMMUNITY

It is not only in the formal schooling sites of our society that global education is required and supported. In the Australian context the Australian Government issued a white paper, called Australia in the Asian Century with the view being that many sectors of Australian society must become engaged in our global world; ‘Our goal is to secure Australia as a more prosperous and resilient nation that is fully part of our region and open to the world’ (Australian Government, 2012, p. 1). Areas requiring development for Australia to prosper in a global community were seen to be economic skills, Asian literacy, creative thinking, global collaborative relationships with a need to strengthen people-to-people economic, social and cultural interactions. As Rivzi (2012) pointed out much of this paper provides an instrumentalist view of integration into Asia:

invokes conceptions of the Asian others whose cultures must be understood, whose languages must be learnt, and with whom close relationships must be developed – in order for us to realise our economic and strategic purposes. A crude social distance is thus assumed between Australian us and Asian them. (p. 74)

By way of contrast the Global Education Network Europe (GENE) has a community rights based, universalist approach to global education focusing on traditional fields associated with development education and building values associated with justice, equity, and human rights. This view of global education uses the Maastricht Declaration on Global Education in Europe from 2003 which states:

Global Education is education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the world, and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all. GE is understood to encompass Development Education, Human Rights Education, Education for Sustainability, Education for Peace and Conflict Prevention and Intercultural Education; being the global dimensions of Education for Citizenship. (GENE, 2008, n.p.)

Some of these characteristics will have resonance with some of the key charity organisations working in global education. Oxfam UK for instance has a very strong education programme associated with their global citizenship programmes and argues that ‘education for global citizenship helps enable young people to develop the core competencies which allow them to actively engage with the

RUTH REYNOLDS

36

world, and help to make it a more just and sustainable place’ (Oxfam GB, n.d., para. 1). Oxfam Australia does not focus on the term ‘global citizenship’ to the same extent, advocating for The Power of People Against Poverty and the focus of their material includes, but is not limited to, poverty, social justice, climate change, gender, Indigenous rights, ethical fashion, food equity and sustainability. They argue that students in schools need to be supported to help shape solutions to global problems at a local, national or global level. Another high profile Australian charity in this area is World Vision with its organisational focus of Christian resources to deepen understanding of Jesus’ passion for the poor; policy focus covering issues including aid and trade, climate change, human trafficking and gender equality; events to provide opportunities to learn about and contribute to the aid and development sector; and school resources. The school resources focus on social justice issues and global poverty. As noted previously by Rizvi (2012), some would argue that many of these charity groups promote post-colonial perspectives. Rizvi’s perspective aligns with that of Andreotti (2006) who pointed out that some volunteer programmes associated with global education are more focused on helping the volunteer gain an international experience, rather than the recipient. Oxley and Morris (2013) pointed out that the most prevalent conceptions of global citizenship were of cultural and social global citizenship, while the political, critical, environmental and spiritual were far less dominant within curricular intentions. Thus different faith-based conceptions of global education are rarely acknowledged or researched (Pike, 2013).

CONCLUSION

As the focus of this paper was to establish patterns in different sectors of education, the measure of its success is by evaluating its ability to identify such patterns. I searched for gaps between what I had identified and what intuition told me about how global education was conceptualised and taught, but the patterns that emerged were primarily driven by authors in their key words and the need for further work in this area is very apparent. Political education and environmental education did not appear as many times as expected, but there was a definite focus on intercultural education across all sectors. Moreover although I see lots of environmental education work happening in schools there does not seem to be much research on its effectiveness, and particularly on how this links to the notion of a global citizen, so it did not appear as strongly as I expected in the research literature. So can we discern a pattern? Early childhood education concentrates on the child in her social context and so global education starts with the local. Civic participation is addressed in rule making, group interactions and through learning other related social skills; and in some cases deliberating on moral issues. Intercultural understanding is of concern and it too is addressed through social interaction at the local level, sometimes enabled by ICT. At the tertiary level global

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

37

education increasingly appears to be about assisting students to be global players in a globalised economic world. This appears to be more about economic gains than social justice and human rights focuses and so these two sectors are addressing global education from very different stances. School teachers, school classrooms, pre-service teachers and teacher educators have similar emphases with teacher educators more likely to be strong advocates for a critical focus to intercultural understanding than classroom teachers, but all are concerned about civic skills, moral and character development, global knowledge and awareness, broadly focused environmental themes, using technology as a tool rather than seeing it as a global issue or theme in itself, and intercultural understanding. It was difficult to select community representations. Many community groups use education as a platform for pursuing global focuses and these focuses extend along a continuum from charity, human rights initiatives to economic global education initiatives for national gain. Additionally when a charity is involved it can pose as helping the other in a post colonialist type gesture or in a faith based proselytising approach or social justice initiative. Global education for national gain can be seen as assisting the home nation, but can also be seen as a gesture to encourage cross national linkage to build better global understanding. There was a common theme that emerged. Global education emphasises communication. Most articles focused on the importance of building communication across people, groups and nations. The identification of who benefits by this communication, and how it is exhibited varies by sector but identifying this as a key focus for global education is a useful action outcome for global education. A key research project could investigate the number and styles of communication evident in global education literature. How much of the pedagogy advocated for teaching global education involves communication approaches and what styles of communication. The data indicates that the focus is on communicating for a number of different and varied purposes but focusing on communication as an overall goal of global education provides a guide to the pedagogy and the values of global education for all educational sectors. This is a strong message for global educators, one they can implement in any sector.

REFERENCES

Andreotti, V. (2006). Stephanie Wilde, Editor, Political and citizenship education: International perspectives, Symposium Press, Wallingford (2005). International Journal of Educational Development, 26(5), 563–564.

Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR]. (2009). Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra: DEEWR.

Australian Government. (2012). Australia in the Asian century. White paper. Canberra: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Bates, R. (2012). Is global citizenship possible, and can international schools provide it? Journal of Research in International Education, 11(3), 262– 274.

Boulton-Lewis, G., Brownlee, J., Walker, S., Cobb-Moore, C., & Johansson, E. (2011). Moral and social development: Teachers’ knowledge of children’s learning and teaching strategies in the early years. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(4), 6–14.

RUTH REYNOLDS

38

Bourke, L., Bamber, P., & Lyons, M. (2012). Global citizens: Who are they? Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 7(2), 161–174.

Carano, K. (2013). Global educators’ personal attribution of a global perspective. Journal of International Social Studies. 3(1), 4–18.

Che, S. M., Spearman, M., & Manizade, A. (2009). Constructive disequilibrium. In L. Ross (Ed.), Handbook of practice and research study abroad (pp. 99–116). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.

Codd, J. (2005) Teachers as ‘managed professionals’ in the global education industry: The New Zealand experience. Educational Review, 57(2), 193–206.

Cogan. J. J., & Grossman, D. L. (2009). Characteristics of globally minded teachers: A twenty first century view. In T. Kirkwood-Tucker (Ed.), Visions in global education (pp. 240–270). NT: Peter Lang.

Cushner, K. (2009). The role of study abroad in preparing globally responsible teachers. In L. Ross (Ed.), Handbook of practice and research study abroad (pp. 151–169). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.

Davis, J. (2009). Revealing the research ‘hole’ of early childhood education for sustainability: A preliminary survey of the literature. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 227–241.

Davis, J. M., Cooke, S. M., Blashki, G., & Best, A. (2010). Healthy children, healthy planet: The case for transformative education in schools and early childhood from an Australian perspective. International Public Health Journal, 2(4), 561–570.

Davies, I., & Pike, G. (2009). Global citizenship education. In R. Lewin (Ed.), Handbook of practice and research in study abroad (pp. 61–77). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Davies, I., Reid, M., & Evans, A. (2005). Globalising citizenship education? A critique of ‘global education’ and ‘citizenship education’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 66–89.

Ferguson-Patrick, K., Macqueen, S., & Reynolds, R. (2014). Pre-service teacher perspectives on the importance of global education: World and classroom views. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(2), 470–482.

Ferreira, J. A., & Davis, J. M. (2010). Creating deep and broad change through research and systems approaches in early childhood education for sustainability. In J. Davis (Ed.), Young children and the environment: early education for sustainability (pp. 273–293). Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Gadotti, M. (2010). Reorienting education practices towards sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development. 4(2), 203–211.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Germain, M. (1998). Worldly teachers: Cultural learning and pedagogy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Gidley, J., Hampson, G., Wheeler, L., & Bereded-Samuel, E. (2010). From access to success: An integrated approach to quality higher education informed by social inclusion theory and practice. Higher Education Policy, 23(1), 123–147.

Global Education Network Europe [GENE]. (2008). Quality in global education. An overview of evaluation policy and practice. Retrieved from: http://www.gene.eu

Global Education Research and Teaching [GERT], (2013). Teaching global education: Lessons learned for classroom teachers. Ethos, 21(1), 18–22.

Grimshaw, T. (2011). Concluding editorial: ‘The needs of international students rethought – Implications for the policy and practice of higher education’. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 17(6), 703–712.

Hahn, C. L. (2001). Democratic understanding: Cross-national perspectives. Theory into Practice, 40(1), 14–22.

Hanvey, R. G. (1976). An attainable global perspective. New York: Centre for Global Perspectives in Education.

Heater, D. (2004). Citizenship: The civic ideal in world history, politics and education (3rd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

39

Heilman, E. (2009). Terrains of global and multicultural education: What is distinctive, contested and shared? In T. F. Kirkwood-Tucker (Ed.), Visions in global education (pp. 25–46). New York: Peter Lang.

Hicks, D. (2006). Lessons for the future: The missing dimension in education. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing.

Hicks, D., & Holden, C. (2007). Teaching the global dimension. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Ibrahim, T. C. A. (2005). Global citizenship education: Mainstreaming the curriculum? Cambridge

Journal of Education, 35(2), 177–194. Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2013). Graduate attributes and the internationalized curriculum: Embedding a

global outlook in disciplinary learning outcomes. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 165–182.

Kirkwood, T. F. (2001). Our global age requires global education: Clarifying definitional ambiguities. The Social Studies, 92, 10–15.

Kirkwood-Tucker, T. F. (2002). Teaching about Japan: Global perspectives in teacher decision-making, context and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(1), 88–115.

Kirkwood-Tucker, T. F. (2004). Empowering teachers to create a more peaceful world through global education: Simulating the United Nations. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(1), 56–74.

Kubow, P. (1999). Preparing future secondary teachers for citizenship educators’ roles: A possible direction for preservice education in the new century. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 2(2), 53–64.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.

Landorf, H. (2013). Using the dialectic of social justice to enliven the dialogue between global education and multicultural education. Journal of International Social Studies, 3(2), 99–105.

Lloyd, M. (2010). The world is flat: ICT and education for sustainability in the early years. In J. Davis (Ed.), Young children and the environment: Early education for sustainability (pp. 212–241). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 70(I), 3–24.

McNamee, A., & Mercurio, M. L. (2007). Who cares? How teachers can scaffold children’s ability to care: A case for picture books. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 9(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n1/mcnamee.html

Maguth, B. (2014). Digital bridges for global awareness: Pre-service social studies teachers’ experiences using technology to learn from and teach students in Thailand. Journal of International Social Studies, 4(1), 42–59.

Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52, 1–39.

Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2011). Student security in the global education market. In C. Holden, M. Kilkey, & G. Ramia (Eds.), Social Policy Review 23 (pp. 283–305). Bristol: Policy Press.

Martin, C., & Evaldsson, A. (2012). Affordances for participation: Children’s appropriation of rules in a Reggio Emilia school. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(1), 51–74.

Martin, F., & Griffiths, H. (2012). Power and representation: A postcolonial reading of global partnerships and teacher development through North–South study visits. British Educational Research Journal, 38(6), 907–927.

Merryfield, M. (1998). Pedagogy for global perspectives in education: Studies of teachers’ thinking and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26(3), 342–379.

Merryfield, M. (2000). Using electronic technologies to promote equity and cultural diversity in social studies and global education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 502–526.

Merryfield, M. (2003). Like a veil: Cross-cultural experiential learning online. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(2), 146–171.

RUTH REYNOLDS

40

Merryfield, M. (2009). A meeting on the Congo: Race, voice and representation. In E. Heilman (Ed.), Methods for social studies methods: What we do and why we do it (pp. 369–376). New York: Teachers College Press.

Mills-Bayne, M. (2008). ‘Because it’s being nice’: An exploratory study of moral reasoning, tolerance and values in early childhood. Critical and Creative Thinking, 16(1), 101–125.

Miller, K. (2012). Creating an engaging and relevant ‘classroom’ that ignites a love of learning: Inspiring, practical social education through service learning. Ethos, 20(1), 14–17.

Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in Education, 4(14), 433–452.

Osler, A., & Vincent, K. (2002). Citizenship and the challenge of global education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books Ltd.

Osunde, E., Tlou, J., & Brown, N. (1996). Persisting and common stereotypes in US students’ knowledge of Africa: A study of preservice social studies teachers. The Social Studies, 87(3), 119–124.

Oxfam. (1997). A curriculum for global citizenship. Oxford, UK: OXFAM. Oxfam GB. (n.d.). Global citizenship. Retrieved from: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/global-

citizenship Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple

conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. Pike, G. (2000). Global education and national identity: In pursuit of meaning. Theory into Practice,

39(2), 64–73. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip3902_2 Pike, G. (2013). Global education in times of discomfort. Journal of International Social Studies, 3(2),

4–17. Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Poole, C., & Russell, W. (2013). Global perspectives of American elementary school teachers: A

research study. Journal of International Social Studies, 3(2), 18–31. Rapaport, A. (2013). Teacher exchange as a means of social studies curriculum internationalization.

Journal of International Social Studies, 3(1), 69–76. Reynolds, R., Ferguson-Patrick, K., & McCormack, A. (2013). Dancing in the ditches: Reflecting on

the capacity of a university/school partnership to clarify the role of a teacher educator. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 307–319.

Rizvi, F. (2012). Engaging the Asian century. ACCESS Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 31(1), 73–79.

Robbins, M., Francis, L., & Elliott, E. (2003). Attitudes toward education for global citizenship among trainee teachers. Research in Education, 69, 93–98.

Robson, S. (2011) Internationalization: A transformative agenda for higher education? Teachers And Teaching: Theory And Practice, 17(6), 619–630.

Root, E., & Ngampornchai, A. (2013). “I came back as a new human being”: Student descriptions of experiences of intercultural competence acquired through education abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education. 17(5), 513–532.

Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Education for global citizenship: Teacher agency and curricular structure in Ontario schools. Educational Review, 58(1), 41–50.

Shaw, G. (2010). Citizenship education: Student voice and global citizenship. Ethos, 18(4), 19–23. Singer, M. J. (2010). Character education, Dr Seuss and Te Whariki: A likely combination. Australasian

Journal of Early Childhood, 35(2), 43–53. Souto-Manning, M. (2009). Negotiating culturally responsive pedagogy through multicultural children’s

literature: Towards critical democratic literacy practices in a first grade classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(1), 50–74.

Stove, J. (2010). Self-control, the neglected key to learning. Quadrant, 54(10), 70–75. Struppert, A., Guo, Q., & Waniganayake, M. (2010). Promoting intercultural competence through

technology-based play. In M. Ebbeck & M. Waniganayake (Eds.), Play in early childhood education: Learning in diverse contexts (pp. 270–287). South Melbourne Vic: Oxford University Press.

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

41

Subedi, B. (2010). Critical global perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Tye, K. (2003). Globalizing global education. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 165–168. Tye, K. (2009). A history of the global education in the United States. In T. Fuss Kirkwood-Tucker

(Ed.), Visions in global education (pp. 3–24). New York: Peter Lang. UNICEF. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from:

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf Williams, J. (2014). Teacher educator professional learning in the third space: Implications for identity

and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 315–326. Wilson, A. (1993). Conversation partners: Gaining a global perspective through cross cultural

experiences. Theory into Practice, 32, 21–26. Young, E. (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing and actualizing culturally relevant pedagogy: How

viable is the theory in classroom practice? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 248–260. Zong, G. (2002). Can computer mediated communication help to prepare global teachers? An analysis

of preservice social studies teachers’ experience. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30(4), 589–616.

Zong, G., Wilson, A. H., & Quashiga, A. Y. (2008). Global education . In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 197–216). New York and London: Routledge.

Ruth Reynolds School of Education University of Newcastle

contesting and constructing international perspectives … · contesting and constructing...

Documents