Ethical global issues pedagogy in practice: educators’ reflexive work in critical global citizenship education

EGIP across contexts: a nodal point for pedagogy, dialogue and cooperation

Across sectors, EGIP is valued as a mediating touchpoint that deepens existing practice or forges new cooperation among educators. It functions as a mediating tool for professional pedagogical learning, lesson design and engagement with global ethical issues. For instance, EGIP provided a common point of contact for an international, multi-partner project that linked educators in development cooperation and teacher educators as well as in-service teachers (IDs 9, 8, 16). It was also adapted in postgraduate research projects (IDs 3 and 28). Furthermore, the resource was taken up to plan and create new resources, such as online courses or modules (IDs 4, 8, 15), development education resources (IDs 9, 29) and to support a development cooperation organisation’s study circle (ID 16). From the policy sector, we learned that alongside other resources and research, EGIP was employed ‘as a reference when crafting input to a policy process at the European level’ and this participant explained: ‘I used the resource for inspiration as regards language around global citizenship teaching and practice’ (ID 27). Overall, findings indicate that its potential lies not only in its design but also in how experienced professionals adapt it.

Our participants also identified multiple opportunities to reframe existing topics in formal education from primary to higher education institutions and within NGO/CSO programmes. A teacher educator who took part in the aforementioned multilateral teacher education project foregrounding the use of EGIP stated that classroom teachers adapted it to teach ‘Climate Change, Inequalities, Gender Inequalities, Migrations’ (ID 8). Similarly, some upper/secondary school teachers in Sweden, Finland and Australia used it to broaden the scope of disciplinary subjects (IDs 3, 4*, 10, 12, 22) and make cross-curricular adaptations possible – which required trial-and-error practice and were sometimes more difficult for those less familiar with humanities and social science subjects (IDs 10, 12). One of them used it to deepen English lessons and address ‘how English is a world language and why’ and also used it in Science Education to approach ‘resource production and management, energy, climate, etc.’ (ID 22). Those well acquainted with the tool continue to use it, making it part of their regular practice (for example, IDs 4, 10, 12, 25), as illustrated by the following account from an upper/secondary school teacher in Sweden:

We started out a couple of years ago with the global sustainability course, which we designed ourselves. And then we tried to educate our fellow teachers … 110 people, all the staff. And then from there, we started thinking, how can we do this in our normal education and in our usual curriculum, which wasn’t very much done, at least on my part, before that. So, it’s been inspiring, very inspiring. (ID 12)

Besides mediating professional relationships and collegial learning, across educational contexts, educators consistently suggested that EGIP offers a strong pedagogical foundation. They described how the resource created shared spaces for dialogue, enabling them to address politically and ethically sensitive issues with colleagues and in class, interrogate established practices and develop new perspectives on global justice (for example, IDs 3, 5, 11, 15, 24). Consistent with this, a higher education educator based in Spain and interested in using EGIP for undergraduate modules that include social justice issues, stated: EGIP ‘provides an excellent starting point, or rather, not just a starting point, but a whole valuable pedagogical process for working on social justice’ (ID 1). Building on these findings, we next examine a key driver underpinning educators’ interest in and uptake of EGIP before turning to the opportunities and tensions they described in using the resource in practice.

Mainstream is not enough

Across educational contexts, EGIP’s practical approach as an entry into post/decolonial concepts and social justice education attracted educators. They were primarily drawn to EGIP as something that helped them challenge mainstream perspectives that, for example, frame global injustices as external, minimise historical responsibility and privilege feel-good solutions over, for instance, critical engagement with complicity in harm. They described EGIP as supporting the recognition of exceptionalism and complicity in harm, particularly where unexamined assumptions risk foreclosing reflexivity. In line with critiques of soft GCE, they also understood that global learning tended to overlook local, national and global tensions.

Participants across formal and non-formal educational contexts described EGIP as enabling the recognition of exceptionalism, especially where mainstream narratives left assumptions about responsibility and power unexamined. Educators in European societies that were not colonisers in a traditional and historical sense perceived that learners tended to see themselves as separated from colonial complicity, as observed by an educator from an NGO/CSO in Estonia: ‘We don’t have colonial history in the way that we have not colonised others. There’s very little understanding of the concept of development cooperation or looking at it from a critical perspective’ (ID 16). One upper/secondary teacher observed that ‘students usually think that, in Finland, “We are quite safe and we do not need to do anything, but the guys who are in India or China are the ones causing the problems with climate change”’ (ID 4*), pointing to EGIP supporting a recognition of national exceptionalism in students’ reasoning.

Through EGIP, participants responded to concerns about Global North/South power relations that are often left unexamined. One of the educators from the development education sector commented that ‘we are doing it because we didn’t have the colonial pasts, we still can act this way towards the people or our societies from the global South’ (ID 9). The latter represents the views of some participants who saw a need to address the reproduction of colonial systems of power and marginalisation. We learned from educators in NGOs/CSOs that EGIP encouraged both them and learners to put on ‘different glasses’ or use other ‘glasses to take a different look’ (IDs 2, 11, 22). Likewise, school-based and higher education educators also highlighted EGIP’s role in disrupting dominant and accepted narratives reproduced through formal curricula, particularly when these sustain deficit views and obscure historical, contextual and power relations.

In line with the above, a secondary school teacher in Australia used EGIP alongside maps and graphs of gross domestic product, poverty and natural disasters to support students in examining their own exceptionalism and geographic privilege in relation to the unequal vulnerabilities produced by unjust global responses to climate change. Like other participants, this teacher interrogated and reframed, rather than reinforced, the normative aspects in hidden curricula that may further marginalise those affected by structural inequalities. Other teachers also used EGIP together with media articles covering climate change crises to critically examine mainstream narratives alongside ethical arguments and historical context (IDs 12, 15, 16); however, one educator from the development cooperation sector noted that these adaptations are best produced when one has professional development to support these practices (ID 16). A Finnish secondary school teacher with a lot of experience in adapting EGIP in her classes shared that ‘it’s always a challenge to get students (even sometimes other teachers) to [engage with a] “meta level” of thinking – thinking out of the obvious, normal or typical’ (ID 4*), suggesting that examining mainstream perspectives may also develop metacognitive skills. Similarly, an educator from a CSO in Belgium indicated that after engaging with EGIP, ‘young people are better equipped to avoid falling into the shortcomings of cooperation’ (ID 11), emphasising the resource’s potential to interrogate complicity and resisting feel-good solutions in development cooperation contexts.

As school-based and NGO/CSO educators, higher education educators integrated EGIP to deepen existing curricula in their contexts and disseminate critical CGE scholarship. One teacher educator in the UK found it matched perfectly onto existing final year modules for upper/secondary teacher training, listing ‘Module A – exploring perspectives, worldviews on colonisation … Module B: culture and memory – whose voices are heard/unheard? Session on bias and unconscious bias – in particular representations of “one world” ideologies’ (ID 18). EGIP supported student discussions (IDs 3, 9, 10, 12, 15) and, in particular, discussions of decolonial theory in relation to critical GCE (IDs 2, 13, 14, 20, 28). One of these participants stated that they had used EGIP to help undergraduate students ‘challenge taken-for-granted assumptions about global citizenship education’ (ID 26), continuing the interest in the examination of mainstream perspectives. The views of a teacher educator in a higher education institution in Iceland explained more about these discussions facilitated by the resource, which, although perhaps challenging in practice, also responded to professional development needs in global learning:

All discussions that link into a language of de-coloniality are difficult in Iceland as the majority still feels as if this is somewhat unrelatable to their own situation and history. This generally needs preparing and grounding in much deeper historical discussions and reflections. However, most teachers feel collective responsibility towards global issues … which is exactly why the EGIP resource is both important and brilliant to level this kind of approach and bring in questions around power, perspectives, historical contexts etc. (ID 30)

The same teacher educator also observed that teachers appreciated ‘being offered an alternative way to talk about difficult issues’ (ID 30), underscoring the importance of pedagogical tools that mediate engagement with complex global concerns. Across contexts, EGIP enabled educators to create pedagogical space to question and reframe dominant or mainstream perspectives, particularly at moments of political tension when critical approaches can be found to be constrained or contested. This point was further illustrated by a teacher educator in a higher education institution in Poland who emphasised the significance of critical GCE amid the rise of populist politics: EGIP’s aims are ‘really important because, especially nowadays, when not only in Poland but in many countries in Europe and in the world, we experience this right-wing move’ (ID 24). This sense of urgency was echoed across participants’ accounts, with EGIP used to deepen curricula and introduce counternarratives in response to perceived pushback against taking up global responsibilities.

Dynamic constraints: amplifying critical GCE through persistence and risk-taking

Support for reflexive practice was a significant finding, as demonstrated by the reflections and practice accounts of deepening analysis of mainstream views. However, across the educators’ accounts, we also identified a multidimensional spectrum of constraints, tensions, limiting beliefs and challenges inherent in applying critical GCE that reflect hegemonic, patriarchal and neoliberal educational contexts. We noticed that most of the tensions are also known constraints in education (for example, packed curriculum, limiting curricula/programmes, needing to deepen professional learning and planning), yet other tensions are country- or region-specific (for example, national debates that incite a belief in the safety of silence and/or reinforce exceptionalism) and there are also sector-specific challenges in their accounts (for example, administrative work in the development education sector). Educators were explicit about the tensions but also reflected that these are part of engaging with critical GCE, as illustrated by an educator from the development cooperation sector in Belgium: ‘In my sector [EGIP] certainly pushes some (uncomfortable) buttons, that people think are worthwhile discussing though’ (ID 17). Despite operating within typically short- or fixed-term awareness-raising initiatives, educators in NGOs/CSOs adapted EGIP in creative ways to critically examine international cooperation projects themselves (ID 9) and to support volunteers’ training (ID 11).

In all the educational contexts, the educators described challenges in practice (that is, readiness for uptake and time management) and described differences in how fully and easily the resource could be applied to introduce critical GCE or deepen practice. While this is a finding that resonated across all the educational levels, this professional judgement was articulated differently and most explicitly by participants from NGOs/CSOs. One account from a co-creator and teacher educator from a Swedish higher education institution captured this consideration: ‘It takes time to get to know the material, the theories behind it, etc. You need to know your students well before you start using a resource like this’ (ID 21*). Participants working at NGOs/CSOs noted time management constraints in encouraging reflexivity (IDs 9, 14) and reflected on the readiness to use the resource for both teachers and young learners (IDs 2, 14, 15, 16). The latter was echoed by two experienced teacher educators in German and Polish higher education institutions (IDs 24, 25). At the same time, while EGIP’s concepts could initially feel demanding for some learners in the non-formal sector, educators in this sector recognised that the resource embeds scaffolding that supports facilitation and enables adaptation across diverse groups and educational contexts (IDs 14, 22). Hence, the challenges of adapting EGIP were experienced both as limitations and as productive pedagogical tensions that require careful preparation and facilitation.

As per its design to support existing practice, some participants appreciated that EGIP is a generative tool rather than something everyone will use in the same way. Educators across all the educational contexts often used or adapted sections of EGIP and/or sometimes used it only with groups already inclined towards critical engagement, given that not all teachers and students would be ready to engage with it. Nevertheless, most educators in this study assumed the challenge and adapted EGIP with groups new to the material, and some encouraged attention to reflexivity with the teacher candidates to link theory and practice. After successfully using the resource and having seen students adapt it, and although limited in more regular use of EGIP due to the time constraints of a loaded curriculum, a teacher educator in Germany stated: ‘I find the EGIP resource in total very accessible and therefore easy to use for pre- and in-service [primary] teachers, as it provides a bit of background information’ (ID 28). The readiness to use the resource also deepened when teachers and teacher educators reflected on their position and how they themselves shaped its use (IDs 3, 14, 25), which we recognised strongly in the ways many of them described their practice using EGIP. While several teachers described using the resource in classroom activities that could align with formative assessment practices, these were not framed in evaluative terms. Participants did not explicitly refer to evaluation or assessment in their accounts. This absence may reflect the way in which teachers interpret the resource primarily as a pedagogical tool for engagement, rather than as part of structured assessment processes. Moreover, the aim of the research was not evaluative, so we also did not ask about this explicitly but rather used open questions to find out what educators wanted to share.

Relatedly, the ability to critically reflect on the tool itself and critical GCE more broadly was supported by a willingness to engage and/or being familiar with the research literature. One educator, a lead for global citizenship at an elite upper/secondary school, noted that the depth of discussions mediated by EGIP depended on whether there was ‘some sense of safety in it and people were willing to engage and be vulnerable’ (ID 15). While considering the resource ‘powerful’, she also pointed out that depending on how the resource is used, it might lead towards but not take up GCE ‘otherwise’: ‘It does not challenge the onto-epistemic blindness … so the conversations can end up becoming circular rather than critical’ (ID 15). This echoes a recognised interface between critical and ‘otherwise’ GCE.

It is important to note that challenges in practice may also be followed by valuable learning outcomes. Teachers, teacher educators and postgraduate students created spaces for pedagogical experimentation when applying the resource in their own context. For instance, one upper/secondary teacher in Sweden explained: ‘At first the students had a hard time grasping the resource, but after a few weeks they started to get the connections and make their own conclusions’ (ID 13). Similarly, another upper/secondary school teacher in Sweden shared that the ‘most challenging aspect’ was to address issues of complicity with students, stating it is hard but possible: ‘It is tricky and something that needs to be done delicately to not get a complete backlash’ (ID 22). In the same vein, a Finnish secondary school teacher remembered a time when her students felt that ‘before [engaging with EGIP] they didn’t know anything about the mainstream thinking’ and by using the resource they recognised that ‘their knowledge about water-related issues was very narrow and local’ (ID 4). Those who have used the resource confidently and who, through trial and error, made it part of their practice also witnessed positive responses. This is illustrated by the following account from a secondary school teacher in Australia who is also an experienced critical GCE educator:

After a year of using the resource in my classroom the biggest positive that came from a student was ‘WOW, like you ACTUALLY taught me something’. I saw the engagement with my lessons improve exponentially. Student behaviour improved … Also, I wasn’t bored by my lessons – it broke the repetitive cycle of teaching. (ID 3)

This educator used EGIP as part of a doctoral investigation during which she observed and reflected on a range of responses from her colleagues. She committed herself to peer support in applying the resource during a tense period nationally when there was a blanket ban on discussing the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum in schools. She stated that initiating conversations with EGIP felt like repairing some of the damage caused by the referendum. Importantly, this educator reflected that EGIP ‘almost positioned me in a way that allowed me to open conversations that led to really rich, deep, meaningful and thought-provoking discussions with my students, overcoming some resistance from peers and parents, but not without effort’ (ID 3). She also emphasised that EGIP and sustained relational work, seeking dialogue, modelling critical engagement and reframing the issues beyond ‘day-to-day school problems’, encouraged the teachers involved to shift in their views about critical GCE.

Participants’ reflections demonstrate that while there are barriers to address when implementing critical GCE supported by EGIP, our findings suggest that the more educators engage with the resource, the more productive and meaningful their applications become. Therefore, the uptake of the EGIP resource was amplified by those educators who took pedagogical risks, invested in pedagogical innovation and encouraged others to explore. Taken together, these accounts suggest that EGIP operates as a nodal point, as something concrete to reference or explore with colleagues as an example of critical GCE in practice. This is a tool that encourages educators who feel that critical GCE can be professionally risky. EGIP gets picked up, applied and adapted by those who are experienced with critical GCE, thereby extending educators’ capacity to bring critical reflexivity into their practice.