Challenges faced by Zimbabwean high school history teachers in teaching history for global citizenship education

The contested terrain of GCED

Although GCED is regarded as a framework capable of addressing global challenges by equipping learners with the necessary skills, attitudes, knowledge and values, it has been mired in challenges (Tsekwende et al., 2025). While international bodies like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2015) promote GCED as a universal framework for fostering peace, sustainability and global solidarity, critical scholars have problematised its underpinnings. Andreotti (2014) distinguishes between a soft GCED, which focuses on global competence and charity, and a critical GCED, which encourages learners to interrogate power structures, historical legacies of colonialism and their own positionality. This critical perspective highlights that GCED is often framed within Western Enlightenment thinking and neoliberal capitalism, making it a potential vehicle for neo-colonial agendas (Estellés and Fischman, 2021; Swanson, 2015). Consequently, the implementation of GCED is not a neutral technical process but a political act, often met with resistance from nation-states that perceive it as a threat to national sovereignty and cultural identity (Pashby et al., 2020; Rapoport, 2010). This fundamental tension between global aspirations and national interests underlies the challenges to its implementation worldwide.

The GCED framework has been celebrated as capable of inculcating the necessary skills in learners (Paschal, 2022). However, unlike the widely held view that GCED is a straightforward framework, it has, since its inception, been contested and faced significant resistance from various countries due to governments’ lack of trust (Rapoport, 2010). Furthermore, this same contested view is supported by Andreotti (2014), who argued that colonial mentalities continue to influence perceptions of the environment and of human interactions with one another and with the natural world. Thus, despite GCED’s potential to encourage nation-states to collaborate in a globalised world to address challenges through its implementation in educational systems, there is mistrust among countries, particularly between former colonisers and their former colonies. In line with this perspective, Swanson (2015) stresses that the criticisms of GCED target the assertion that GCED is framed within neoliberal capitalism. Consequently, this invokes the African notion of Ubuntu to decolonise Western GCED, allowing GCED to be reimagined.

The heritage-based curriculum and patriotic history

The recent introduction of the HBC (MoPSE Advanced Level History Syllabus, 2024) signifies its institutionalisation. Scholarly analysis of this reform suggests that its primary aim is to develop highly competent learners by fostering Zimbabwean identity and preparing students for active citizenship within a national framework (Chitamba and Chitamba, 2025). According to Permanent Secretary’s Circular No. 4 of 2024, the key objectives of the HBC include promoting and valuing Zimbabwean identity, preparing students for active citizenship, fostering peace and sustainable development and reinforcing values aligned with the Zimbabwean philosophical principles of Unhu/Ubuntu/Vumunhu. Dombo and Mujere (2021) emphasise that this contemporary history has been termed ‘patriotic history’ because it was considered partisan, biased towards Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and critical of the opposition. Evershine (2025) contextualises this change by examining the challenges and opportunities of the new curriculum and notes that its strong nationalistic emphasis naturally creates a pedagogical tension with transnational frameworks such as GCED. The policy decision to make heritage studies a compulsory subject, while making history an elective, further indicates a preference for a state-controlled heritage narrative over a critical, multi-perspectival engagement with the past, which directly conflicts with the core principles of GCED. Dombo and Mujere (2021) posit that in Zimbabwe the teaching of history is important but controversial. The controversy arises from the lack of consensus on what history to teach, whose history to teach and to which students. Magudu (2012) reports that new syllabuses focused more on the history of Zimbabwe and Africa than on Europe and other distant places.

Political censorship and a lack of academic freedom

The GCED framework encompasses teaching topics that are considered sensitive, complex and controversial (Tsekwende et al., 2025). In subjects such as social studies, teachers are expected by their schools to take responsibility for GCED-related issues. This has led to censorship and the undermining of academic freedom. In Zimbabwe, Ngoshi (2021) finds that academic discourse has been significantly restricted, especially on topics that do not support the government and its policies, notably areas related to human rights, democracy and governance. However, it is important to emphasise that these are fundamental aspects of GCED. In addition, according to Chobphon (2024), the government of Thailand also promotes ultra-nationalism, indicating that it wants its citizens to be dedicated to the country’s interests with no regard for how this affects other nations. This policy contradicts the principles of GCED, which emphasise a sense of belonging to the global community and global wellness. This view also aligns with the conclusions of Yemini et al. (2018). In their study conducted in Israel, they observed that nationalist policies and an ambiguous attitude towards human rights hindered attempts to incorporate GCED into the education system of a conflict-ridden state.

Since the aims of GCED differ from policies in Thailand, the government does not acknowledge the concept. Given that the idea of GCED is not supported by the government or the Ministry of Education, it is also neglected by local education administrators. A study conducted by Ngoshi (2021) concludes that what is considered a threat to national or public security is flexible and can be extended to cover ever more issues at the whims of the ruling elite to suppress dissent. In this context, this is achieved through censorship of academic books, particularly those that discuss democracy and oppression. This closed environment has led teachers to focus on rote learning and topics that cannot be considered as against the government, in this case, those not aligned with GCED. For educators, this political reality translates into a climate of fear that dictates pedagogical choices. Studies by Dombo and Mujere (2021) find that history teachers in Zimbabwe actively avoid sensitive topics, such as post-independence political violence and contemporary governance issues, out of fear of being labelled as opposition sympathisers or sellouts. This self-censorship is a rational survival strategy in an environment where academic freedom is subordinate to political control. This body of literature clearly establishes that open enquiry, critical reflection and the discussion of controversial issues, all central to critical GCED, are severely inhibited by the socio-political context in Zimbabwe.

The political context in Zimbabwe directly enables this censorship. As Ngoshi (2021) argues, definitions of threats to national security are often flexible and used by the ruling elite to suppress dissent. This creates a climate of fear that extends into the classroom. Matinhira (2025) further details how academic discourse, particularly on topics related to human rights and governance, is significantly restricted. For history teachers, this political reality, as found by Dombo and Mujere (2021), translates into self-censorship.

Teacher preparedness and resource deficits

The successful implementation of any curriculum depends on adequate teacher capacity and material resources, areas where the Zimbabwean education system faces documented challenges. Research consistently highlights that teachers have been insufficiently prepared for major curriculum reforms. Makuvire and Khosa (2021) and Muzvondiwa and Gudyanga (2024) identify a lack of specific training, skills and knowledge as primary barriers to practical implementation. This is compounded for GCED, which requires pedagogical shifts towards critical thinking and participatory methods, areas often overlooked in standard teacher training (Mukwacha, 2020; Zhuwau, 2018). Concurrently, a severe shortage of material resources has emerged as another factor affecting the implementation of GCED. Studies report widespread unavailability of textbooks, with schools relying on outdated materials from previous curricula (Muzvondiwa and Gudyanga, 2024). The lack of financial resources to purchase new books, combined with a shortage of modern teaching aids such as projectors and reliable internet access, severely limits the use of diverse teaching modalities (Dube and Tshuma, 2025). These constraints on resources are not isolated; Warikandwa et al. (2023) directly link the lack of teaching and learning materials to the ineffective implementation of GCED in Southern African liberation history (SALH) across the region, identifying a critical gap between policy ambition and practical capacity.

Conflict of national interest with the principles of GCED

The GCED framework has also been affected by conflicting interests and goals with national governments, which has been highlighted as a challenge to its implementation. For instance, a study by Trang (2021) stresses that although GCED has been embraced as a globally oriented educational trend, its development has not involved consistent understandings, practices or politics. Supporting this view, a review conducted by UNESCO and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) found that although GCED components are included in the curricula of 13 SADC countries, the teaching of SALH is often limited and tends to focus more on national than regional perspectives (UNESCO, 2015). Thus, attempts to categorise the divergent directions of GCED have culminated in a contested terrain, with many countries proposing to tailor GCED to suit their national interests and narratives. For instance, a study by González-Valencia et al. (2022) found that despite countries agreeing on the significant role of GCED in education systems, particularly in social studies, some countries have chosen to ignore the call to incorporate GCED into their education systems due to the misalignment of GCED goals with their national interests.

A study by Dombo and Mujere (2021) suggests that in Zimbabwe history teachers have avoided specific topics out of fear of being accused of failing to promote the revolutionary spirit in their students, as some have been victims of the politically motivated violence that has occurred since 2002. Thus, the desired outcome of GCED is arguably contested, as international and citizenship are open to debate over their meanings and implications. According to Hatley (2019), the education component within GCED further blurs this global citizenship and is often left unexamined.

Due to the fear that while GCED principles imply teaching global perspectives, some countries insist on national narratives and many studies suggest that teachers now report feeling ill-prepared and unsupported to teach GCED (Pak and Lee, 2018; Yemini, 2017). Rapoport’s (2010) study of teachers in Indiana, USA, finds that although all the participants reported hearing of global citizenship, they also said they rarely or never used the term in the classroom. Ghosn-Chelala (2020) posits that more traditional approaches to citizenship education, predominantly focusing on the nation-state, patriotism and one national level of identity, often conflict with GCED.

Challenges of nationalistic policies

The challenge that has also impeded the implementation of the GCED framework is the prioritisation of nationalistic policies, particularly in Zimbabwe, where the history syllabus places more emphasis on patriotic history. To support this view, Dombo and Mujere (2021) suggest that the current history has been labelled ‘patriotic history’ because it aims to foster patriotism and anything that opposes this is criticised. Thus, while GCED is formulated to advocate for citizenship that transcends national boundaries, many countries, particularly in conflict-ridden regions, emphasise their national identity, thereby posing a significant hindrance to GCED implementation. Consequently, teachers in these regions encounter challenges, such as a lack of support from schools and the government, as governments in such countries or regions often use a top-down approach with a particular focus on nationalist policies that pay limited attention to human rights (Yemini et al., 2018). For example, a study by Chobphon (2024) found that in Thailand, Thai culture blocks the implementation of GCED in schools. It stressed that the culture of seniority in Thailand was found to be the primary cause hindering GCED implementation in several ways, including the fact that this does not recognise children’s rights, and as such, the opinions and views of children are not considered, a practice that is not in line with the principles and tenets of the GCED framework (Chobphon, 2024). As a result of this practice, the GCED framework is not implemented and learners graduate without the necessary skills, knowledge, values and attitudes to act responsibly. This has been evidenced in the recent rise of xenophobic and populist nationalism, which has further complicated the relationship between the nation and the world (Pashby et al., 2020).

Teachers’ limited knowledge and training

Teachers play a vital and significant role in implementing the curriculum. Studies indicate that one major challenge hindering curriculum implementation is limited knowledge of its content, components and requirements. In their study, Zhuwau (2018) recommended that teachers receive comprehensive training, especially on the new curriculum and the components of its implementation, as this equips them with the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their roles confidently. Supporting this view, Chitamba and Chitamba (2025) argue that a teacher’s role is pivotal, as the responsibility for what to teach and how to teach lies with them. In this context, a limited understanding, alongside insufficient skills and knowledge among Zimbabwean history teachers, significantly obstructs the teaching of history for GCED, since teachers need the relevant skills and knowledge to implement effective pedagogical strategies, develop lesson plans, design assessment tools and select suitable instructional materials catering to students with different levels of proficiency. Consequently, teachers in Zimbabwe face numerous challenges, including scarce resources, limited training and stakeholder resistance (Zhuwau, 2018). Mazambani and Tapfumaneyi (2024) observe that many teachers lack the necessary skills and resources to effectively deliver new curriculum concepts, leading to gaps in implementation. According to Muzvondiwa and Gudyanga (2024), significant challenges affecting curriculum implementation include a lack of skills, knowledge and teacher training, as teachers have not been adequately prepared to introduce new concepts.

Theoretical framework: transformative learning theory

This study is rooted in Mezirow’s (2000) transformative learning theory (TLT), which offers a robust perspective on the processes and challenges of educational change. The theory is especially suitable for this investigation as it closely aligns with the core aims of GCED and provides a structured framework for analysing educators’ experiences. As Cranton (2023) suggests, TLT is based on constructivist assumptions, involving the critical examination, questioning and revision of perspectives to develop new meaning. Mezirow (2000) further explains this as a process aimed at transforming learning environments to make them more inclusive and open. This process of changing a frame of reference, one’s deeply held set of assumptions and expectations, is central to the theory (Cranton, 2023; Dirkx et al., 2006; Mezirow, 2000). In this study’s context, integrating GCED into the high school history curriculum represents a strong call for change in teachers’ professional frames of reference. The teacher’s role is crucial. Teachers are not only implementers of a new curriculum but also potential agents of transformation. The theory highlights that for learning to be transformative, teachers must raise learners’ critical consciousness, which begins with teachers becoming critically aware of their own assumptions (Dirkx et al., 2006). This daily, ongoing practice of reflection is what makes learning meaningful and transformative, principles that closely align with the reflective, critical and participatory tenets of the GCED framework.

In addition, Dirkx et al. (2006) stress that transformative learning is a process that ought to be repeated every day by teachers. Thus, TLT is critical to this study, as it is underpinned by tenets of reflection and transformative, meaningful learning, which align with the GCED framework. TLT helps deepen understanding of how the teaching environment and teachers’ own perceptions shape the implementation of the GCED framework. By framing the challenges within this theoretical context, the study advances beyond simply listing problems to explore the underlying transformative process that GCED demands of history teachers, thereby revealing the pathway towards more effective support and successful implementation. This means that, for learning to be transformative, teachers play a critical role in conscientising learners about the assumptions they hold or what they should know. Using this perspective, this theory served as an analytical lens to understand how the environment and teachers’ understanding shape the implementation of this framework. Thus, transformative learning is a theory that can be utilised in the social studies course to provide knowledge, skills and values related to social life. According to Mezirow cited in Calleja (2014), TLT is a theory that focuses on ‘developmental processes as well as the understanding that learning is understood as the process of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or revived interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience to guide future action’ (p. 162).

Transformative learning occurs when situations prompt one to question current frames of reference and, as a result, alter them to reflect new knowledge acquired through a specific experience (Mezirow, 1995). Thus, this principle applies to this study, as this approach moves beyond the rote memorisation of dates and events, which has often characterised history instruction, towards a process of critical engagement designed to foster a more inclusive, reflexive and empowered citizenry.

TLT was used in this study to frame the introduction of GCED as a disorienting dilemma for teachers, challenging their existing frames of reference about the purpose of history education. The integration of GCED into a history curriculum dominated by a nationalist narrative represents a fundamental disorienting dilemma, a core concept in TLT. Therefore, it demands that teachers critically examine and potentially revise their deeply held frames of reference about the purpose of history education, national identity and their own role as educators. TLT was used in this study to explain the cognitive and emotional processes of change that are systematically suppressed by the challenges to GCED implementation. Thus, TLT provides the theoretical lens to frame the challenges as disorienting dilemmas, critical reflection and dialogue, which are the very engine of transformative learning. It helps explain why the status quo of instrumental, rote learning persists despite policy intentions, making it the superior framework for this investigation.

Challenges of teaching history for GCED