| Session | ||
34 SES 03 A JS: Global Citizenship Education and Education for Sustainable Development
Joint Paper Session NW 30 and NW 34
| ||
| Session Abstract | ||
|
This is a joint session of NW 30 and NW 34. Papers can be found in 34 SES 03 A JS | ||
| Presentations | ||
34. Research on Citizenship Education
Paper Platforms and Possibilities for Global Citizenship Education 1The University of Queensland, Australia; 2Southern Cross University, Australia; 3University of South Australia Presenting Author:In these precarious times, children and youth require (and are demanding) education on how to address the myriad of convergent global challenges. The United Nations attest that only by working with children and youth across diversity and difference will global communities be able ‘to achieve peace, security, justice, climate resilience, and sustainable development for all’ (Clark et al., 2020, p. 617). Engaging in dialogue about global challenges involves global meaning-making that acknowledges and capitalises on diverse understandings and ways of knowing to re-imagine and transform realities (Tierney, 2018). In developing these capabilities, education has a critical role to play—as made clear in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD, 2018a, 2018b) appeal for collective action and a re-thinking of educational approaches that address global challenges in ways that place ‘collaboration above division, and sustainability above short-term gain’, so that children might ‘value common prosperity, sustainability and well-being’ (p. 3). Global citizenship education (GCE) is a response to this clarion call of enabling globally aware and engaged citizens (Thomas & Banki, 2021).
On review of authoritative texts (OECD, UN, UNESCO, UNICEF) on global citizenship, we see global citizenship education as centring two concepts: global mindedness and taking action (i.e., to enact change). We do not see ‘global mindedness’ in a literal sense, but rather more broadly like Andreotti (2010) proposed as how individuals multidimensionally think and feel about and engage with otherness and difference. There are multiple GCE approaches that challenge western-centric, neoliberal interpretations of GCE for global market competence and employment (Torres & Bosio, 2020). These approaches include post-colonial and critical theory approaches (e.g., Torres, 2017); transformative approaches oriented to cultural diversity, human rights, and collaboration (e.g., Gaudelli, 2016); and approaches favouring a value-creating orientation to nurture students’ humanity through creative co-existence with others (e.g., Sharma, 2018). We take a critical theory approach informed by Carlos Torres (2017) with emphases on social justice, diversity and difference, peace, planetary rights and responsibilities and local and global political participation. We also draw from Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti (2014) who argues that “responsible education in current “global times” requires a deeper understanding of the social, cultural, economic and historical forces and flows that connect peoples, places, spaces and world views, and of the difficulties of intervening in complex and dynamic systems” (p. 33).
We see education playing a key role in developing broad awareness of diverse perspectives (ethical and intercultural understanding), political literacy, contestation and dialogue, and strategic civic action (e.g., see Collins, 1992; Torres, 2017). However, the space afforded to GCE remains contested in Australian education policy pronouncements (Peterson, 2020). Much of the burden is predominantly borne by the goodwill of teachers who understand the value of global citizenship education and so locate and assess materials and novel ways to squeeze in complex concepts and controversial topics in an already overcrowded curriculum (Buchanan et al., 2018).
To support teacher uptake of global citizenship education in Australia, we searched for and mapped open-access global citizenship education materials to create a systematic, research-based resource catalogue for teachers and students. Our scoping study inquiry broadly asked: what are the open access online curricular resources available for critical global citizenship education? With the following sub-questions:
How do these curricular resources align with international GCE-related frameworks (i.e., OECD dimensions of global competence and UN Sustainable Development Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We employed a scoping study (as developed by Arksey and O’Malley, 2005) to examine each resource’s alignments with Australian Curricula and global GCE frameworks and identified the areas where there is insufficient resourcing. In this project, we endeavoured to meet the first (a rapid review of materials maps the field of study where it is difficult to visualise the range of materials available), third (a summary for disseminating findings to policymakers and practitioners), and fourth (identify the gaps and points to areas for further research) rationales for scoping research that Arksey and O’Malley propose. Instead of literature sources, we have chosen to examine the extent, range, and types of curricular resources available for GCE across early childhood, primary, and secondary education. Our scoping study mapping exercise adapted Arksey and O’Malley’s six key processes. One – Identifying research questions: We developed sub-questions a) to support Australian teacher application as study was located in Australia; and subquestion b) to support the application of these international frameworks in Australia and to enable international use of the catalogue. Two - Identifying relevant organisations as resource providers: Through purposive sampling, we identified NGOs and community sector organisations and institutions with a strong commitment to human rights, global minded ethos, and advocacy that produced and made available GCE resources freely available online. Three - Resources selection: As informed by the study design, the inclusion and selection criteria were loosely on a) materials produced for children and young people that b) emphasise participation, engagement, and leadership in global issues. Attention to key terms of global citizenship (as identified by project’s literature review of GCE) also guided the selection of resources. Four - Charting the data: The curriculum resources were assessed for suitability (as per prior criteria) and coded according to a set of indicators (education sector; OECD dimensions of global competence; and seventeen SDGs). Five - Collating, summarising, and reporting results: While following the above process, the scoping study was iterative and generative rather than linear in execution, with categories for resource collation iteratively reviewed. Six – Consultation: Arksey and O’Malley (2005) indicated that consultations with experts and stakeholders are essential and encouraged practice for scoping studies. To locate as many resources as possible, the research team regularly consulted with the project’s advisory group and GCE experts throughout the research from May to November 2022. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results showed that of the 252 resources scoped most were targeted to primary (n=143) and secondary school students (n=145), with only 23 materials deliberately targeted to early childhood education. The resources highlight the building of four Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022) general capabilities. There is equal emphasis on critical and creative thinking (n = 90), personal and social capability (n = 90), and ethical understanding (n = 90), with notably fewer resources focussing on intercultural understanding (n = 67), though it was common for a single resource to be coded for all four general capabilities. The materials were spread across all seventeen UN SDGs (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d). Most related to Goals 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), particularly on topics of and reuse of materials and renewable energy. Issues on inequality, violence, inclusion/and exclusion were coded under Goals 16 (Peace and Justice Strong Institutions) and 10 (Reduced Inequality). Interestingly, only a moderate number of resources attend to gender equality, quality education, and good health and wellbeing when these significant issues affect education. Across the OECD global competence dimensions, the majority (n = 97) were mainly on the examination of issues of global and local significance (Dimension 1), followed by Dimension 2 (Understand and appreciate the perspectives and worldviews of others) (n = 70). Fewer materials push the narrative to open communications (n = 46) across cultures (Dimension 3). Finally, some materials encourage active participation (Dimension 4, n = 55), such as through letter-writing, setting up special projects, creating audio-visual materials, protesting, and leading initiatives (taking action). The outcome of the scoping study generated an open access GCE resource catalogue https://enablingyoungvoicesforcivicaction.com/resource-catalogue/ that continues to be added to and is utlised by teachers and student teachers across multiple nations. References Andreotti, V. (2010). Global education in the ‘21st century’: Two different perspectives on the ‘post-’ of postmodernism. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2(2), 5–22. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2022). The Australian curriculum ver. 9.0. Retrieved from https:// v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13645 57032 00011 9616 Buchanan, J., Burridge, N., & Chodkiewicz, A. (2018). Maintaining global citizenship education in schools: A challenge for Australian educators and schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 51–67. Clark, H., Coll-Seck, A. W., Banerjee, A., Peterson, S., Dalglish, S. L., Ameratunga, S., Balabanova, D., Bhan, M. K., Bhutta, Z. A., Borrazzo, J., Claeson, M., Doherty, T., El-Jardali, F., George, A. S., Gichaga, A., Gram, L., Hipgrave, D. B., Kwamie, A., Meng, Q., Mercer, R., Costello, A. (2020). A future for the world’s children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet commission. The Lancet, 395(10224), 605-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32540-1 Collins, H. (1992). Political literacy: Educating for democracy. Papers on parliament, 14, https:// www.aph.gov.au/About_Parli ament/Senate/Powers_ practice_n_ procedures/ pops/pop14/ c03 Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. Routledge. OECD. (2018a). The future of education and skills: Education 2030—The future we want. OECD. OECD (2018b). PISA 2018b Global competence. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ innovation/global- competence/# de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2014). Critical and transnational literacies in international development and global citizenship education. Journal of education, 2 (3), 32-50. Peterson, A. (2020). Global citizenship education in Australian schools: Leadership, teacher and student perspectives. Springer Nature. Sharma, N. (2018). Value-creating global citizenship education: Engaging Gandhi, Makiguchi, and Ikeda as examples. Springer. Thomas, M., Banki, S. (2021). Toward a framework for assessing the 'global' and 'citizen' in global citizenship education in Australia and beyond. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(5), 732-748. Tierney, R. J. (2018). Toward a Model of Global Meaning Making. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(4), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18803134 Torres, C.A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education. Routledge. Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020). Global citizenship education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness. Prospects, 48, 99–113. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (n.d). Sustainable development: The 17 goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals 34. Research on Citizenship Education
Paper Teaching of/as/for Global Citizenship and the Question of Education 1University of Melbourne, Australia; 2Deakin University, Australia Presenting Author:The concept and practice of global citizenship education (GCE) is now widespread in schools and universities across the world. At a surface level, the meaning of the term appears self-evident. Yet, within the context of U.S. higher education, Stein (2015) has argued that ‘global citizenship remains untheorized’ (p.242). Nevertheless, various scholars have sought to understand the different ways in which GCE is conceptualised as an agenda for education, often with reference to its implications for global and local policy and curriculum (Gaudelli, 2009; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pashby et al., 2020; Bourn, 2021). A further study conducted by Goren & Yemini (2017) has aimed to identify differences in regional approaches to GCE. According to their analysis, European research on GCE is: often framed by the context of population changes related to immigration; viewed as an alternative model to national citizenship, and; aimed at inclusion and social cohesion (p.174). The typical European approach to GCE, they argue, is connected to moral and cultural concern rather than, for example, political advocacy. The intentions behind GCE raise questions about its function and role in education settings. While GCE is often thought about in connection to the curriculum, the focus of this paper is on the practice of teaching. The first key question driving the analysis is: what do the teaching choices related to GCE suggest about how it is conceptualised? In responding to this question, we have adapted the now common way of framing different orientations to assessment (Schellekens et al., 2021), to consider three orientations in teaching GCE: teaching of, as, and for, global citizenship. Teaching of global citizenship can be understood as teaching about global citizenship as something connected to but distinct from, for example, national citizenship. This orientation may aim for impartiality, or a dispassionate approach. Teaching as global citizenship can be understood as a politicising orientation, whereby the teaching of global citizenship is connected to enacting global citizenship. For example, experiential service learning. Teaching for global citizenship can be understood as a moralising orientation, whereby students are encouraged - perhaps even implored - to embrace the values and dispositions connected to global citizenship as a moral response to global issues. Commonly, scholars have concerned themselves with conceptualisations of global citizenship (ie. the ‘G’ and the ‘C’). However, the second key question raised in this paper asks what each of the above orientations suggest about the nature and role of education (ie. the ‘E’) within the construct of GCE. Responding to this question, the current paper is primarily conceptual. However, our theorising draws on data collected in Austria, Azerbaijan, and Australia pertaining to how GCE is enacted in the classroom and how teachers describe their understanding of GCE. These perspectives on the teaching of GCE problematise abstract conceptualisations of GCE from ‘above’ and instead suggest that global citizenship is understood by teachers in relation to grounded everyday experiences, both within and outside the classroom. In this paper, we make the argument that GCE from both ‘above’ and ‘below’ tends to involve moralisation and politicisation, and that this raises questions about the role and nature of education itself within GCE practice. In other words, this paper asks whether teaching as and for global citizenship can properly be considered education and, if so, how contested views regarding globalism and citizenship can be addressed in a way that allows students to genuinely inquire into such matters. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper is primarily conceptual insofar as it is a philosophical inquiry into the nature of GCE. It is driven by the questions posed above, namely: Can teaching for moral and political aims be considered education and if so, how can such teaching ensure genuine student inquiry? While these questions are attended to philosophically, they emerge from empirical considerations in line with other such conceptualisation (see Tarozzia and Mallon, 2019, for example). The empirical work previously conducted that has given rise to this particular philosophical inquiry was based on Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) for data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2014). One sample comprised 33 teachers, parents and students sharing their perspectives on the development of GCE. The second school was a sample of administrators and teachers. The data was obtained through interviews and observation. Some document analysis was also used to triangulate some participant articulations and events. The third ongoing sample has involved interviews with rural teachers about their understanding and practice of GCE stemming from changing perspectives on globalisation and education (Palmer and Chandir, 2023) Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This paper does not make an argument for one of the above orientations of GCE over the other. Instead, we draw the tentative conclusion that while politically and morally motivated teaching for and as global citizenship can be properly considered as education, this is contingent on such teaching leaving space for students’ open and critical inquiry. Such open inquiry means that the prior commitments of the teacher, and the values and ideas promoted in the dominant global citizenship discourse, are always open to question and reasonable contestation. The implications of this is that GC and GCE are constructs that should always be under interrogation rather than simply promoted as unquestioned ‘goods’ for today’s world. GCE, then, is not simply something to be promoted but a process in which issues of global significance are subjected to ethical and political questions. Such deliberation, we suggest, may well best be achieved through an approach to GCE that involves all three orientations (of, as, for). This conceptualisation of GCE has the potential to not only influence the teaching of GCE in schools and universities, but also policy and research related to GCE. References Bourn, D. (2021). Pedagogy of Hope: Global Learning and the Future of Education. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 13(2), 65-78. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of Global Citizenship Discourses towards Curriculum Enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theory, 25:1, 68–85. https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/GAUDHEU/22 Goren, H., and M. Yemini. 2017. “Global Citizenship Education Redefined – a Systematic Review of Empirical Studies on Global Citizenship Education.” International Journal of Educational Research 82:170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.004. Oxley, L., and P. Morris. (2013). Global Citizenship: A Typology for Distinguishing Its Multiple Conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies,61:3, 301–325. doi:10.1080/00071005.2013.798393 Palmer, N., & Chandir, H. (2023). Education Beyond Techno-global Rationality: Transnational Learning, Communicative Agency and the Neo-colonial Ethic. Journal of Creative Communications, 09732586231206651. Pashby, K., da Costa, M., Stein, S. & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education, Comparative Education, 56:2, 144-164, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352 Schellekens, L. H., Bok, H. G. J., de Jong, L. H., van der Schaaf, M. F., Kremer, W. D. J., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2021). A scoping review on the notions of Assessment as Learning (AaL), Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment of Learning (AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, Article 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094 Stein, S. (2015). Mapping Global Citizenship, Journal of College and Character, 16:4, 242-252, DOI: 10.1080/2194587X.2015.1091361 Tarozzi, M., & Mallon, B. (2019). Educating teachers towards global citizenship: A comparative study in four European countries. London Review of Education, 17(2), 112-125. 34. Research on Citizenship Education
Paper Literacies that Enable Hopeful and Globally Minded Participation in Uncertain Times 1University of South Australia, Australia; 2University of Queensland, Australia; 3University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; 4Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; 5University of Wyoming, USA Presenting Author:In today's uncertain, inequity-ridden world, children and youth are increasingly called upon, and call upon themselves, to engage with hope as active global citizens to help advance collective wellbeing and sustainability for all – as evidenced in UNICEF’s open letter to the world’s children (2019). These calls are well grounded in research that has long supported children’s participation as capable, insightful active citizens (Harris, 2013; Mayall, 2002; Phillips, Ritchie et al, 2020). Such calls, too, situate children as globally minded individuals and communities who, in networked relationships with people and the planet, act beyond state limitations to advance actions for human rights and justice (Bachelet, 2018). Such is the essence of active global citizenship (AGC), which involves enacting social, political, and civil responsibility in service of the common good (Phillips, 2011; Peterson, 2011)—including dialogue about what constitutes ‘the common good’. But just what are the literacies required for children’s hopeful participation as globally minded citizens in uncertain times, and how do we ensure they have access to these literacies? This question is the focus of this paper. Our objective is to foreground globally-minded literacy practices that are oriented to global mindedness and involved in building and negotiating common worlds that foster collective wellbeing and sustainability. Our objective supports education’s pressing imperative for children to have the necessary capabilities, including literacies, to participate as globally minded citizens – as made clear in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4.7 (2015), UNESCO’s learning objectives for this goal (2017), OECD’s global competence framework (2018a), and UNICEF’s open letter to the world’s children (2019). As the United Nations attests, it is only by working with children as globally minded citizens that global communities can achieve collective wellbeing and sustainability (Clark et al, 2020). Viewed multidimensionally, global mindedness concerns individuals’ engagement with otherness and difference in complex, uncertain, inequity-ridden contexts (Andreotti, 2010). We emphasize the relational basis of global mindedness within which understanding the interests and lives of others is fundamental, and without which injustices cannot be fully recognized and addressed—while critically heeding how cultural and national specificities shape how individuals engage. We draw on cosmopolitan and cosmopolitical perspectives to consider what it means for global citizens to engage across diverse humanities, and historic, social, economic, and political divides – acknowledging tensions between these perspectives (see Stournaiuolo & Nichols, 2019). While we value cosmopolitanism scholars’ focus on engaging with diversities (e.g., Hansen, 2014), we acknowledge its problematic assumptions about mobility, access, and dispositions for engaging in and across cultures, without which cultures are essentialized rather than engaging with lived realities (e.g., Kurasawa, 2004). In response to these critiques, cosmopolitics emphasises the labor in constructing common worlds across historic, social, and political conditions that divide us (e.g., Saito, 2015), which resonates with our quest to lay bare the literacy practices involved in AGC work across diversities, differences and divides in an uncertain world. Making visible these literacy practices is founded on understanding literacy as lived, multimodal practices travelling and changing across time and space (Pahl & Rowsell, 2020), and connected with social, cultural, political, environmental, and economic interests and contexts (Street, 2017). Our search encompassed literacies vis-à-vis wide-ranging texts, platforms, media, and modes including written, spoken, visual, auditory, spatial, corporeal, digital, haptic, multimodal, and socio-material modes (McVee & Boyd, 2016). This conceptualization aligns with our quest to pursue a broad vision of AGC literacy practices that are enabling and accommodate complexity, contradiction, and uncertainty. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Our paper presents findings from our systematic literature review of AGC literacy practices for building and negotiating common worlds that foster collective wellbeing and sustainability. Guided by processes for conducting systematic literature reviews (Booth et al. (2016), search terms we initially applied to databases (notably ProQuest Central) were active citizenship; global citizenship; and (global) citizenship literacy. In response to the variety of literacies that emerged, subsequent search terms included civic literacies; cosmopolitan literacies; global literacies; critical literacies; critical global literacies; cultural literacies; collaborative literacy; geo-literacy; transnational literacies; critical literacy for global citizenship; and digital literacy for global citizenship. Inclusion criteria were that materials must fall 2006-2023, with some exceptions to allow for key or seminal works; be a peer-reviewed academic journal article, book, or book chapter; or document developed by an authoritative transnational organisation (e.g., United Nations; UNESCO; OECD) that is clearly founded on strong scholarship; be an empirical study, literature review, or theoretical paper; and be trustworthy in accord with the research or scholarly paradigm within which the work was developed. We tabulated the intersection of the literacy practices found in the review, with the four dimensions of the OECD’s (2018) Global Competence Framework: - D1. Examine issues of local, global, and cultural significance. - D2. Understand and appreciate the perspectives and worldviews of others. - D3. Engage in open, appropriate, and effective interactions across cultures. - D4. Take action for collective wellbeing and sustainable development. Whilst we acknowledge this Global Competence Framework is connected with measurable human productivity terms that we were eschewing, we instead read its dimensions as serving collective wellbeing and sustainability. Our reading resonates with the OECD’s (2018b) explicit calls for re-thinking educational approaches to prioritize ‘collaboration … common prosperity, sustainability and well-being’ (p. 3). We categorised these tabulated literacies by drawing on the Four Resources Model (4RM) (Freebody & Luke, 2003), resulting in four sets of literacy practices, each framed by global mindedness across differences, diversities and divides: • Literacies for accessing information, knowledge, perspectives, and interactions germane to global/local issues (aligned with de/encoding texts in 4RM) • Literacies for understanding texts, and generating understanding through texts, about global/local issues (aligned with meaning-making in 4RM) • Literacies for critically inquiring into global/local issues (aligned with critical reflection and analysis in 4RM) • Literacies for creating and acting through texts to fulfil the purposes of acting on global/local issues (aligned with using texts for social purposes in 4RM). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The Transformative Literacies for AGC Framework makes literacy practices visible across diversities (cultural, socio-economic, age, generational, ability, neurological, gender, sexual, racial, ethnic, and faith-related backgrounds and experiences), differences (divergent worldviews and perspectives), and divides (social, historic, economic, and political realities separating us), which contribute to inequities in distribution of rights, access, and opportunities. In relation to access, AGC literacy practices endowed with global mindedness are required to access and engage with multiple views, including perspectives of people living in marginalised communities or circumstances. Digital agency, access and dexterity are important to raising marginalised voices and democratising knowledge, including Indigenous knowledges. Culturally authentic global literature can create pathways to global realities. AGC literacy practices for understanding what unites, diversifies, and divides us requires but transcends tolerance and sympathy, to include engaging with heterogeneity, and nurturing a narrative imagination. Explicit awareness of one’s own and others’ positionality, and interest in understanding diverse perspectives, are critical – as are engaging with suppressed knowledges and valuing and understanding unseen realities. This work can be supported by collaborative literacy practices that foster divergent thinking. AGC literacy practices for inquiry constitute globally minded praxis to enhance critical consciousness of global issues and their inherent inequities. Drawing on critical global literacies, inquiry involves moving beyond individual responsibilities to engage in group interrogation of constructed narratives to identify motives and biases hindering social justice and humanitarian decision-making – thereby collaboratively reading and re-writing the world. AGC literacy practices for creating and acting through texts for collective wellbeing and sustainability include producing and enacting texts that amplify unheard voices and visibilise people’s lived realities - thereby disrupting the chain of hegemonic command that marginalises diverse realities. Globally minded creative thinking and imagination are crucial for envisioning and enacting effective, equitable, and sustainable solutions to global challenges and their local impacts. References Andreotti, V. (2010). Global education in the “21st century”. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2(2), 5–22. Bachelet, M. (2018). Global citizenship. United Nations. Clark, H. et al. (2020). A future for the world’s children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet Commission. The Lancet, 395(10224), 605–658. Booth, A., Papioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2016) Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Sage. Freebody, P., Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The “Four Roles” Model. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), Literacy lexicon (pp. 51–65). Pearson. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin. Hansen, D. T. (2014). Cosmopolitanism as cultural creativity: New modes of educational practice in globalizing times. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1), 1–14. Harris, P. & Manatakis, H. (2013) Children as citizens: Engaging with the child’s voice in educational settings. London: Routledge. Ignatieff, M. (2017). The ordinary virtues. Harvard University Press. Kurasawa, F. (2004). A cosmopolitanism from below: Alternative globalization and the creation of a solidarity without bounds. European Journal of Sociology, 45, 233–255. Mayall, B. (2002) Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children's lives. Open University Press. McVee, M., Boyd, F. (2016). Exploring diversity through multimodality, narrative, and dialogue. Routledge. OECD (2018a). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. OECD (2018b). The future of education and skills: Education 2030 - The future we want. Pahl, K., Rowsell, J. (Eds.). (2020). Living literacies: Literacy for social change. MIT Press. Peterson, A. (2011). Civic republicanism and civic education: The education of citizens. Palgrave Macmillan. Phillips, L. (2011). Possibilities and quandaries for young children’s active citizenship. Early Education and Development, 22(5). 778–794. Phillips, L. G., Ritchie, J., Dynevor, L., Lambert, J., & Moroney, K. (2020). Young children’s community building in action: Embodied, emplaced and relational citizenship. Routledge. Saito, H. (2015). Cosmopolitics: Towards a new articulation of politics, science and critique. British Journal of Sociology, 66(3), 441–459. Stornaiuolo, A., & Nichols, T. P. (2019). Cosmopolitanism and education. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. Street, B.V. (2017). New literacies, new times: Developments in literacy studies. In B.V. Street & S. May (Eds.), Language and literacies education, Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp.3-15). Springer International Publishing. UNESCO (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNICEF (2019). An open letter to the world’s children. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 34. Research on Citizenship Education
Paper Cultivating Sustainability Citizens: The Transformative Role of School Volunteer Programs University of Rijeka, Croatia Presenting Author:Our society is at a pivotal moment where human impacts on the planet are undeniable, presenting urgent sustainability challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and security concerns (Schröder et al., 2020). Amidst these crises, rethinking educational models is vital for nurturing the civic engagement of our youth, who are the inheritors of these global issues (Wals, 2015) and the architects of tomorrow (Hickman & Riemer, 2016). In this context, the need for their empowerment is emphasised so that they are trained to transform unsustainable environmental, social and economic structures (Schank & Rieckmann, 2019). It is recognised that much is expected of young people when it comes to taking responsibility for creating a sustainable future (UN, 2015; UNESCO, 2014). The transition toward a sustainable future requires fundamental changes in existing ways of thinking and acting. The most important tool for such a transition is education, especially in the context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). There is a need to create appropriate mechanisms and conditions for educating new generations that promote the development of sustainability citizenship characteristics. These characteristics involve the interrelation between 1) cognitive, 2) socio-emotional, and 3) behavioral domains. Education for sustainable development (ESD) should motivate educational institutions to provide platforms where students can practice what they have learned, as captured by the phrase "walk the talk" (Holst, 2023). The aim is to equip young people with skills that enable them to actively participate in sustainable transformation (Rieckmann, 2021), and ultimately to cultivate sustainability citizens (UN, 2015). Volunteering is recognized as a key factor in solving social issues, promoting solidarity and empathy, and redefining the fundamental structures of society (European Volunteer Centre, 2019; UNV, 2021). In this context, school volunteer programmes (SVPs) are recognised as platforms with the potential to cultivate sustainability citizens. SVPs are seen as models of ESD as they embody its main characteristics. The fundamental characteristics of ESD include holism and pluralism (Rudsberg & Öhman, 2010). Moreover, it is crucial for ESD models to incorporate experiential and transformative learning that promotes a shift in thinking, creative problem-solving, and the cultivation of reflective citizens (Rončević & Rafajac, 2012). Additionally, teaching in such programmes should be student-centered, connect course content, and promote interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. In this sense, the connection with the community is also crucial (Wals, 2011). All these characteristics are necessary for the development of sustainability citizenship characteristics in students, particularly because previous research indicates that ESD programmes focusing only on certain elements have an impact on knowledge but limited impact on attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Boeve-de Pauw & van Petegem, 2017; Krnel & Naglič, 2009; Pirrie et al., 2006). There is limited research on SVPs, particularly those exploring their relationship with the concept of sustainability citizenship among students. Given the increasing implementation of these programmes in Croatian primary and high schools, there is a need for comprehensive research to capture the complexity of this phenomenon. The research question is therefore: What experiences, processes, and activities that are part of SVPs, are encouraging high school students' potential in developing characteristic of sustainability citizenship and how? This paper presents part of the results from a larger study conducted for the purpose of a doctoral thesis. It focuses on presenting the development of students' knowledge, attitudes, values, and behaviour in the context of school volunteer programmes. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A qualitative case study was carried out with the aim of comprehending the phenomenon of school volunteering programs (SVPs) and their significance in cultivating sustainability citizenship characteristics in high school students. To ensure the selection of information-rich case studies, a number of criteria were set: 1) integration of SVP into the school curriculum, 2) a minimum programme duration of one school year, 3) collaboration with external partners, 4) the linking of volunteer activities with the sustainable development dimensions, 5) accessibility of the programme to all students. The case study was selected as the research strategy due to its characteristics of comprehensiveness and a holistic approach. This approach is particularly suitable for analysing the phenomenon of SVP, which is still poorly researched. The subject of the case study, which answers the question of which case of the selected phenomenon to investigate, refers in this research to the SVP. The object or analytical framework of the research refers to the case of developing characteristics of sustainability citizenship. For the purpose of this research, six case studies were selected that also meet the conditions for analytical generalisation. A triangulation of data collection methods was used in this research. Focus groups were conducted with student volunteers, a total of 34 female students and 4 male students, between the ages of 15 and 18. Additionally, interviews were conducted with 7 SVP coordinators. Finally, a qualitative content analysis of school curricula was conducted to gain a comprehensive and deeper understanding of the institutional context in which SVPs take place. Thematic analysis was chosen for the data analysis. The analyses were conducted separately for each method through and across the cases. Based on the constructivist paradigm, the analysis sought to unravel latent content aligned with the established research strategy, aim, and research question. Thematic analysis, noted for its ability to provide a rich and detailed description of data, was considered particularly suitable for under-researched areas such as the field of this research. The analysis was conducted following a rigorous and systematic process in six phases: 1) familiarisation with the data, 2) generation of initial codes, 3) search for themes, 4) review of themes, 5) definition and naming of themes, 6) producing the report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The research findings clearly indicate that participation in the activities of the school volunteer programmes (SVP) encourages the maturation and personal development of the students. Student volunteers perceive themselves as more mature, evolved, and responsible. The SVP coordinators confirm this result and add that they observe a more pronounced maturity and resilience in the students who have participated in the volunteer activities. Coordinators work long-term and closely with most of the students at all stages of volunteering, which allows them to observe and recognise these changes in detail. In addition, students and, coordinators state that they feel fulfilled, useful, happy, and satisfied as a result of their involvement in school volunteer programmes. In relation to the characteristics of sustainability citizenship, the study reveals that participants in the SVPs had the opportunity to gain understanding of sustainable development and their role in promoting it. Within the socio-emotional domain, students developed skills, empathy, altruism, and solidarity. They developed a sense of collective identity, both within the SVP and a sense of belonging to a wider community. The results also highlight that students can perceive themselves and their opportunities in relation to others around them. Within the behavioural domain, the results shows that active participation in SVP led to pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic, and just behavioural changes in students. Particularly noteworthy is the result that all students, without exception, expressed their intention to continue volunteering after completing their school education. Within the SVP, students acquire the knowledge and values necessary for personal and social transformation in the direction of sustainable development. In such a pedagogical framework, they become capable of acting in favour of the common good. By learning about sustainable development, its goals and dimensions and developing various skills, students are empowered to deal with the uncertainty and challenges of sustainability. References Boeve-de Pauw, J. i Van Petegem, P. (2017). Eco-school evaluation beyond labels: The impact of environmental policy, didactics and nature at school on student outcomes. Environmental Education Research, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1307327 Braun, V. i Clarke, V. (2006), Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. European Volunteer Centre (2019). Volunteer vision. European Parliament. Hickman, G. i Riemer, M. (2016). A Theory of Engagement for Fostering Collective Action in Youth Leading Environmental Change. Ecopsychology 8(3): 167–173. doi:10.1089/eco.2016.0024. Holst, J. (2023). Towards coherence on sustainability in education: a systematic review of Whole Institution Approaches. Sustainability Science, 18(2), 1015-1030. Krnel, D. i Naglič, S. (2009). Environmental Literacy Comparison between ECO-Schools and Ordinary Schools in Slovenia. Science Education International, 20, 5-24. Pirrie, A., Elliot, D., McConnell, F. i Wilkinson, J. E. (2006). Evaluation of Eco Schools Scotland. The SCRE Center, University of Glasgow. Rieckmann, M. (2021). Emancipatory and transformative Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings: Empowering learners to change structures. Tertium Comparationis, 26(2), 174-186. Rončević N. i Rafajac B. (2012). Sustainable Development – Challenge for the Universities? [Održivi razvoj - izazov za sveučilište?]. Faculty of Humanities and Social Science in Rijeka. Rudsberg, K. i Öhman, J. (2010). Pluralism in practice–experiences from Swedish evaluation, school development and research. Environmental education research, 16(1), 95-111. Schank, C., i Rieckmann, M. (2019). Socio-economically substantiated education for sustainable development: development of competencies and value orientations between individual responsibility and structural transformation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 67-91. Schröder, L. M. U., Wals, A. E. i Van Koppen, C. S. A. (2020). Analysing the state of student participation in two Eco-Schools using Engeström’s Second Generation Activity Systems Model. Environmental Education Research, 26(8), 1088-1111. UN (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf UNESCO (2014). UNESCO roadmap for implementation of the global action programme on education for sustainable development. Paris: UNESCO. United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme (2021). 2022 State of the World’s Volunteerism Report. Building equal and inclusive societies. Bonn. Wals, A. E. (2015). Beyond unreasonable doubt: education and learning for socio-ecological sustainability in the anthropocene. Wageningen UR: Wageningen University. | ||