A Critique of Global Citizenship Education in International Schools

Image produced by ChatGPT 5.0

Preface

I’ve been trying to figure out how to do global citizenship education (GCED) and service-learning — and how to do it well — in two different international schools for about 13 years. Recently, I’ve had several conversations about these terms: global citizenship and service-learning. Some of those conversations have focused on the way in which the terms have been misunderstood, misrepresented and misapplied. Some have advocated for different terminology, such as “community engagement.” I get this; terms sometimes get so burdened with harmful implications that it’s better to throw them off and get rid of the baggage that people associate with them. Some have come to associate global citizenship with a privilege reserved for just an elite globalist class with the passports, resources and networks that allow them to exist aloof from state borders and national loyalties. Some have come to associate service-learning with a paternalistic, do-gooder, pitying approach to helping others. I can understand the inclination to reject terms that conjure up these types of associations. On the other hand, I’m not sure just throwing off the terminology will address some of the root issues with how these ideas are enacted in international schools.

During some classes in my Ed.D. program, I had the opportunity to dive into the literature related to GCED and service-learning. While I believe in the value of GCED and service-learning, as part of my effort to figure out how to do them well, I felt I first needed to take a good critical look. Below is an excerpted version of a paper I wrote where I did just that. Please read with the understanding that I still believe GCED and service-learning are important (or, call it “community engagement”), but to do it well, I think we need to be open-eyed about the implications of not doing it well.

I apologize in advance that what follows is a bit academic; that was the purpose of the paper. But for those interested, I think one can get past the citations and the academic tone and get the point.

Introduction

The concept of Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is common in international schools (Goren & Yemini, 2016; Hughes, 2020; Yemini & Furstenburg, 2018). In fact, it is a guiding component of the accreditation process through the Council of International Schools (Council of International Schools [CIS], 2023). In their definition of GCED, CIS (2023) includes the importance of “research about, discussion of, and action related to issues of principle of personal, local, and global importance.” International schools frequently include the language of GCED in their mission statements (Hayden, 2012). In addition to referring to CIS, this language often reflects that of UNESCO (2014), which describes GCED as an approach to education that “aims to empower learners to engage and assume active roles both locally and globally to face and resolve global challenges and ultimately to become productive contributors to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and sustainable world” (p. 15). Drawing on definitions such as from CIS and UNESCO, international school mission statements often refer to active participation in the local community (Hayden, 2012; Hughes, 2020).  

Despite their mission statements, many international schools struggle to develop meaningful, reciprocal and sustainable relationships with local communities or to weave local connections into teaching and learning (Bunnell, 2005; Hughes, 2020; Lillo, 2019). This is, in part, due to cultural, linguistic and socio-economic differences between international school stakeholders and the local community in which the school is situated (Bunnell, 2005; Hughes, 2020). In an attempt to engage with their local community, international schools frequently turn to service-learning initiatives (Daly et al. 2022; Gillman & Lavender, 2022; Lillo, 2019; Wasner, 2016). In fact, CIS (2023) outlines service-learning as an explicit tenant of GCED and a core component of its international school accreditation criteria. However, many service-learning efforts in international schools have been criticized as failing to develop authentic local engagement (Gillman & Lavender, 2022; Hatziconstantis & Kolympari, 2016; Hughes, 2020; Wasner, 2016).  

This lack of local connection in international schools is particularly problematic when investigated from the lens of a critical pedagogy of place, which argues that “people… live embodied and emplaced lives” (Greenwood, 2012, p. 93) and “that the world is only knowable as a collection of diverse experiences with places” (Greenwood, 2012, p. 94). A critical pedagogy of place draws on the work of Freire (1997), who argued that learning must connect to one’s embedded existence, and be applied through action within that situated reality (Greenwood, 2013; Gruenewald, 2008). From a perspective of GCED informed by a critical pedagogy of place, the separation of many international schools from their local situated context is problematic for their implementation of GCED.

Mainstream “Soft” Types of GCED

Given its prevalence within the field of education globally, a number of researchers have developed GCED typologies as a way of outlining the various GCED practices (Dill, 2013; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pashby et al., 2020; Veugelers, 2011). The literature often references Andreotti’s (2006) pivotal article, which differentiated between “soft” and “critical” approaches to GCED, as the impetus for trying to better understand and categorize approaches to GCED (Angyagre & Quainoo, 2019; Gardner-McTaggart, 2014; Goren & Yemini, 2016; Pashby & Costa, 2021). Andreotti (2006), after observing a training session of the “Make Poverty History” campaign (Lovett, 2015), argued that soft approaches to GCED were based on Western humanist ideals of universality that focus on benevolent charity to less fortunate others, rather than critically attending to structures of inequality and injustice. According to Andreotti (2006), soft GCED reinforces notions of the developed West versus the undeveloped rest of the world, which reproduce, rather than address, oppressive power structures. 

More recently, Franch (2020), drawing on her research in northern Italy, developed a typology of GCED that provided further nuance to Andreotti’s (2006) argument. What Andreotti (2006) referred to as soft approaches, Franch (2020) labeled “mainstream ideal-types” of GCED, which she broke down into two types; the first she called the “neo-liberal human capitalism” type, which focuses on the development of competencies to ensure that students are equipped for a global world of work. Franch (2020) called the second approach the “cosmopolitan humanism” type, which is liberal and universal in nature and focuses on global human community and universal human rights. 

There are a number of studies that have demonstrated that Franch (2020) was right to identify these as the mainstream approaches to GCED. Vaccari and Gardinier (2019) conducted a policy discourse analysis on the GCED framework documents of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and UNESCO and described the GCED visions of OECD and UNESCO in ways that align with Franch’s (2020) neo-liberal human capitalism and cosmopolitan humanism types respectively.  Vaccari and Gardinier (2019) concluded that UNESCO’s priorities could best be described as “Education for a common humanity,” while those of the OECD could be best described as “Education for a global knowledge economy” (p. 80). In a review of 90 empirical studies of GCED around the world, Goren and Yemeni (2017a) found that almost all of them investigated a type of GCED that could be described as fitting into either of Franch’s (2020) two mainstream types. The same was true in all but one of the 22 US-based studies reviewed by Ahmed and Mohammed (2022).

In the international school context, a number of researchers have pointed out that the approach to GCED in international schools depends on the school type (Bunnell & Poole, 2022; Hayden & Thompson, 2008). Bunnell and Poole (2022) argue that traditional-type international schools, those that follow the model of the International School of Geneva (Ecolint), generally espouse a philosophy of liberal internationalism and cater primarily to expatriate students; these schools tend to pursue GCED in ways that align with the cosmopolitan humanist approach. Meanwhile, the economic globalization of the past twenty years has driven the growth of more pragmatic types of international schools (Gardner-McTaggart, 2014), referred to as “internationalized” (Bunnell & Poole, 2022) or “globalist” (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004) schools. In these schools, the approach to GCED tends to follow a more neo-liberal human capitalist model, highlighting the competencies students need for a global labor market. 

Challenging Mainstream “Soft” Types of GCED

Instead of soft approaches to GCED, Andreotti (2006) called for a critical GCED in which students reflect on their own positions in hierarchies and structures of power, both within domestic societies, and across the Global North-Global South divide; it’s a GCED that focuses on issues of injustice, and learning with, rather than doing for, the other. Again, Franch (2020) further unpacked Andreotti’s (2006) idea, and identified two approaches to critical GCED. The first Franch (2020) called the “social-justice activism” type, which involves investigating the socio-economic structures that contribute to injustice and inequality, while engaging in actions to transform those structures. The second Franch (2020) called the “critical counter practice” type, which is a post-structuralist approach to GCED that emphasizes the deconstruction of dominant narratives, while foregrounding marginalized voices and indigenous knowledge. French’s (2020) “critical counter practice” approach could also be called a decolonial approach. 

A number of other researchers have echoed Andreotti’s (2006) concerns over the elite, Western and neocolonial nature of mainstream approaches to GCED (Goren & Yemini, 2016; Jones & Perreras, 2022; Reilly & Niens, 2014; Wasner et al., 2022). For example, in their interviews with pre-service teachers in Ghana, Parejo et al. (2022) recorded a number of teachers who voiced concerns about the neocolonial implications of GCED. In Israel, Goren and Yemini (2017b) found that mainstream approaches to GCED not only reinforced power hierarchies on a global scale, but also perpetuated class-based hierarchies within local society as teachers subtly made decisions about which types of students would benefit from GCED based their cultural capital and social class. 

Importance of Local Engagement

A key critique raised in the literature specifically about the cosmopolitan humanism approach to GCED relates to its inherent universalism, which tends to disassociate learning from human lived reality embedded within situated places and cultures (Gardner-McTaggart, 2014; Jones & Perreras, 2022; Kim, 2021; Parejo et al., 2022; Watson et al, 2022). Schools that take the cosmopolitan humanism approach tend to focus on abstract global issues, idealistic notions of common humanity, and fixed conceptions of other cultures, all while ignoring the local context of lived community and culture (Goren & Yemini, 2016; Skårås et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2022). 

This tension between the global and the local appears often in the GCED literature (Andreotti, 2006; Bates, 2012; Gardner-McTaggart, 2014; Kim, 2021; Rapoport, 2010). Reilly and Niens (2014) found from their study of GCED in schools in Northern Ireland that GCED rarely addressed local social divisions and conflict because teachers avoided engagement with the tangible local, and focused instead on the abstract global. Goren and Yemini (2016) found the same to be true in Israel, where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was typically avoided, and thus students rarely thought of the conflict in relation to their GCED learning. Skårås et al. (2019) also pointed this out when studying GCED in schools in South Sudan.

Service-Learning

Acknowledging some concern for local engagement, international schools regularly link GCED with service-learning (Daly et al. 2022; Gillman & Lavender, 2022; Lillo, 2019; Wasner, 2016; Watson et al. 2022). Service-learning refers to school-based educational programs that are rooted in experiential-learning where students engage in action outside of the traditional school classroom (Billig, 2002; Furco, 2002; Hart et al., 2007; Lillo, 2019). One important empirical study on service-learning in international schools was conducted by Lillo (2019), in which she studied the efforts of three schools in eastern Africa to build local community engagement through service-learning. Lillo’s (2019) research highlighted the significant challenges for international schools in developing authentic local community connections. Lillo (2019) emphasized the need for knowledge of the local context and communication skills as two requirements that were particularly challenging for expatriate educators with limited knowledge of the local culture and language.

Coming from a theoretical perspective rooted in critical pedagogy and decolonization theory, a number of authors have criticized mainstream practices of service-learning in international schools (Dunne & Edwards, 2010; Gillman & Lavender, 2022; Wasner, 2016; Wasner et al., 2022; Watson et al; 2022). They have argued that much of the service- learning activity in international schools is rooted in colonial and neocolonial epistemologies that assume a Western duty to uplift the peoples of the Global South (Gillman & Lavender, 2022; Wasner et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2022). These authors have called for a critical and decolonial approach to service-learning that questions Western-centric assumptions, challenges the root causes of inequality and injustice, and – rather than doing for – learns from, and acts with, local communities (Wasner, 2016; Wasner et al. 2022).

A Critical Pedagogy of Place

Many researchers anchor their critique of mainstream forms of GCED within Freire’s (1997) theory of critical literacy (Andreotti, 2006; Reilly & Niens, 2014; Skårås et al., 2019). For example, theorists associated with the critical pedagogy of place point to Freire (1997) who wrote, “People, as beings ‘in a situation,’ find themselves rooted in temporal-spatial conditions… Human beings are because they are in a situation” (p. 90). Common in the literature of GCED is the slogan of, “think globally, act locally” (Kim, 2021; Parejo et al., 2022). In fact, GCED writers even coined a new word – “glocal” – which refers to engaging in local action tied to global issues (Kim, 2021; Morais & Ogden, 2011; Parejo et al., 2022). However, from the perspective of a critical pedagogy of place, thinking globally while acting locally is not sufficient. Learning can not begin in the abstract global and then be applied to the local; rather, the learning itself must arise out of the situated place of the learners, and after critical reflection on the object of learning, learners must apply that learning back within their situated place (Greenwood, 2012; Gruenewald, 2008). Kim (2021) nicely summed up this perspective when she wrote: “Only through actual encounters and relationships – rather than through meaningless actions for a decontextualized, place-less global community – can future citizens develop global citizenship…” (p. 140). 

Summary of the Literature

GCED is a contested concept, leading a number of researchers to develop GCED typologies to better understand its practice (Dill, 2013; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pashby et al., 2020; Veugelers, 2011). Andreotti (2006) initiated this direction when she critiqued the common soft forms of GCED and called for more critical approaches. The mainstream, soft forms of GCED tend to emphasize decontextualized global issues and abstract notions of a common global community at the expense of engagement with local issues and situated action within local communities (Andreotti, 2006; Franch, 2020, Kim, 2021). This is relevant to the context of international schools, which often present values of GCED in their missions, but struggle to develop local connections or engage in local action (Bunnell, 2005; Hughes, 2020; Lillo, 2019). This is in spite of the common practice of service-learning in international schools (Daly et al. 2022; Gillman & Lavender, 2022; Lillo, 2019; Wasner, 2016; Watson et al. 2022). 

Conclusions

My personal experience has been in international schools rooted in the history of liberal internationalism. These schools often speak of global citizenship, but tend to emphasize softer forms of GCED, particularly forms that align with Franch’s (2020) cosmopolitan humanism approach. This may help to explain why many international schools struggle with local engagement, despite often emphasizing its value in their mission statements.  

There are a number of critiques of the cosmopolitan humanism approach to GCED. Critics have pointed to its elite nature, that it is a privileged form of education for a globally mobile class (Bates, 2012; Gardner-McTaggart, 2014; Goren & Yemini, 2016; Goren & Yemini, 2017b; Jones & Perreras, 2022). Others point to the idealism of cosmopolitan humanism, which celebrates a common humanity and the diversity of world cultures without engaging with the real people and culture of the school’s local context (Gardner-McTaggart, 2014; Kim, 2021; Parejo, 2022; Wasner et al., 2022). The cosmopolitan humanism approach focuses on an equivalency-in-diversity of all peoples and cultures, but neglects the social hierarchies of our world and the structures of power that perpetuate them; it both avoids questions of injustice, and fails to act upon them (Andreotti, 2006; Franch, 2020; Watson et al., 2022). As emphasized by a critical pedagogy of place, action requires “situated praxis” (Kim, 2021, p. 130), which is regularly absent in a cosmopolitan humanism form of GCED. Finally, critics argue that the appeal to universalism within mainstream GCED is actually Western-centricism in disguise (Andreotti, 2006; Bates, 2012; Gardner-McTaggart, 2014; Parejo et al., 2022; Pashby & Costa, 2021). In order to decolonize GCED, schools must question dominant Western epistemologies, and foreground marginalized voices. This requires engagement with the voices of real people in real local communities.

References

Ahmed, E. I. & Mohammed, A. (2022). Evaluating the impact of global citizenship education programmes: A synthesis of the research. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 17(2), 122-140. https://doi.org/j62m  

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Development Education, Policy and Practice, 3, 83-98.

Angyagre, S. E. & Quainoo, A. K. (2019). What are the critical dimensions in Ghana's senior high school social studies curriculum? Under the lens of a critical global citizenship education framework. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 11(2), 142-158. https://doi.org/j62j  

Bates, R. (2012). Is global citizenship possible, and can international schools provide it? Journal of Research in International Education, 11(3), 262-274. https://doi.org/gf4pds 

Billig, S. H. (2002). Adoption, implementation, and sustainability of K-12 service-learning. In A. Furco & S. H. Billig (Eds). Service learning: The essence of pedagogy. Information Age Publishing.

Bunnell, T. (2005). Perspectives on international schools and the nature and extent of local community contact. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/ghmkxj

Bunnell, T. & Poole, A. (2022). Contrasting perspectives on global citizenship in practice: What can international schools deliver? In S. L. Kang & S. McIntosh (Eds). Enacting equitable global citizenship education in schools (pp. 45-55). Routledge. https://doi.org/j62g 

Cambridge, J. & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 34(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/cphg4d 

Council of International Schools (2023). About CIS: Global Citizenship. https://www.cois.org/about-cis/global-citizenship 

Daly, K., Myers, L., Horak, A. K. & Plowden, D. L. (2022). Developing global citizenship education skills and understanding among students through deliberate pedagogical choices.  In S. L. Kang & S. McIntosh (Eds). Enacting equitable global citizenship education in schools (pp. 45-55). Routledge. https://doi.org/j62g 

Dill, J. S. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education: The moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age. Routledge. 

Dunne, S. & Edwards, J. (2010). International schools as sites of social change. Journal of Research in International Education, 9(1), 24-39. https://doi.org/d4rz74   

Franch, S. (2020). Global citizenship education: A new 'moral pedagogy' for the 21st century? European Educational Research Journal, 19(6), 506-524. https://doi.org/jpfw 

Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed, 20th anniversary edition. Continuum.

Furco, A. (2002). Is service-learning really better than community service? In A. Furco. & S. H. Billig (Eds). Service-learning: the essence of the pedagogy. Information Age Publishing. 

Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2014). International elite, or global citizens? Equity, distinction and power: The International Baccalaureate and the rise of the South. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/gkxvb3  

Gillman, R. & Lavender, L. (2022). Reframing service learning experiences and practices through critical reflection. In S. L. Kang & S. McIntosh (Eds). Enacting equitable global citizenship education in schools (pp. 122-131). Routledge. https://doi.org/j62g  

Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2016). Global citizenship education in context: Teacher perceptions at an international school and a local Israeli school. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(5), 832-853. https://doi.org/j6z9  

Goren, H. & Yemini, M. (2017a). 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/cfdv 

Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017b). The global citizenship education gap: Teacher perceptions of the relationship between global citizenship education and students' socio-economic status. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 9-22. https://doi.org/gbz2rh  

Greenwood, D. A. (2012). A critical theory of place-conscious education. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon & A. E. J. Wals (Eds). International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education (pp. 93-99). Routledge.

Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place.  Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 208-324. https://doi.org/j62h

Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J. & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering.  American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 197-219. https://doi.org/db7h44 

Hatziconstantis, C. & Kolympari, T. (2016). Student perspectives of academic service learning: Using mixed content analysis to examine the effectiveness of the International Baccalaureate Creativity, Action, Service programme. Journal of Research in International Education, 15(3), 181-195. https://doi.org/gmc339 

Hayden, M. J. (2012). Mission statement possible: International schools and cosmopolitanism. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 11(2), 5-26.

Hayden, M. & Thompson, J. (2008). International schools: Growth and influence. Fundamentals of Educational Planning.  UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180396 

Hughes, C. (2020). International schools and global citizenship education. In A. Akkari & K. Maleq (Eds). Global Citizenship Education: Critical and International Perspectives. Springer (pp. 177-190). https://doi.org/j62b 

Jones, L. (2023). Come with me: A picture of inclusion. TIE Newsletter. The International Educator, April 12, 2023. www.tieonline.come/newsletters/33/1/newsletter_2023_04_12 

Jones, S. & Perreras, A. (2022). Is global citizenship a "pedagogy for the privileged"? In S. L. Kang & S. McIntosh (Eds). Enacting equitable global citizenship education in schools (pp. 35-44). Routledge. https://doi.org/j62g  

Kang, S. L., Merks, T, & Sofo, S. (2022). Using explicit curricular aims to drive global citizenship education: Global citizenship-oriented curricula in two African contexts. In S. L. Kang & S. McIntosh (Eds). Enacting equitable global citizenship education in schools (pp. 100-110). Routledge. https://doi.org/j62g

Kim, E. J. A. (2021). Global citizenship education through curriculum-as-relations. Prospects, 51(1-3), 129-141. https://doi.org/j62p  

Lillo, S. R. (2019). In pursuit of community engagement: Unpacking the knowledge and skills associated with service-learning efforts. Journal of Research in International Education, 18(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/gmc39q 

Lovett, A. (2015). Make poverty history: A decade on from Gleneagles, it is a genuine possibility. Guardian, July 5, 2015. www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jul/06/make-poverty-history-campaign-gleneagles-sustainable-development-goals  

Morais, D. B. & Ogden, A. C. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 445-466. https://doi.org/dw4tb2  

Oxley, L. & Morris, P. (2013) Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions, British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301-325. https://doi.org/gf2s2w 

Oxfam (2015). Education for global citizenship: A guide for schools. https://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/who-we-are/global-citizenship-guides/ 

Parejo, J. U., Lomotey, B. A., Reynés-Ramon, M. & Cortón-Heras, M. O. (2022). Professional development perspectives on global citizenship education in Ghana. Educational Research, 64(4), 407-423. https://doi.org/j62d 

Pashby, K. & Costa, M. (2021). Interfaces of critical global citizenship education in research about secondary schools in 'Global North' contexts. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19(4), 379-392. https://doi.org/j62k  

Pashby, K., Costa, M., Stein, S. & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144-164. https://doi.org/gjn9dh  

Rapoport, A. (2010). We cannot teach what we don't know: Indiana teachers talk about global citizenship education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(3), 179-190. https://doi.org/cxn3mq  

Reilly, J. & Niens, U. (2014). Global citizenship as education for peacebuilding in a divided society: Structural and contextual constraints on the development of critical dialogic discourse in schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44(1), 53-76. https://doi.org/j62f    

Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Education for global citizenship: Teacher agency and curricular structure in Ontario schools. Educational Review, 58(1), 41-50. https://doi.org/dfsxc4 

Skårås, M., Carsillo, T. & Breidlid, A. (2019). The ethnic/local, the national and the global: Global citizenship education in South Sudan. British Journal of Educational Studies, 68(2), 219-239. https://doi.org/gg4mz8

UNESCO (2014). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227729 

UNESCO (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232993 

Vaccari, V. & Gardinier, M. P. (2019). Toward one world or many? A comparative analysis of OECD and UNESCO global education policy documents. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 11(1), 68-86. https://doi.org/ggmjqg  

Veugelers, W. (2011). The moral and the political in global citizenship education: Appreciating differences in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3/4), 473-485. https://doi.org/b8r3vk 

Wasner, V. (2016). Critical service learning: A participatory pedagogical approach to global citizenship and international mindedness. Journal of Research in International Education, 15(3), 238-252. https://doi.org/gc8qnd 

Wasner, V., Elnagar, H., Kursteiner, B., Rinaldi, S. & Slosek, G. (2022). Challenging universalisms: A critical dialogue about humanist assumptions of global citizenship education. In S. L. Kang & S. McIntosh (Eds). Enacting equitable global citizenship education in schools (pp. 25-34). Routledge. https://doi.org/j62g 

Watson, S., McIntosh, S. & Watson, A. (2022). Decolonizing global citizenship: Contesting normative conceptions of global citizenship education. In S. L. Kang & S. McIntosh (Eds). Enacting equitable global citizenship education in schools (pp. 15-24). Routledge. https://doi.org/j62g  

Yemini, M. & Furstenburg, S. (2018). Students' perceptions of global citizenship at a local and an international school in Israel. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1(19). https://doi.org/j62c