www.jsser.org Journal of Social Studies Education Research Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2022:13 (4), 1-23 Social Studies Teachers’ Interpretations of Global Citizenship Anatoli Rapoport1 & Vahap Demir2 Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate how social studies teachers conceptualize global citizenship and how personal, professional, and contextual characteristics influenced respondents’ choices of a global citizenship model and their confidence to teach about global citizenship in the classroom. The online data were collected from 209 secondary social studies teachers and analyzed by calculating the conditional distribution of responses. Although the majority of participants agreed that they were familiar with the concept of global citizenship, the range of opinions about what global citizenship entails demonstrated that many of them interpreted it in their own way without a systemic understanding of this concept. The findings of the study also indicated the need for more inclusive curricula in secondary citizenship education and more global citizenship-related topics in teacher education programs, particularly those that prepare future social studies teachers. Keywords: Global citizenship, global citizenship education, secondary education, social studies education Introduction For several decades, the attention to citizenship education has been mostly the result of belated attempts to coordinate curricular development in citizenship education with the rationalization of numerous emerging models of citizenship. The rising wave of globalization has profoundly influenced the very notion of citizenship and citizenship education rationales by infusing a distinct global perspective and by challenging the core principles of citizenship as an idiosyncratically nation-state-related concept. Recently, there has been increasing interest in the development of citizenship and citizenship education. Supported by the rise of nationalism, on the one hand, and globalization, on the other, the growing role of previously marginalized racial and ethnic groups, and expanding feminist, human rights, and social justice movements, this renewed interest in citizenship has elevated citizenship education to a new level (Banks, 2014; Harshman, 2018; Kerkhoff & Cloud, 2020; Lourenço, 2021; Rapoport, 2020; UNESCO, 2013). Nation after nation has reviewed and updated 1 Professor of Curriculum & Instruction, Purdue University, rapoport@purdue.edu 2 Doctoral candidate, Purdue University, vahap@purdue.edu mailto:rapoport@purdue.edu mailto:vahap@purdue.edu Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 citizenship education curricula or introduced new programs and courses in citizenship education. Curricular changes gave impulse to a further reinterpretation of the purpose and rationale of citizenship education, which was originally developed as a means to instill patriotic and nationalist sentiments but is increasingly becoming a space for critical reassessment of the place and role of a government and an individual in society (Andreotti, 2006; DeJaeghere, 2009; Goren & Yemini, 2017; Pashby, 2018). Political realignments, a global pandemic, advances in technology, communication, and transportation, and other global trends bring new challenges to citizenship education. On the one hand, citizenship is used in education discourses and spaces as an ideological tool to instill loyalty and preserve narrow traditionalistic communitarian views of responsibility in a community; on the other hand, citizenship is interpreted as an active agency of change on all levels, including global (Banks, 2014; Myers, 2006). Among citizenship discourses, the discourse of global citizenship (GC) has recently become one of the most prominent. It inevitably led to significant developments in global citizenship education (GCE). The nation-centered model of citizenship education is no longer sufficient to educate citizens who spend significantly less time in the community in which they were born than did their peers decades ago. Originally vague, contested, and very controversial, GC and GCE are now recognized by political scientists and educators and were officially codified by UNESCO. Its outcome document of the technical consultation on GCE, “Global Citizenship Education: The Emerging Perspective” (UNESCO, 2013), defines GC as “a sense of belonging to the global community and common humanity, with its presumed members experiencing solidarity and collective identity among themselves and collective responsibility at the global level” (p. 3) and states that the goal of GCE is “to empower learners to engage and assume active roles both locally and globally to face and resolve global challenges and ultimately to become proactive contributors to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable world” (p. 3). Despite the attempt to formally codify a general framework of GCE (UNESCO, 2013, 2015) and institutionalize its goals and delivery (UNESCO, 2013), the world of global citizenship and global citizenship education is diverse and represented through multiple, sometimes contradictory interpretations and thematic discourses. Scholars suggested a number of typologies that categorize GC and GCE using various ideological, cultural, economic, or social lenses. Table 1 demonstrates examples of GC/GCE typologies that are based on the analyses of various discourses, pedagogies, or ideological stances. Rapoport & Demir 3 Table 1 Typologies of GC and GCE 3 dominant discourses (Roman, 2003) • Intellectual tourists/voyeurs/vagabonds • Consumers of multicultural and international differ • Democratic civilizers and nation-builders 2 frameworks of GCE (Andreotti, 2006) • Soft GCE • Critical GCE 3 approaches (Shultz, 2007) • Neoliberal • Radical • Transformationalist 4 ideological constellations/currents (Schattle, 2008) • Moral cosmopolitanism • Liberal multiculturalism • Neoliberalism • Environmentalism 5 heuristics (Gaudelli, 2009) • Neoliberal • National • Marxist • Cosmopolitan • World-justice 4 conceptualization frames (Stromquist, 2009) • World culture • New-era realism • Corporate citizenship • Planetary vessel 2 discourses (Camicia & Franklin, 2011) • Neoliberal cosmopolitan • Critical democratic cosmopolitan 3 forms (Veugelers, 2011) • Open GC • Moral GC • Social-political GC Categories and types of GC (Oxley & Morris, 2013) • Cosmopolitan types: political GC, moral GC, economic GC, and cultural GC • Advocacy types: social GC, critical GC, environmental GC, and spiritual GC Dimensions of ethical GC framework (Bosio & Schattle, 2021) • Value creation • Identity progression • Collective involvement • Glocal disposition • Intergenerational mindset The sheer number of different forms, orientations, or types of GC and GCE is evidence of the complexity of these constructs and the multiplicity of factors that influence the interpretation of the latter. In these circumstances, classroom teachers who are genuinely interested in incorporating global themes in citizenship education make their own decisions as to how to interpret GC and introduce it in the classroom. It has long been established that despite the notorious “shrinking autonomy” of teachers (Archibald & Porter, 1994), what teachers believe about the world, society, culture, student characteristics, and environment directly influences the curriculum they provide Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 for their students. Such curricular-instructional gatekeeping, when teachers are “the primary determinant of content, sequence and instructional strategy” (Thornton, 1989, p. 5), becomes particularly critical when a new construct paves the way to the classroom. The last two decades have witnessed a growing number of both political and curricular documents that encourage social studies educators to incorporate global themes, including GC-related themes, in classroom instruction (NCSS, 2016), as well as growing interest in GCE from teachers and administrators (Harshman, 2018; Heilman, 2008; Krutka & Carano, 2016; Leduc, 2013; Myers, 2006; Rapoport, 2010, 2013, 2020). However, scholarship about teachers’ conceptualization and rationalization of GC or its introduction and application in curricula or classroom practices in the United States is still scarce. Research conducted among pre-service and in-service teachers demonstrates that teachers consider education for global citizenship important and that they are becoming increasingly interested in providing instruction that includes aspects of global citizenship (An, 2014; Goren & Yemini, 2017; Hilburn & Maguth, 2015; Kopish, Shahri, & Amira, 2019). At the same time, teachers are usually oblivious about curricular content materials or instructional strategies related to teaching global citizenship or other supra-national models of citizenship (Gallavan, 2008; Gaudelli, 2009; Myers, 2006; Robbins, Francis, & Elliot, 2003; Yamashita, 2006). There are several reasons for this: (a) there is no consensus on the meaning of global citizenship; (b) the lack of “curricular heritage” (Gaudelli, 2009) and the vagueness of global citizenship education frameworks; (c) the lack of knowledge and experience in teaching supra-national models of citizenship due to inadequate pre- service and in-service training; and (d) fears among teachers and officials that global citizenship education undermines the patriotism of students. Although teachers include international and global perspectives in their instruction, they conceptualize global citizenship through the frameworks and discourses of the subjects they teach. The lack of a distinct definition of what global citizenship entails is clearly one of the major obstacles for a broader introduction of the global citizenship framework in teaching practices. There is evidence, however, that teachers who are genuinely interested in developing global competences in their students interpret and conceptualize global citizenship through more familiar concepts, particularly the concepts and principles related to the subjects they teach (Schweisfurth, 2006; Rapoport, 2010). It is important to understand how personal, professional, or contextual characteristics impact teachers’ interest in incorporating elements of GCE into their instruction Rapoport & Demir 5 and make them confident about teaching about GC. Substantial research was conducted to problematize teachers’ opinions and perceptions of the place and role of GCE in various contexts, particularly in regard to different socio-economic groups of student population (Goren & Yemini, 2016, 2017a, 2017b; Myers, 2008; Reynolds et al., 2015; B. E. Wood, 2012). However, research on how other contextual characteristics (e.g., school type or level) or teachers’ personal (e.g., gender, political views) and professional characteristics (e.g., years in profession, degree) are sporadic (Appleyard & McLean, 2011; Dill, 2013; Gacel-Ávila, 2005; Tormey & Gleeson, 2012). Considering teachers’ role in designing curriculum (Pinar, 2004; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Thornton, 1989), it is critical to understand how they conceptualize global citizenship and to what extent personal and professional characteristics influence their conceptualization and interpretation of global citizenship. Purpose The purpose of this study was twofold: - to investigate how Indiana social studies teachers conceptualize global citizenship; and - to determine to what extent such factors as gender, years of experience, school environment, or ideological standing influenced teachers’ choices of a global citizenship model and their confidence to address GC in the classroom. Theoretical Frameworks This study is informed by several theoretical frameworks. Holistically based on the theory of social constructivism (Berger & Luckman, 1966) and epistemological constructivist theory (Dewey, 1925/2003; Garrison, 1997; von Glasersfeld, 1989), it draws on curriculum theory (Bruner, 1996; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Pinar, 2004) and the global citizenship model paradigm developed by Oxley and Morris (2013). Knowledge that is socially constructed evolves through negotiation and interpretation of meanings. We negotiate meanings through a discourse in the social environment that includes people, artifacts, and texts and interpret those meanings based on our existing knowledge, values, cultural norms, and traditions. We construct concepts based on meanings and develop curricula around concepts. A constructed meaning, therefore, is foundational for curricular development. Teachers play a central role in curriculum planning and development, a process critical to teacher activity and responsibility. They are intimately involved in curriculum development by infusing their personal knowledge, values, and experiences in the Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 curricular process. Citizenship that gives membership status to individuals and confers individuals’ identity (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006) is a social construct that developed as the result of the interaction of various systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Citizenship is obtained through socialization where formal education plays a significant role. Thus, educating citizens who would see themselves as members of a global community requires making individuals aware of their global status. This in turn requires that teachers should design curricula and instruction in such a way that they facilitate and enhance the development of individuals’ global identity and global competences and concurrently provide appropriate constructivism-based rationale for the advance of civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The teacher’s understanding, conceptualization, and interpretation of global citizenship, therefore, is particularly significant. Research Design Survey research design (Check & Schutt, 2012; Singleton & Straits, 2009) was used to investigate to what extent Indiana secondary social studies teachers feel confident to teach about global citizenship and what factors influence their conceptualization of global citizenship/choice of global citizenship model (Oxley & Morris, 2013). Surveys allow for a large population-based collection of data that can then be quantitatively analyzed. An invitation to participate in the study was sent electronically to 1,000 middle and high school social studies teachers randomly selected from a list of teachers who teach social studies in Indiana, which was provided by the Indiana Department of Education. Of these, 162 requests returned as undeliverable, and 209 teachers (24.9% of those who potentially received invitations) agreed to participate. Participants anonymously completed a 12-item survey sent to them electronically. The instrument consisted of two parts: - The first part included demographic questions (age, gender), questions about respondents’ professional activity (number of years in education, type and level of their schools, socio- economic status of student population), respondents’ ideological standing (conservative or liberal), and a request to evaluate to what extent they were familiar with the concept of global citizenship and the ideas of global citizenship education. - The second part included eight scenarios/interpretations each related to eight models/conceptions of global citizenship developed by Oxley and Morris (2013). The study participants were asked to rank those scenarios according to their personal Rapoport & Demir 7 understanding of the importance of various aspects of global citizenship. Each scenario presented a possible reason that global citizenship should be taught in secondary social studies classroom. To avoid confusion, each scenario was designated by a color rather than a number, with the global citizenship models identified by Oxley and Morris (2013) in parentheses after the colors. • Reason BLUE (Political GC). I think we should teach students global citizenship because in the near future, they will live in a well-ordered world society that will be governed by a globally elected governing body. In the future, it is also possible that world citizenship will replace national citizenship. We will all have rights and duties as world citizens just like we do now as national citizens. • Reason GREY (Moral GC). I believe we should teach students global citizenship because there are values and moral norms, written or unwritten, that are similar for all human beings, and we should instill those values in our students and help them understand that following these moral norms will benefit everyone on the planet. • Reason YELLOW (Economic GC). We should teach global citizenship because in the near future, the whole planet will become one big interconnected economic system and all individuals will be a part of this system. Because all individuals have the same fundamental wants and needs, by serving their own self-interests they ultimately serve the interests of everyone and humankind as a whole. • Reason RED (Cultural GC). We should teach global citizenship because there is an inevitable trend in cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism. People are becoming more aware of each other’s culture, which will eventually lead to a multicultural global society where people will share similar cultural features. For example, the dominant language English is becoming even more popular and reducing the barriers between culturally different people. • Reason PURPLE (Social GC). We need to teach global citizenship because there is a growing global civil society whose actions transcend national borders. Global civil society manifests ideas trans-nationally and makes sure every person’s voice is heard. • Reason PINK (Environmental GC). We should teach global citizenship because of environmental issues. The earth and nature need protection, and it should be the task of Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 global citizens to protect the global environment. The protection can be ensured either through global civil societies, governments, or corporations • Reason ORANGE (Spiritual GC). We should teach global citizenship because of the spiritual and emotional connection of all people. Global citizenship is a means to advocate commitment of all human beings to love, caring, and compassion. • Reason GREEN (Critical GC). We should teach global citizenship because people should be able to critically assess social norms, fight inequalities and oppression, and advocate for actions to improve the lives of minorities. The data were analyzed by calculating the conditional distribution of respondents’ confidence to teach about GC based on personal, professional, and contextual characteristics and respondents’ choices of CG model (Oxley & Morris, 2013) based on those characteristics. Conditional distribution, that is a probability distribution that shows the probability of a specific characteristic in a sub-population, was calculated using the percentage of responses about a specific characteristic. Findings The first part of the survey asked participants to self-evaluate their level of familiarity with the concept of global citizenship and how confident they feel to teach (about) it in class. The four Likert scale self-evaluation responses are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Likert Scale Participants’ Responses How familiar are you with GC and GCE and how confident do you feel to teach it? - I am very familiar. I heard much about GC and I am confident I can teach about it in class. - I am familiar. I heard about GC, but I am not confident I can teach about it. - I am not very familiar/Not sure. I didn’t hear much about GC or GCE. - I am not familiar at all. I have never heard about GC or GCE. The following tables present the percent of respondents who believe they are very familiar, familiar, or not very familiar/not sure with GC and GCE. Rapoport & Demir 9 Table 3 Percent of Respondents Familiar With GC by Ideological Affiliation Very familiar Familiar Not very familiar Not familiar at all Conservative 26.9 61.2 10.4 1.5 Liberal 43.6 42.6 12.2 1.6 Neither 22.7 65.9 4.8 4.5 Although the number of those who are not very familiar or not at all familiar with GC and GCE is almost the same among conservative (11.9%) and liberal (13.8%) respondents, social studies teachers who participated in the survey and identified themselves as liberals are much more likely to state that they are very familiar with GC and GCE (43.6%) than those who identified as conservatives (26.9%) or did not specify their political ideology (22.7%). Table 4 Percent of Respondents Familiar With GC by Degree Very familiar Familiar Not very familiar Not familiar at all Bachelor’s degree 31.5 57.8 6.6 5.2 Master’s degree 35.4 52.1 13.3 - Degree does not indicate difference among those participants who were very familiar or familiar with GC and GCE: 89.3% of bachelor’s degree holders and 87.5% of teachers with a master’s degree stated that they were very familiar or familiar with both concepts. However, unlike 5.2% of bachelor’s degree holders, none of the teachers with a master’s degree said that they are not at all familiar with GC and GCE. Table 5 Percent of respondents familiar With GC by school level Very familiar Familiar Not very familiar Not familiar at all Middle School 29.9 55.8 11.7 2.6 High School 35.5 52.3 10.3 1.9 More high school social studies teachers (35.5%) feel comfortable teaching about GC than their colleagues in middle schools (29.9%). High school teachers are also less likely to respond that they are not very familiar or not at all familiar with GC (12.2%) than middle school teachers (14.3%). Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 Table 6 Percent of Respondents Familiar With GC by Years of Experience in School Very familiar Familiar Not very familiar Not familiar at all 1-5 years in school 37.0 51.9 7.4 3.7 6-10 years in school 28.1 59.4 6.3 6.3 11-15 years in school 41.7 55.6 2.8 _ More than 15 years 30.2 50.3 18.3 1.2 In the area of teaching experience, 88.9% of respondents who worked in school less than 5 years, 87.5% of respondents who worked in school 6-10 years, 97.3% of those who worked in school 11- 15 years, and 80.5% of those who worked in school more than 15 years say that they are familiar or very familiar with GC and GCE. However, 19.5% of the most experienced teachers with more than 15 years of teaching are not very familiar or not at all familiar with GC and GCE, which is 1.5 times more than those who have taught for 6-10 years, almost 2 times more than new teachers, and 7 times more than teachers with 11-15 years of experience. The data suggests that those who graduated from teacher education programs 15 or more years ago are less familiar with GC than those who graduated less than 15 years ago. Table 7 Percent of Participants Familiar With GC by Type of School Very familiar Familiar Not very familiar Not familiar at all Rural schools 32.9 56.1 7.3 3.7 Suburban schools 35.3 51.5 11.4 2.8 Urban schools 29.0 51.6 16.1 3.3 While 35.3% of teachers working in suburban schools reported that they are very familiar with GC and GCE, only 29% of urban school social studies teachers reported the same; 19.4% of respondents from urban school are not very familiar or not at all familiar with GC and GCE. Table 8 Percent of Respondents Familiar With GC by Students’ Socio-Economic Status (SES) Very familiar Familiar Not very familiar or not familiar at all High/middle-high 41.0 45.5 13.5 Middle income 30.0 62.0 8.0 Low-middle 28.6 55.7 15.7 Low income 39.0 46.3 14.7 Rapoport & Demir 11 An almost identical percentage of respondents who teach social studies in schools with student populations from predominantly high or middle-high socio-economic status (SES) families (86.5%) and schools with student populations from low SES families (85.3%) reported that they are very familiar or familiar with GC and GCE. Only 28.6% of respondents from schools with student populations from predominantly low-middle SES families said that they were very familiar with GC and GCE, which is 11.4% and 10.4% lower than in schools with students from predominantly high/middle-high SES or low SES families, respectively (41% and 39%). In the second part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the purpose of global citizenship education (GCE) by ranking the eight GC types/models (Oxley & Morris, 2013) presented as scenarios. Figure 1 demonstrates the percentage of respondents by choices 1 (most important purpose of GCE or type of GC) and 8 (least important purpose of GCE or type of GC). Colored graphs represent the percentage of #1 choices. Black graphs represent the percentage of #8 choices. Figure 1 Participants’ Interpretation of GC The study demonstrates that although an overwhelming majority of respondents (85%) believe that they are either familiar (53%) or very familiar (32%) with global citizenship, there is no unanimity among them in identifying the purpose of global citizenship education. Only a relative majority (28%) of respondents identified Moral global citizenship as the primary purpose for teaching GC, 1 7 % 2 8 % 1 3 % 7 % 1 2 % 3 % 7 % 1 5 % 5 1 % 5 % 7 % 7 % 4 % 7 % 1 0 % 1 0 % S O C I A L ST U D I ES T EAC H E R S’ I N T E R P R E TAT I O N O F G LO B A L C I T I Z E N S H I P Political GC Moral GC Economic GC Cultural GC Social GC Environm GC Spiritual GC Critical GC Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 arguing that we should teach (about) global citizenship because there are values and moral norms that are similar for all human beings. Respondents were more unified in identifying the least appropriate reason to teach GC: 51% agreed that teaching Political GC, i.e., that people will live in a world society governed by a globally elected governing body and that world citizenship will replace national citizenship, is the least appropriate reason. The other seven choices ranged from 18% to 3%. Table 9 Percent of Choices #1 (Most Preferable) and #8 (Least Preferable) of GC Types Among Male and Female Participants Gender Political GC Moral GC Economic GC Cultural GC Social GC Environ GC Spiritual GC Critical GC Male 14.6/55.9 27.2/2.9 16.5/4.9 7.8/6.9 6.8/5.9 4.9/7.8 5.8/6.9 16.5/8.8 Female 20.0/42.7 25.3/8.0 8.0/10.7 5.4/6.7 17.3/2.7 2.7/6.7 8.0/13.3 13.3/9.3 A relative majority of both female (25.3%) and male respondents (27.2%) selected Moral GC as the most preferable model to teach about GC. A relative majority of female (42.7%) and an absolute majority of male respondents (55.9%) identified Political GC as the least preferable model to teach in social studies classrooms. A larger percentage of female respondents than male respondents chose Social GC (17.3% vs. 6.8%) and Spiritual GC (8.0% vs 5.8%) models as primary models to teach. A larger percentage of male respondents (16.5% vs. 5.0%), on the other hand, chose Economic GC as the primary model. Table 10 Percent of Choices #1 (Most Preferable) and #8 (Least Preferable) of GC Types Among Participants With Different Ideological Views Ideological Affiliation Political GC Moral GC Economic GC Cultural GC Social GC Environ GC Spiritual GC Critical GC Conservative 13.4/53.7 38.8/1.4 9.0/9.0 4.5/4.5 7.5/3.0 1.4/9.0 4.5/7.5 20.9/12.0 Liberal 14.8/54.1 19.7/4.9 11.5/8.2 11.5/13.1 19.7/3.2 3.2/1.6 13.1/8.2 6.6/6.6 Neither 18.1/38.6 18.1/11.4 22.7/4.5 6.8/2.3 6.8/4.5 6.8/6.8 4.5/16.0 16.0/13.6 Self-identified liberal respondents were much more likely (43.6%) to admit that they are very familiar with GC than self-identified conservatives (23.9%) or those who said that they were neither liberal nor conservative (22.7%). Although the majority of both conservative and liberal respondents reject the idea of teaching global citizenship through a political framework that Rapoport & Demir 13 focuses on a world society governed by a globally elected body that will replace national citizenship, ideological self-identification did play a role in the choice of a preferable model. Twice as many self-identified conservative respondents chose the Moral GC model than self-identified liberal respondents (38.8% vs. 19.7%), and almost three times as many self-identified conservative respondents chose the Critical GC model than self-identified liberals (20.9% vs. 6.6%). The latter is most unexpected and needs further investigation. Table 11 Percent of Choices #1 (Most Preferable) and #8 (Least Preferable) of GC Types Among Participants With Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees Degree Political GC Moral GC Economic GC Cultural GC Social GC Environ GC Spiritual GC Critical GC Bachelor’s degree 17.3/49.2 24.8/6.5 12.2/5.8 8.7/6.8 11.2/8.2 3.5/3.5 7.3/8.2 15.0/11.8 Master’s degree 18.1/51.2 25.2/4.3 15.5/7.3 7.3/6.6 8.5/1.6 4.2/7.3 7.3/10.8 13.9/10.9 Respondents’ degrees did not play a role in their choices of GC model. Almost the same percentage of respondents with master’s and bachelor’s degrees selected each GC model as the primary framework to teach about GC. Table 12 Percent of Choices #1 (Most Preferable) and #8 (Least Preferable) of GC Types Among Participants According to Years of Experience in Education Years of experience Political GC Moral GC Economic GC Cultural GC Social GC Environ GC Spiritual GC Critical GC 1-5 years 10.7/46.4 21.4/3.6 10.7/7.1 3.6/10.7 10.7/7.1 3.6/3.6 14.3/10.7 25.0/3.6 6-10 years 19.4/54.8 22.6/6.5 9.7/0 6.5/3.3 16.1/0 0/3.3 6.3/12.9 19.4/19.4 11-15 years 16.7/52.8 25.0/2.8 16.7/5.6 8.3/2.8 11.1/5.6 5.6/8.3 2.8/13.9 11.1/8.3 More than 15 years 14.4/49.4 29.1/4.7 14.0/9.4 8.1/8.2 10.5/2.4 3.5/8.2 9.3/7.1 11.6/22.2 Data revealed that years of experience affect participants’ interpretation of GC. A relative majority in three of four groups prefer to interpret GC through the moral framework (22.6% of those who worked in education 6-10 years, 25.0% of those who worked 11-15 years, and 29.1% of those with more than 15 years of experience). The relative majority (25.0%) of the least experienced group (1-5 years) believe that the students should learn about GC because this is how they learn to critically assess social norms and fight inequalities and oppression (Critical GC). More than half Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 of participants in the 6-10 and 11-15 years groups and almost half in two other groups believe that Political GC is the least appropriate interpretation of GC. The study demonstrates that social studies teachers believe that they now are better aware of global citizenship and what it entails than before. The study also supports the conclusion of previous research that there is progress, albeit modest, in providing more information about global education and global citizenship education in teacher education programs. Discussion The study investigates to what extent various personal, professional, and contextual characteristics influenced social studies teachers’ confidence to teach about global citizenship and whether gender, ideological views, degree, and number of years in the profession play a role in social studies teachers’ conceptualization of global citizenship. Participants were asked to self-evaluate whether they believed they knew about GC and GCE and were confident to teach about it (“very familiar”), believed they knew about GC and GCE but were not confident to teach about it (“familiar”), or did not know much about GC and GCE (“not familiar”). Almost 90% of participants confirmed that they heard about GC, which is consistent with recent reports about the increasing interest among pre-service and in-service teachers in global issues and GC in particular (An, 2014; Buchanan, Burridge, & Chodkiewicz, 2018; Harshman, 2018; Kopish, Shahri, & Amira, 2019; Lourenço, 2021; Rapoport, 2020). However, the number of those participants who feel confident to teach about GC is smaller. Almost twice as many self-identified liberal participants feel confident to teach about GC compared to their conservative peers. The idea of supra-national, global, or cosmopolitan citizenship is usually associated with liberal views and discourses (Camicia & Franklin, 2011; Pais & Costa, 2020). Teachers who incorporate global education into their instruction usually include discourses of multiculturalism, social justice, human rights, anti-racism, or peace education. It is, therefore, not surprising that teachers with liberal views feel more confident to teach about GC. Ideological preferences among participants also manifested themselves in the choice of GC models. Although the majority of both conservative and liberal participants rejected the Political model in GCE, twice as many conservative participants preferred the Moral model of GC and almost three times as many liberal participants preferred the Cultural and Social models. The most intriguing finding, though, is that almost 21% of self-identified conservative respondents chose the Critical model of GC as their Rapoport & Demir 15 first choice. Critical GCE, (Andreotti, 2006; DeJaeghere, 2009; Pashby, 2018), in contrast with traditional, “soft” (Andreotti, 2006) GCE, is based on critical pedagogy, critical multicultural education, human rights education, and critical peace education, which help students re-evaluate, create, and negotiate new meanings of participation and membership through reviewing, critiquing, and reflecting on contexts, policies, and institutions that define the notion of citizenship. The study demonstrates that neither gender nor degree predicts teachers’ confidence to teach about GC. Although all participants with master’s degrees heard about GC, unlike participants with bachelor’s degrees, 5.2% of whom never heard about GC, the data demonstrates that preferences in interpretation of global citizenship or purpose of global citizenship education do not depend on the degrees of the respondents. It is not surprising: Master’s degrees in education programs, except specific programs in global or international education, rarely include global education-related courses. Although scholars have pointed to the problems of the internationalization of teacher education, including GCE in post-secondary education (Gacel-Ávila, 2005; Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012; Shultz & Jorgenson, 2008), there is also a growing general consensus that higher education institutions have a very important role to play in preparing teachers who are informed and able to participate in the complex globalized and globalizing world (Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012). Following their European and Asian counterparts, more states in the United States require a postgraduate/postbaccalaureate degree for teacher certification. As a result, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the percentage of public school teachers who held a postbaccalaureate degree (i.e., a master’s, education specialist, or doctor’s degree) was higher in 2017–2018 (58%) than in 1999–2000 (47 %) (NCES, n.d.). This growing tendency will require even more attention to the expansion of global education courses in post-secondary teacher education programs. Although respondents’ gender was not a factor in respect to their familiarity with GC, almost three times more women (17.3%) than men (6.8%) selected Social GC as their preferred choice of why GC should be taught in school (“We need to teach global citizenship because there is a growing global civil society whose actions transcend national borders”). The only other seemingly important difference between genders was the preference of the Economic GC model among men (16.5% vs. 8.0%). The latter gap can be explained by a long-observed tendency (Goren & Yemini, 2017; Rapoport, 2010; Schweisfurth, 2006) that in the absence of a clear definition of GC and Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 administrative guidance, teachers tend to interpret GC and GCE through the concepts, constructs, and content of the subjects they teach. Among 37 respondents who reported teaching economics and other social studies subjects, only 12 were female. Among five respondents who teach economics, only one was female. Data about participants’ familiarity with GCE and confidence to teach about GC in different types of schools (Table 7) and in schools with different student populations (Table 8) present mixed results. According to their studies in Israeli schools, Goren and Yemini (2017) suggested that teachers in schools with student populations from families of low SES are less interested in teaching about GC because they believe that their students, who will likely seek employment locally, will never need it. Data from Table 7 confirms this assumption. Urban schools in the U.S. usually serve students from middle-low or low SES families. Almost 20% of respondents, who teach in urban schools, either do not know much about GC and GCE or never heard about them. Conversely, Table 8 demonstrates that the percentage of teachers in schools with student populations from low-income families who are very familiar and familiar about GC and GCE is almost similar to the percentage of their colleagues from schools with student populations from high-income families. This contradiction can be the result of an unclear distinction between what different levels of SES entail, particularly when respondents assessed the socio-economic status of their students’ families themselves. Another possible explanation is the difference in the economic development of Indiana regions. The least knowledgeable about GC and least confident to teach about it was a cohort of respondents who taught 15 years and more. This seems to be additional evidence of the growing interest in global education, GC, and GCE in the education community. This may be attributed to the fact that for the last two decades, teacher education programs have paid more attention to global issues by adding courses on global and international education to their curricula and continuing internationalization of teacher education and campuses in general (Gacel-Ávila, 2005; Quezada, & Cordeiro, 2016). This led to the recorded increasing interest of pre-service teachers in global education that has translated into an expansion of the use of global topics in classroom instruction (Kirkhoff & Cloud, 2020). An increased inclusion of global topics in teacher education programs and broadening the scope of global education and internationalization in teacher preparation can also explain the difference in choices of preferred GC model among the cohorts of respondents with various years of teaching experience. More than twice as many respondents with 1-10 years Rapoport & Demir 17 of teaching experience selected the Critical GC model than did respondents with 11+ years of experience. This confirms the conclusion of many observers that global and international education courses often address topics on human rights, social justice, racial inequality, democratic development, and peace (An, 2014; Andreotti, 2006; DeJaeghere, 2009; Myers, 2006), comprising core themes of critical education. There was no unanimity among respondents what model of GC should be taught in schools; in other words, respondents disagreed about how to conceptualize and interpret GC. Only a little more than a quarter of respondents (28%) identified moral global citizenship as the primary purpose for teaching GC. This choice is not surprising. The Moral model of GC, based on the ideas of cosmopolitan ethics and global moral values, is pervasive in academic, political, and educational discourses. This model, in one form or another, is present in the majority of GC typologies (Bosio & Schattle, 2021; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Schattle, 2008; Stromquist, 2009; Veugelers, 2011). The ideas of moral global citizenship date back to the Stoics of Ancient Greece and Emmanuel Kant, who popularized the idea that human beings belong to a single moral community (Oxley & Morris, 2013). Political GC, the model that advances the idea that the world will be governed by a global government and that national citizenships will be replaced by global citizenship, is considered one of the most radical ideas (Cory, 2006; P. B. Wood, 2007). It is also considered the most identifiable model of GC because it relates directly to the idea of citizenship as a political status (Oxley & Morris, 2013). The idea of a global governing body that eliminates national governments evokes harsh criticism in many conservative circles (Myers, 2006; Rapoport, 2010). Considering that 37% of respondents identified themselves as conservatives and only 31.5% as liberals, the majority choice of the Political model as the least appropriate for social studies instruction is not surprising. Conclusion For the last two decades, a growing number of scholars and practitioners have called for more inclusive citizenship education that would address problems and topics beyond national and regional borders. Despite the visible recent upsurge of nationalistic sentiments and nation-centered tendencies in civic education, particularly during the global pandemic, supranational and extraterritorial citizenship and educational frameworks reflective of these types of citizenship continue to draw attention among educators. UNESCO’s (2013) institutionalization of global Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 citizenship, one of the most frequently used concepts of supranational citizenship, provided an additional impulse for GCE. Although school in a democratic society is not the only place of citizenship education, it plays, along with other educational institutions both public and private, a significant role in informing young citizens what it means to be a good citizen and part of a community. Unlike many informal agents of citizenship education such as family, neighborhood, or media, schools in a democratic society can expand students’ views on good citizenship and provide civic knowledge and skills that informal agents rarely can. Teachers are an integral, most important part of a citizenship education system. Teachers’ understanding, conceptualization, and interpretations of various forms and types of citizenship should be one of the foci in citizenship education research. The current study demonstrates that although the number of social studies teachers who believe that they are familiar with global citizenship has increased, many still lack confidence that they can teach about global citizenship. The lack of confidence is likely a result of inadequate coverage of this topic in school and college curricula. The study also demonstrates that there is no unanimity among Indiana social studies teachers in conceptualization or interpretation of global citizenship. There is, however, some level of agreement about what global citizenship is not: Almost 56% of male respondents and almost 43% of female respondents rejected the idea of teaching political global citizenship, the future abandonment of national citizenship and national government in favor of one global government. There was less consensus as to what global citizenship is and what form of global citizenship should be taught in the classroom. A relative majority of 28% of respondents agreed that the most appropriate form of global citizenship to teach in school is a moral global citizenship that includes moral norms and values shared by all people. The study also demonstrates that there is an ideological divide between those who feel more confident addressing problems of global citizenship in the classroom and those who feel less confident to do so. This result is not surprising: In popular literature and media, all types of supranational citizenship—global citizenship in particular—are presented as liberal concepts. Nevertheless, almost 27% of self-identified conservative participants in the study claimed that they knew enough about global citizenship to confidently teach it in class. It seems that the principal lesson of this study is that we urgently need more inclusive curricula in secondary citizenship education and more global citizenship-related topics in teacher education programs, particularly those that prepare future social studies teachers. Although the majority of Rapoport & Demir 19 participants in this study agreed that they are familiar with the concept of global citizenship, the range of opinions about what global citizenship entails means that many of them interpret it in their own way without a systemic understanding of this concept. This, in turn, leads to mischaracterization of possible pedagogies and curricular devices to teach about global aspects of citizenship. References Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 653–690. An, S. (2014). Preparing elementary teachers as global citizenship educators. Journal of Education, 134(3), 25–38. Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51. Appleyard, N., & McLean, L. (2011). Expecting the exceptional: Pre-service professional development in global citizenship education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(2), 6–32. Archibald, D., & Porter, A. (1994). Curriculum control and teachers’ perceptions of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 21–39. Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Banks, J. A. (2014). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Journal of Education, 194(3), 1–12. Bosio, E., & Schattle, H. (2021). Ethical global citizenship education: From neoliberalism to a values-based pedagogy. Prospects. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09571-9 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1996). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09571-9 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 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). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n4.4 Camicia, S., & Franklin, B. (2011). What type of global community and citizenship? Tangled discourses of neoliberalism and critical democracy in curriculum and its reform. Globalization, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 311–322. Check, J., & Schutt, R. (2012). Survey research. In J. Check & R. Schutt (Eds.), Research methods in education (pp. 159–185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College Press. Corry, O. (2006). Global civil society and its discontents. Voluntas, 17(4), 303–324. DeJaeghere, J. (2009). Critical citizenship education in multicultural societies. Intercultural Journal of Education for Democracy, 2(2), 85–98. Dewey. J. (1925/2003). Experience and nature. Kessinger Publishing. Dill, J. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education: The moral pedagogy of schooling in a cosmopolitan age. New York, NY: Routledge. Gacel-Ávila, J. (2005). The internationalization of higher education: A paradigm for global citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(2), 121–136. Gallavan, N. (2008). Examining teacher candidates’ views on teaching world citizenship. The Social Studies, 99(6), 249–254. Garrison, J. (1997). An alternative to von Glasersfeld’s subjectivism in science education: Deweyan social constructivism. Science & Education, 6, 301–312. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1), 68–85. 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. 10.1080/03057925.2015.1111752 Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017a). Global citizenship education redefined: A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Education Research, 82, 170–183. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0883035516308163? casa_token=YQLwvHYvovgAAAAA:xoBHJS1rx5xvvo Ypxs6e XmHP8PLRLZoV1ojHigFlkbuTD6_xPQQqYktqcGNR-ukzfF8Bwc59ww#bib0075 http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n4.4 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2015.1111752 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/%20S0883035516308163?%20casa_token=YQLwvHYvovgAAAAA:xoBHJS1rx5xvvo%20Ypxs6e%20XmHP8PLRLZoV1ojHigFlkbuTD6_xPQQqYktqcGNR-ukzfF8Bwc59ww#bib0075 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/%20S0883035516308163?%20casa_token=YQLwvHYvovgAAAAA:xoBHJS1rx5xvvo%20Ypxs6e%20XmHP8PLRLZoV1ojHigFlkbuTD6_xPQQqYktqcGNR-ukzfF8Bwc59ww#bib0075 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/%20S0883035516308163?%20casa_token=YQLwvHYvovgAAAAA:xoBHJS1rx5xvvo%20Ypxs6e%20XmHP8PLRLZoV1ojHigFlkbuTD6_xPQQqYktqcGNR-ukzfF8Bwc59ww#bib0075 Rapoport & Demir 21 Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017b). The global citizenship education gap: Teacher perception of the relationship between global citizenship education and students’ socio-economic status. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 9–12. Harshman, J., & Augustine, T. (2013). Fostering global citizenship education for teachers through online research. The Educational Forum, 77(4), 450–463. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00131725.2013.822040 Harshman, J. (2018). Developing global citizenship through critical media literacy in the social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 42(2), 107–117. Heilman, E. (2008). Including voices from the world through global citizenship education. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 20(4), 30–32. Hilburn, J., & Maguth, B. (2015). Spatial citizenship education: Civic teachers׳ instructional priorities and approaches. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(2), 107–118. Jorgenson, S., & Shultz, L. (2012). Global citizenship education (GCE) in post-secondary institutions: What is protected and what is hidden under the umbrella of GCE? Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 2(1). https://journals.sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/ jgcee/article%E2%80%8C/viewArticle/ 52/26 Kerkhoff, S., & Cloud, M. (2020). Equipping teachers with globally competent practices: A mixed methods study on integrating global competence and teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101629. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijer.2020.101629 Kopish, M., Shahri, B., & Amira, M. (2019). Developing globally competent teacher candidates through cross-cultural experiential learning. Journal of International Social Studies, 9(2), 3–34. Krutka, D., & Carano, K. (2016). Videoconferencing for global citizenship education: Wise practices for social studies educators. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 7(2), 109–136. Leduc, R. (2013). Global citizenship instruction through active participation: What is being learned about global citizenship? The Educational Forum, 77(4), 394–406. Lourenço, M. (2021) From caterpillars to butterflies: Exploring pre-service teachers’ transformations while navigating global citizenship education. Frontiers of Education, 6:651250. doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.651250 Myers, J. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the U.S. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(3), 370–394. https://doi.org/%2010.1080/00131725.2013.822040 https://doi.org/%2010.1080/00131725.2013.822040 https://journals.sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/%20jgcee/article%E2%80%8C/viewArticle/ https://journals.sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/%20jgcee/article%E2%80%8C/viewArticle/ https://doi.org/10.1016/ Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13 (4), 1-23 Myers, J. (2008). Making sense of a globalizing world: Adolescents' explanatory frameworks for poverty. Theory & Research in Social Education, 36(2), 95– 123. 10.1080/00933104.2008.10473368 NCES/National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast facts: Teacher qualifications. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=58 NCSS. (2016). Global and international education in social studies. https://www.socialstudies.org/ position-statements/global-and-international-education- social-studies Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: Theoretical debates and young people's experiences. Educational Review, 55(3), 243–254. Pais, A., & Costa, M. (2020). An ideology critique of global citizenship education. Critical Studies in Education, 61(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1318772 Pashby, K. (2018). Identity, belonging and diversity in education for global citizenship: Multiplying, intersecting, transforming, and engaging lived realities. In I. Davies, L-C. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. L. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, and Y. Waghid (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education (pp. 277–293). London: Palgrave. Pinar, W. F. (2004). Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Quezada, R. L., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2016). Internationalization in teacher education in the US: Innovative programs and practices to meet the global challenges of tomorrow’s schools. In J. Chi-Kin Lee & C. Day (Eds.), Quality and change in teacher education: Professional learning and development in schools and higher education (pp. 195–212). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24139-5_12 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. Rapoport, A. (2013). Global citizenship themes in the social studies classroom: Teaching devices and teachers’ attitudes. The Educational Forum, 77(4), 407-420. Rapoport, A. (2020). Development of global identity in the social studies classroom. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(1), 1-20. Reynolds, R., Bradbery, D., Brown, J., Carroll, K., Donelly, D., Ferguson-Patrick, K., & Mcqueen, S. (2015). Contesting and constructing international perspectives in global education. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Robbins, M., Francis, L. J., & Elliott, E. (2003). Attitudes toward education for global citizenship among trainee teachers. Research in Education, 69(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2008.10473368 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=58 https://www.socialstudies.org/%20position-statements/global-and-international-education-social-studies https://www.socialstudies.org/%20position-statements/global-and-international-education-social-studies https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1318772 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24139-5_12 Rapoport & Demir 23 Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Education for global citizenship: Teacher agency and curricular structure in Ontario schools. Educational Review, 58(1), 41–50. Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2009). Approaches to social research. New York: Oxford University Press. Shultz, L., & Jorgenson, S. (2008). Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: A review of the literature. https://www.academia.edu/1407517/Global_citizenship _education_in_post_ secondary_institutions_A_review_of_the_literature Thornton, S. (1989). Aspiration and practice: Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. March. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED315347) Tormey, R., & Gleeson, J. (2012). The gendering of global citizenship: Findings from a large- scale quantitative study on global citizenship education experiences. Gender and Education, 24(6), 627–645. 10.1080/09540253.2011.646960 UNESCO. (2013). Global citizenship education: An emerging perspective. https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000224115 UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030. Incheon declaration and framework for action. Paris: UNESCO. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140. Wood, B. E. (2012). Scales of active citizenship: New Zealand teachers' diverse perceptions and practices. International Journal of Progressive Education, 8(3), 77–93. https://ijpe.inased.org/makale/2523 Wood, P. B. (2007). The impossibility of global citizenship. Brock Education, 17(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v17i1.99 Yamashita, H. (2006). Global citizenship education and war: The needs of teachers and learners. Educational Review, 58(1), 27–39. https://www.academia.edu/1407517/Global_citizenship%20_education_in_post_ https://www.academia.edu/1407517/Global_citizenship%20_education_in_post_ https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2011.646960 https://ijpe.inased.org/makale/2523 https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v17i1.99