Content uploaded by Marco Rieckmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marco Rieckmann on Jul 07, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
174 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
Tertium Comparationis
Journal für International und Interkulturell
Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft
Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 174–186, 2020
Waxmann Verlag GmbH
Emancipatory and transformative Global Citizenship Education
in formal and informal settings:
Empowering learners to change structures
Marco Rieckmann
University of Vechta, Germany
Abstract
This paper examines the vignettes from the perspective of Global Citizenship Education (GCE),
with a particular focus on emancipatory and transformative learning in formal and informal settings.
Taking reflection on the learning experiences and processes described in the vignettes as a basis, it
develops and discusses five theses. This discussion helps to clarify what GCE is, where it is suc-
cessful, where it fails, and how it should develop. While this paper acknowledges the relevance of
incidental learning for GCE – and thus the bottom-up, emic approach that is the focus of this special
issue, analysis of the experiences presented in the vignettes shows that incidental learning is not a
simple matter where GCE is concerned. It can also lead to outcomes that are not in the spirit of
GCE, and may even run counter to it. Learning environments should be structured in such a way as
to facilitate the development of global citizenship competencies, create a sense of belonging and
solidarity, and enable students to reflect critically on power structures and contribute to the trans-
formation of those structures. Teachers can contribute to this by deploying emancipatory, trans-
formative pedagogies in the classroom but also by creating opportunities for incidental learning in
line with GCE or by addressing the outcomes of incidental learning in the classroom and making it
amenable to reflection. Teachers need appropriate (GCE) competencies to enable them both to de-
ploy emancipatory, transformative pedagogies and to support incidental learning.
Introduction
This paper examines the vignettes and the stories they tell from the perspective of
Global Citizenship Education (GCE) and Education for Sustainable Development
(ESD),1 with a particular focus on emancipatory and transformative learning in for-
mal and informal settings.
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 175
My starting point for this essay is an understanding of education that assumes
that, against the background of global environmental crisis, poverty and injustice,
education should enable individuals to understand global interrelationships and to
actively participate in the sustainable transformation of society, which includes em-
powering learners to change social structures. The educational concept of Global
Citizenship Education aims to meet this requirement (KMK & BMZ, 2016;
UNESCO, 2015; Bourn, 2014; Wegimont, 2013; Scheunpflug, 2008; Scheunpflug
& Asbrand, 2006). This pedagogical approach is based on the idea that the develop-
ment of a global society results in requirements that relate to learning in a factual
dimension (dealing with the simultaneity of knowledge and non-knowledge), a tem-
poral dimension (acceleration and lack of time), a spatial dimension (dissolution of
boundaries and interconnection), and a social dimension (familiarity and strange-
ness) (Lang-Wojtasik, 2019).
In this context, GCE aims to empower learners to participate in the social learning
and communication processes required for sustainable development; in the imple-
mentation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); and thus, in the promotion
of a ‘great transformation’ (WBGU, 2011), equipping them with the necessary global
citizenship competencies. In this respect, different competence frameworks are dis-
cussed for GCE (Rieckmann, 2018; OECD, 2018; KMK & BMZ, 2016; UNESCO,
2015).
An international Delphi study (Rieckmann, 2012) identified twelve key compe-
tencies as particularly important to an understanding of the key problems faced by
global society and for shaping it through sustainable development, including sys-
temic thinking, dealing with complexity, anticipation, and critical thinking. Simi-
larly, current international discourse on ESD considers the following sustainability
competencies to be particularly relevant: systems thinking competency, anticipatory
competency, normative competency, strategic competency, collaboration compe-
tency, critical thinking competency, intrapersonal competency, implementation com-
petency, and integrated problem-solving competency (Brundiers et al., 2021;
Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017).
However, GCE is not limited to the development of competencies; as transform-
ative education, it is also concerned with the “transformation of the relationship be-
tween the individual and the world in a global perspective” (translated from German)
(Scheunpflug, 2019, p. 66) and thus with changing attitudes, values, paradigms, and
worldviews (Balsiger et al., 2017; Sterling, 2011). GCE is thus also expected to con-
tribute to critical discourse on values. It can and should provide suggestions to en-
courage learners to reflect on their own values and take a position in the debate on
values en route to sustainable development (Schank & Rieckmann, 2019; Balsiger
et al., 2017).
176 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
Competencies (and related values) cannot simply be taught but must be developed
by learners themselves (Weinert, 2001). GCE therefore requires an action-oriented,
transformative pedagogy (Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017), characterized by
pedagogical principles such as a learner-centered approach, action-oriented learning,
reflection, participation, systemic learning, future orientation, and transformative
learning (Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017). Here, it is important to emphasize that
GCE is not only concerned with enabling learners to consume more sustainably in
everyday life, but also with empowering them to contribute as citizens to the trans-
formation of unsustainable social and economic structures (Schank & Rieckmann,
2019).
However, GCE is not only about integrating sustainable development and the
global dimension into teaching or adding new content to school subjects or study
programs, for example. In relation to sustainable development, schools, universities
and other educational institutions should see themselves as places of learning and
experience and therefore align all their processes with sustainability principles. For
GCE to be more effective, educational institutions as a whole must be changed. Such
a whole-institution approach aims to integrate sustainability into all aspects of edu-
cational institutions (curriculum, operation, organizational culture, etc.). In this way,
institutions themselves act as role models for learners (UNESCO, 2017).
Yet GCE is not delivered solely through formal education but also through non-
formal education and in informal learning environments. For example, universities
not only integrate GCE into their curricula but “also offer settings for informal learn-
ing, such as discussions with fellow students or volunteering in student groups on
campus where students learn outside the organized academic learning processes”
(Barth, Godemann, Rieckmann & Stoltenberg, 2007, p. 420).
On the basis of reflection on the learning experiences and processes described in
the vignettes, I have developed five theses, which are discussed below:
1. Informal learning through student engagement plays a crucial role in GCE.
2. A whole-institution approach is needed to overcome exclusionary structures in
educational institutions.
3. Transformative ways of dealing with heterogeneity and diversity and the asso-
ciated power relations are needed to promote a sense of belonging and prevent
othering.
4. GCE needs to be designed in such a way as to promote learner emancipation and
not overwhelm learners.
5. For GCE to be transformative, it must not only aim to achieve changes in indi-
vidual (consumer) behavior but must also take account of the need for structural
change.
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 177
The discussion of these theses below clarifies what GCE is, where it is successful,
where it fails, and how it should develop, by analyzing the descriptions, events, par-
ticipants, voices, etc. presented in the vignettes. It discusses how these practices can
inform, challenge, and change our conceptions of GCE. While this paper acknowl-
edges the relevance of incidental learning for GCE – and thus the bottom-up, emic
approach that is the focus of this special issue, it aims to show that incidental learning
can also lead to outcomes that are not in the spirit of GCE, and may even run counter
to it, and that teachers play an important role in creating opportunities for incidental
learning in line with GCE and in addressing the outcomes of incidental learning in
the classroom and making it amenable to reflection.
Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education
Thesis 1: Informal learning through student engagement plays a crucial role in GCE.
Informal learning is “any activity involving the pursuit of understanding, knowledge
or skill which occurs without the presence of externally imposed curricular criteria”
(Livingstone, 2001, p. 4). Drawing on Schugurensky (2000), three forms of informal
learning can be differentiated: self-directed learning (both intentional and conscious),
incidental/experiential learning (unintentional but conscious), and socialization (tacit
learning, unintentional and unconscious). Informal learning in all its forms, but par-
ticularly experiential learning, contributes to the development of competencies be-
cause it is related to action.
Informal learning can play a crucial role in GCE. This is clearly illustrated in the
example provided by Meg P. Gardinier (Vignette 4). Protesting Albanian students
took an active stand to defend their and others’ rights, developed a sense of solidarity,
and were enabled to act on a sense of “empathy and/or shared identity with others in
the collective concerns of protecting rights to education and sustainability” (Gar-
dinier, Vignette 4).
This shows how youth civic engagement can contribute to the development of
global citizenship competencies. Experiential learning in particular facilitates the de-
velopment of competencies relating to action (Dohmen, 2001, p. 33). According to
Lipski (2004), informal learning is particularly important for the development of
‘life competency,’ namely the capacity to plan and implement projects that serve to
realize individual and/or shared life goals; the capacity for self-organization plays a
key role here.
In this respect, as the bottom-up, emic approach claims, there are indeed many
contexts where we can learn incidentally about global connections and develop our
global citizenship competencies. Student protests are a good example: The ‘Back
Lives Matter’ movement and the ‘Fridays for Future’ movement connect students
178 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
worldwide. But educational institutions can also create spaces where informal learn-
ing can take place and that can support informal learning processes (Barth et al.,
2007) – for example as part of a whole-institution approach.
Thesis 2: A whole-institution approach is needed to overcome exclusionary struc-
tures in educational institutions.
The whole-institution approach contends that educational institutions should be role
models for learners and should create structures and a culture that reflects and pro-
motes sustainability and equality (Mogren, Gericke & Scherp, 2019; UNESCO,
2017).
When the learning processes sought by GCE are not in harmony with society’s
structures and culture, tensions inevitably arise, as illustrated in particular by the sto-
ries of Natasha Robinson (Vignette 1) and Heather Kertyzia (Vignette 5). The con-
versation about South Africa’s structural inequality and the role of an architect of
apartheid in a school “that is structurally exclusive” (Robinson, Vignette 1) results
in “a racial divide” (ibid.) in the classroom. It becomes apparent that underlying
power relations make it impossible to discuss the issue on equal terms or to work on
the basis of shared perspectives. And the case of GCE in an international university
and an LA university with a student population from marginalized neighborhoods
shows that learning processes relating to power structures and violence occur in both
institutions, but due to the lack of a real-world connection to global issues, the LA
students cannot experience the global dimension (Kertyzia, Vignette 5). The question
arises as to how the institution itself can provide this access.
In the context of a whole-institution approach, GCE should form the basis for
comprehensive change in the educational institution (Mogren et al., 2019). This can
refer, among other things, to the sustainable design of the school grounds or univer-
sity campus and buildings, or sustainable and diverse provision in the canteen that is
collectively planned and is fair to all. All students are involved in a diverse and ho-
listic approach to issues of sustainability and (global) justice (UNESCO, 2017). But
in terms of inclusion, GCE is also concerned with educational institutions’ demo-
cratic structures, cultures of participation, and reflection on their power structures,
creating a safe and empowering environment for dealing with structural inequality.
However, it must also be acknowledged that structural inequalities cannot simply be
overcome. Nonetheless, the whole-institution approach can contribute to making in-
equalities visible and amenable to reflection, thus laying the foundations for joint
work to overcome them.
The participation of educational institutions in local and regional sustainable de-
velopment processes is also crucial (UNESCO, 2017). This can also lead to projects
that connect the local to the global and make global issues visible to students from
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 179
marginalized neighborhoods. Networks and cooperation structures, e.g. between the
LA university and the international university, would also be very valuable here,
creating a space where the two realities meet and power structures can be jointly
reflected upon.
In line with the bottom-up, emic approach, educational institutions should not be
“a location of destructive social reproduction” (Gardinier, Vignette 4), where stu-
dents learn incidentally that exclusion is normal, but of transformative change,
providing students with a setting in which they can learn incidentally how structures
of exclusion and inequality can be reflected upon, considered and even overcome.
This also requires teachers who not only actively integrate GCE into the curriculum
but also contribute to the transformation of the whole institution (Corres, Rieckmann,
Espasa & Ruiz-Mallén, 2020; Vare et al., 2019).
Thesis 3: Transformative ways of dealing with heterogeneity and diversity and the
associated power relations are needed to promote a sense of belonging and prevent
othering.
GCE aims to provide “experience in global and intercultural contexts” (Barth &
Rieckmann, 2009, p. 26) because being aware of “different perspectives and inter-
pretations” (ibid., p. 27) and possessing the associated “worldmindedness” (Selby,
2000, p. 3) enables learners to find their way in the networked global society and to
deal with global diversity. However, bringing global diversity into the classroom is
very challenging, and there is a risk of “uncritical reinforcement of notions of the
supremacy and universality of ‘our’ (Western) ways of seeing and knowing, which
can undervalue other knowledge systems and reinforce unequal relations of dialogue
and power” (Andreotti & de Souza, 2008, p. 23).
What this can look like in educational practice is shown by the bringing together
in the classroom of refugee students and German students, as described by Annett
Gräfe-Geusch (Vignette 2). Her observations illustrate how, instead of engaging pos-
itively with diversity and creating a sense of belonging, negative stereotypes were
reinforced by emphasizing differences between the two groups of students and mark-
ing the refugee students as not yet knowing how to behave properly in the German
context and thus still being “in need of reform” (Gräfe-Geusch, Vignette 2).
Thus, the students’ encounter leads to othering, by defining the German students
as superior and their values as universal and the refugee students as an inferior out-
group. Othering is expressed by differentiating an in-group from an out-group,
creating the other, and, based on stereotypes, separating oneself from the other to
self-affirm and protect oneself (Dervin, 2014).
To prevent othering and to allow for truly emancipatory and transformative GCE,
it is necessary to challenge prejudices, stereotypes and biases (Derman-Sparks,
180 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
1989). This is where the ‘Through Other Eyes’ framework, which is about “learning
to unlearn, learning to listen, learning to learn and learning to reach out” (Andreotti
& de Souza, 2008, p. 29), can be useful. It has links to transformative education,
which focuses on the transformation of frames of reference (Scheunpflug, 2019;
Balsiger et al., 2017; Cranton, 2002; Mezirow, 1997) that “are deeply embedded
in our childhood, community, and culture” (Cranton, 2002, p. 67). These frames of
reference (attitudes, values, paradigms, and worldviews) are developed through ex-
perience and are mostly uncritically assimilated (Cranton & King, 2003).
To facilitate a bottom-up, emic approach that promotes incidental learning in the
spirit of GCE, learning environments are needed in which learners become “aware
and critical of their own and other’s assumptions” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 10), and are
encouraged to reflect on these frames of reference in a critical, de-constructing, and
transgressive way, so as to stimulate truly transformative learning processes that re-
sult in conceptual change (Rodríguez Aboytes & Barth 2020; Lotz-Sisitka, Wals,
Kronlid & McGarry, 2015; Sterling, 2011).
As Annett Gräfe-Geusch’s example also makes very clear, this requires teachers
who themselves are willing “to include differences” and see “diversity as an oppor-
tunity” (Gräfe-Geusch, Vignette 2), but also have the corresponding reflective and
pedagogical competencies to design such transformative learning environments
(Corres et al., 2020; Vare et al., 2019; Balsiger et al., 2017).
Thesis 4: GCE needs to be designed in such a way as to promote learner emancipa-
tion and not overwhelm learners.
Education should foster in learners the capacity for self-determination, co-determi-
nation, and solidarity (Klafki, 1998). In this sense, emancipatory GCE also aims not
to prescribe certain ways of thinking or behaving, but to stimulate learning for inde-
pendent and self-determined reflection (Scheunpflug, 2019). Or in other words:
“Transformative learning must not be used to instrumentalize learners but to em-
power them for autonomous critical action” (Balsiger et al., 2017, p. 359).
Jennifer Riggan’s example (Vignette 3), on Citizenship Education in Ethiopia,
shows that this kind of emancipatory pedagogical approach is by no means self-evi-
dent. In this case, all students are taught a certain understanding of citizenship and
personhood and “particular habits, beliefs and dispositions” (Riggan, Vignette 3),
with especial emphasis on the relevance of saving in ‘modern’ society; this is a com-
pulsory subject and is more or less imposed on them. Moreover, it becomes clear that
the view imposed on the students does not fit with the reality of their lives. Education
can be understood here as an instrument of indoctrination to safeguard the prevailing
ideology (of the ruling party).
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 181
GCE that sees itself as emancipatory and transformative should not manipulate
learners, force them to think or behave in a particular way or to adopt specific values;
instead, learners should be encouraged to think for themselves about socially relevant
issues and find their own answers (Scheunpflug, 2019; Shephard, Rieckmann &
Barth, 2019; Vare & Scott, 2007). The aim should be to develop global citizenship
competencies that enable students to make decisions that fit with their reality and
equally that take a morally responsible approach to the realities of global society
(Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017). Learners’ maturity and independent judgment
must be kept in mind to enable them to form a view on socially controversial topics.
And in the spirit of the bottom-up, emic approach, this refers not only to the design
of formal learning environments but also to how teachers create spaces in which
learners can engage incidentally with specific societal issues and develop their own
ideas about them.
As Heather Kertyzia (Vignette 5) points out, Freirean pedagogy can be a helpful
and effective method for introducing a “teaching practice based on critical self-re-
flection” as a “starting point for creating pedagogies for positive change.” However,
this also presupposes that the teachers themselves are in a position to shape GCE in
this emancipatory way (Corres et al., 2020; Vare et al., 2019).
Thesis 5: For GCE to be transformative, it must not only aim to achieve changes in
individual (consumer) behavior but must also take account of the need for structural
change.
GCE starts with individuals and their acquisition of knowledge and competencies as
well as their attitudes, values, paradigms, and worldviews. Thus, “the responsibility
for sustainable development shifts to the private sphere” (translated from German)
(Grunwald, 2010, p. 178). Individual responsibility is emphasized, while the public
responsibility of political bodies and the role of (multinational) companies tends to
be marginalized. This is problematic in several respects: Firstly, the complexity and
uncertainty associated with sustainability-related decisions can overwhelm individ-
uals – they often lack the necessary knowledge. Secondly, tradeoffs can occur even
where supposedly sustainable behavior is concerned. Thirdly, the separation between
the public and the private sphere becomes blurred (Grunwald, 2010).
Focusing solely on individual responsibility is also problematic because it under-
estimates the dominance and permanence of social structures and cultural patterns.
“Individuals … are often ‘atomized’ by the practices and procedures of institutions
and the ideology of ‘democratic’ and ‘consumer choice,’ while their behaviour is
heavily circumscribed by structures, institutions and practices over which they have
little influence or control” (Wals, 2015, p. 13). For example, consumption is not
simply shaped by individuals, but is culturally embedded (Assadourian, 2010). And
182 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
the market economy and its inherent ‘growth spiral’ (Binswanger, 2012) also limit
the potential for changes in individuals’ behavior.
When GCE is put into practice, however, there is often a predominant focus
on the role and responsibility of individuals. For example, Mr. Cilliers, the South
African teacher, completely ignores the role of structures and tries to convince his
students that there would be less violence in the world if everyone were only nicer
to one other (Robinson, Vignette 1). Even when his actions lead to open conflict in
class, he does not use this opportunity to address power relations and inequality. It is
very important to deal with the role played by emotions in the context of GCE
(Robina-Ramírez, Medina Merodio & McCallum, 2020; Ojala, 2012). However, this
should not lead to students being led to believe that social structures can be changed
through an emotional approach alone.
Heather Kertyzia (Vignette 5) succeeds in getting students at the LA university to
address issues of violence and injustice – but they were only “motivated to seek so-
lutions to the violence and injustice they saw around them on a daily basis and did
not see the global issues as their concern.” This omits an examination of structures
that have a significant influence on the lives of these students.
Sustainable development is also concerned with structural issues in many fields.
However, if a “fixation on learners as private consumers” is in the foreground, this
hinders “structural transformation of the conditions criticized [by GCE]” (translated
from German) (Danielzik, 2013, p. 31). Thus, it is of central importance in GCE not
only to focus on the individual but also to raise the question of structures, of the
‘great transformation’ (WBGU, 2011). Sustainable transformation of society is not a
private matter, but a public task (Grunwald, 2010).
It … requires the capacity to disrupt and to transgress prevailing, dominant and unquestioned
frameworks and systems that predetermine and structure social and economic behavior, and
that, somewhat ironically, have proven to be highly resilient themselves. This capacity is
little emphasized in the current discourse around sustainability governance and in circles
connected to education and learning in the context of sustainable development. By stressing
disruptive capacity building and transgressive learning the focus shifts away from learning
to cope with the negative and disempowering effects of the current hegemonic ways of ‘pro-
ducing,’ ‘consuming’ and ‘living’ to addressing the root causes thereof and to the quest for
morally defensible, ethical and meaningful lives. (Wals, 2015, p. 30)
This idea does not contradict the focus on transformative learning (and related com-
petence development and reflection on values) attributed to GCE in the foregoing
sections. However, it is important that transformative learning is not considered pri-
marily in relation to sustainable consumption behaviors, and that there is also an ex-
amination of how transformative learning – through formal education but also inci-
dentally – can enable students to contribute to structural change (through the
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 183
development of appropriate competencies) (Schank & Rieckmann, 2019; Balsiger et
al., 2017).
Conclusions
GCE can take place in both formal and informal settings – and also incidentally, as
the example of the student protests in Albania shows, confirming the relevance of
the bottom-up, emic approach. This does not mean, however, that it takes place of its
own accord. As the stories in the vignettes show, it is not enough for something to
be well-intentioned. Then accidents can easily occur that lead to the opposite of the
intended outcome.
Thus, the examples from the vignettes show that GCE is not a simple matter.
Learning environments should be structured in such a way as to facilitate the devel-
opment of global citizenship competencies, create a sense of belonging and solidar-
ity, and enable students to reflect critically on power structures and contribute to the
transformation of those structures. On the one hand, this can be enabled by formal
education through emancipatory, transformative pedagogies. On the other, teachers
can also contribute to the creation of opportunities for incidental learning that are in
line with the bottom-up, emic approach characteristic of GCE. This can be achieved,
for example, by taking a whole-institution approach, but also by teachers being more
aware of incidental learning and giving learners opportunities to reflect together on
insights gained from incidental learning. Teachers need appropriate (GCE) compe-
tencies to enable them both to deploy emancipatory, transformative pedagogies and
to support incidental learning.
Here, the following questions arise: How can whole-institution-based change in
educational institutions take place at a broader level? How can more teachers be en-
couraged to take an interest in GCE than has so far been the case and, above all, how
can they be enabled to work with the concept? How can the positive experiences of
informal, incidental GCE learning (e.g. in student protests) be better integrated into
formal learning processes?
Note
1. In this paper, Global Citizenship Education and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
are considered as complementary educational concepts that differ only in subtle respects. It
therefore also refers to literature that uses the term ESD.
References
Andreotti, V. & de Souza, L.M.T.M. (2008). Translating theory into practice and walking mine-
fields: Lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’. International Journal of Development
Education and Global Learning, 1(1) 23–36. https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.01.1.03
184 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
Assadourian, E. (2010). The rise and fall of consumer cultures. In Worldwatch Institute (Ed.), State
of the world 2010: Transforming cultures: From consumerism to sustainability (pp. 3–20).
Washington: Worldwatch Institute.
Balsiger, J., Förster, R., Mader, C., Nagel, U., Sironi, H., Wilhelm, S. & Zimmermann, A.B. (2017).
Transformative learning and education for sustainable development. GAIA – Ecological Per-
spectives for Science and Society, 26(4), 357–359. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.4.15
Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M. & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies
for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 8(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582
Barth, M. & Rieckmann, M. (2009). Experiencing the global dimension of sustainability: Student
dialogue in a European-Latin American virtual seminar. International Journal of Development
Education and Global Learning, 1(3), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.01.2.03
Binswanger, H.C. (2012). The growth spiral: Money, energy, and imagination in the dynamics of
the market process. Marburg: Metropolis.
Bourn, D. (2014). The theory and practice of global learning (Research Paper No.11 for the Global
Learning Programme). London: Development Education Research Centre.
Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S. … & Zint, M.
(2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education – Toward an agreed-upon
reference framework. Sustainability Science, 16(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
020-00838-2
Corres, A., Rieckmann, M., Espasa, A. & Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2020). Educator competences in sustain-
ability education: A systematic review of frameworks. Sustainability, 12(23), 9858. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12239858
Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Educa-
tion, 93, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.50
Cranton, P. & King, K.P. (2003). Transformative learning as a professional development goal. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.97
Danielzik, C.-M. (2013). Überlegenheitsdenken fällt nicht vom Himmel. Postkoloniale Perspek-
tiven auf Globales Lernen und Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Zeitschrift für Internatio-
nale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 36(1), 26–33.
Derman-Sparks, L. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum. Tools for empowering young children. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Dervin, F. (2014). Cultural identity, representation and othering. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 181–194). London: Routledge.
Dohmen, G. (2001). Das informelle Lernen. Die internationale Erschließung einer bisher ver-
nachlässigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens für das lebenslange Lernen aller. Bonn:
BMBF.
Grunwald, A. (2010). Wider die Privatisierung der Nachhaltigkeit: Warum ökologisch korrekter
Konsum die Umwelt nicht retten kann. GAIA, 19(3), 178–182. https://doi.org/
10.14512/gaia.19.3.6
Klafki, W. (1998). Characteristics of critical-constructive Didaktik. In B.B. Gundem & S. Hopmann
(Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum. An international dialogue (pp. 307–330). New York: Lang.
KMK (Standing Conference of the German Ministers of Education and Culture) & BMZ (The Ger-
man Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development). (2016). Curriculum frame-
work education for sustainable development (2nd updated and extended ed.). Bonn: KMK.
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 185
Lang-Wojtasik, G. (Ed.). (2019). Bildung für eine Welt in Transformation: Global Citizenship
Education als Chance für die Weltgesellschaft. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://
doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpbnpz8
Lipski, J. (2004). Für das Leben lernen: Was, wie und wo? Umrisse einer neuen Lernkultur. In
B. Hungerland & B. Overwien (Eds.), Kompetenzentwicklung im Wandel. Auf dem Weg zu
einer informellen Lernkultur? (pp. 257–273). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90162-6_14
Livingstone, D.W. (2001). Adults’ informal learning: Definitions, findings, gaps and future re-
search (NALL Working Paper, No. 21). Toronto: Centre for the Study of Education and Work.
Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A.E.J., Kronlid, D. & McGarry, D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive
social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.
2015.07.018
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74, 5–12, https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401
Mogren, A., Gericke, N. & Scherp, H.-Å. (2019). Whole school approaches to education for sus-
tainable development: A model that links to school improvement. Environmental Education
Research, 25(4), 508–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1455074
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). (2018). Preparing our youth
for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. Paris:
OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global-Compe-
tence.pdf
Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement
among young people. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 625–642. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504622.2011.637157
Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fos-
tered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005
Rieckmann, M. (2018). Chapter 2 – Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in ESD. In
A. Leicht, J. Heiss & W.J. Byun (Eds.), Education on the move. Issues and trends in education
for sustainable development (pp. 39–59). Paris: UNESCO.
Robina-Ramírez, R., Medina Merodio, J.A. & McCallum, S. (2020). What role do emotions play
in transforming students’ environmental behaviour at school? Journal of Cleaner Production,
258, 120638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120638
Rodríguez Aboytes, J.G. & Barth, M. (2020). Transformative learning in the field of sustainability:
A systematic literature review (1999–2019). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 21(5), 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2019-0168
Schank, C. & Rieckmann, M. (2019). Socio-economically substantiated education for sustainable
development: Development of competencies and value orientations between individual respon-
sibility and structural transformation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development,
13(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408219844849
Scheunpflug, A. (2008). Why global learning and global education? An educational approach in-
fluenced by the perspectives of Immanuel Kant. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Development education:
Debates and dialogue (pp. 18–27). London: University of Londond, Institute of Education.
Scheunpflug, A. (2019). Transformatives Globales Lernen – eine Grundlegung in didaktischer Ab-
sicht. In G. Lang-Wojtasik (Ed.), Bildung für eine Welt in Transformation: Global Citizenship
186 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
Education als Chance für die Weltgesellschaft (pp. 63–74). Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpbnpz8.7
Scheunpflug, A. & Asbrand, B. (2006). Global education and education for sustainability. Environ-
mental Education Research, 12(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500526446
Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field.
Retrieved from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/19formsofinformal.htm
Selby, D. (2000). Global education as transformative education. Zeitschrift für internationale Bil-
dungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 23(3), 2–10.
Shephard, K., Rieckmann, M. & Barth, M. (2019). Seeking sustainability competence and capabil-
ity in the ESD and HESD literature: An international philosophical hermeneutic analysis. En-
vironmental Education Research, 25(4), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.
1490947
Sterling, S. (2011). Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the conceptual ground.
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 17–33.
UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO.
Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232993
UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals. Learning objectives. Paris:
UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf
Vare, P., Arro, G., Hamer, A. de, Del Gobbo, G., Vries, G. de, Farioli, F. … & Zachariou, A. (2019).
Devising a competence-based training program for educators of sustainable development: Les-
sons learned. Sustainability, 11(7), 1890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071890
Vare, P. & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education
and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2),
191–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820700100209
Wals, A.E.J. (2015). Beyond unreasonable doubt. Education and learning for socio-ecological sus-
tainability in the anthropocene. Wageningen: Wageningen University. Retrieved from https://
arjenwals.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/8412100972_rvb_inauguratie-wals_oratieboekje_v02.pdf
WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change. (2011). World in transition – A social
contract for sustainability. Berlin: WBGU. Retrieved from https://www.wbgu.de/en/publica-
tions/publication/world-in-transition-a-social-contract-for-sustainability
Wegimont, L. (2013). Global education: Paradigm shifts, policy contexts and conceptual chal-
lenges. In N. Forghani, H. Hartmeyer, E. O’Loughlin & L. Wegimont (Eds.), Global education
in Europe policy, practice and theoretical challenges (pp. 195–207). Münster: Waxmann.
Weinert, F.E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D.S. Rychen & L.H.
Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe
& Huber.