Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
*Corresponding Author:
Mubeshera Tufail, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad
SIAZGA RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2024
VOL. 03, NO. 01, 66 – 75
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58341/srj.v3i1.45
Professional Development Workshop on Global
Citizenship Education: Experiences of University
Teachers
Mubeshera Tufail*
Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad
The purpose of the study was to assess the experiences of teachers about
professional development workshop on global citizenship education (GCE).
The workshop as a research method (Ørngreen & Levinsen, 2017) was used
for conducting this study. The workshop was of 04 days duration. Twenty-one
regular university teachers were participants of the workshop. No prerequisite
experience with GCE was required for attending this workshop. The workshop
involved sessions on thematic dimensions and learning domains of GCE,
integration of GCE in the curriculum and teaching-learning process at the
university level, and facilitating safe and productive dialogue in various
learning environments. Field notes and the feedback form were used to
collect data about the workshop content and the experiences of the workshop
participants. Data were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics.
The study results showed that the faculty members found the workshop
content relevant and useful, and the workshop instructional experiences and
the arrangements as helpful and effective. It is recommended to adjust the
training content and duration according to the needs of the faculty members
in future workshops. The study results may be helpful to arrange professional
development opportunities for university teachers in future.
Abstract
Original Article
Keywords: Global citizenship education (GCE), sustainability, respect for diversity,
critical citizenship education practice, professional development
1. INTRODUCTION
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Global Citizenship Education (GCE) are important
aspects of sustainable development i.e., meeting the needs of today’s generation without compromising
the needs of next generations (UNESCO, 2021). Universities may play their role to make students aware
and participate in the global world. However, the teachers and the institutions must consider the purpose
of Global Citizenship Education (GCED) for the benefit of the students and the society. For its sustainability,
the mission, vision and the strategic plans, and the curriculum may reflect the significance of education
for preparing students as global citizens. GCED may be closely linked to the societal values and goals
along with an active role of global citizens in the world (Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012).
GCE is a transdisciplinary concept that encompasses concepts from civic education, global learning,
intercultural education, sustainable development, diversity and peace education (UNESCO Chair, n.d.).
GCE is aimed to promote global understanding of local practices and cultures. For this purpose, flexible
teaching, use of technology, experiential learning and critical thinking skills may be used for teaching
GCE (Saperstein, 2020). Teacher merge citizenship education and intercultural education. They focus
on the economic (i.e., preparing the graduates to participate in global economy), moral (i.e., taking care
of each other) and cultural (i.e., fostering understanding and tolerance) agenda of the GCE. All of these
Copyright © The Author(s). 2024
This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribute 4.0
International License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided
the original author(s) and source are
credited.
How to cite:
Tufail, M. (2024). Professional
Development Workshop on Global
Citizenship Education: Experience of
University Teachers. Siazga Research
Journal, 3(1), 66 -75.
https://doi.org/10.58341/srj.v3i1.45
mubesheratufail@yahoo.com
© 2024 | University of Loralai, Balochistan - Pakistan
8-SRJ-105-45
67
SIAZGA RESEARCH JOURNAL - 2024
concepts are overlapping and integrated (Franch, 2020a).
Citizenship education promotes respect, non-discrimination, human rights, democracy, justice and
international understanding. It can be offered by integrating it with other school subjects such as social
studies, languages, Geography, civics etc. (UNESCO, 2017).. For its inclusion into the education process,
teacher education is the crucial part (Dean, 2005). Teacher education, pre-service and in-service, must
involve awareness about social, cultural and environmental issues and strategies/beliefs to take actions
for it (UNESCO, 2017). For this purpose, there is a need for professional development opportunities for
teachers to update their knowledge and skills (Kopish, 2017; UNESCO, 2017) to apply GCED themes such
as climate change, poverty and human rights in their classrooms. These opportunities can be of short
duration such as one day or a week to longer duration such as series of workshops or courses (UNESCO,
2017). Educationists and curriculum developers emphasized the inclusion of themes of SDG such as
human rights, peace, gender equality, health education and global citizenship in pre-service teacher
education curriculum either as a part of offered subjects or as a separate subject (Bano & Hina, 2021).
The impact of these professional development opportunities may be assessed its contribution to SDGs
(UNESCO, 2017).
There is a need of research and collaboration on teacher professional development for global citizenship
education (Saperstein, 2020). Keeping in view the perspective on G CE, this study involved arranging a
professional development for university teachers and perspective of the workshop participants about the
effectiveness of workshop content and arrangements.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Global citizenship involves the development of knowledge, attitude, skills and values of individuals
so that they can participate and play their role in a peaceful and just world. Global Citizenship education
is the transformative education process to train the individuals about global citizenship (APCEIU, 2018).
Global citizenship encompasses collective civic actions by the global community to promote a better
and sustainable world for all (UNESCO, 2017). Global citizenship involves teaching about complex issues
of the world but it is recommended to start teaching about these topics since early school years so that
students are aware about it from the very young age. The secondary and post-secondary school years
may involve these topics at an abstract level. The themes of global citizenship may be discussed in the
class by selecting the theme, subject and the learning objectives according to the age of the students.
For teaching about diversity and inclusion, the students at primary school level, may be taught about
the rights and responsibilities of people irrespective of the wide variety of differences among them. At
secondary school level, the students can discuss about discrimination in the society they have observed
or faced it (APCEIU, 2018).
The approach to integrate GCE in educational and training institutions may be influenced by the
perspective of GCE. There are four different perspectives to adopt and practise GCE, as mentioned by
Franch (2020b): neo-liberal human capitalism, cosmopolitan humanism, social-justice activism and
critical citizenship education practice. Neo-liberal human capitalism perspective of GCE emphasize
the development of knowledge and skills of individuals so they can contribute in the productivity and
global competitiveness of the economy of their country (Sant, et al., 2018: as cited in Franch, 2020b).
Cosmopolitan humanism perspective involves moral, cultural, economic and political approach to GCE
so that the relationship and positioning of individuals with groups, labour resources, power, state and
society can be understood (Oxley & Morris, 2013). Social-justice activism focuses to transform the
political and economic structure of the society to achieve democracy, social justice and equality in the
local and global community (Franch, 2020b). Critical citizenship education perspective, in contrast to soft
GCE, asserts to give voice to and protect indigenous knowledge and values which have been kept down
by colonial violence. Instead of expecting people to follow pre-set model or principles, it provides them
the opportunity to analyze and reflect on their context and experiment with various forms of thinking or
actions to bring change (Andreotti, 2014).
There is a need to move from neo-liberal concept of GCE to more critical reflexive concept of GCE
for deconstructing the established knowledge, discussion and practice. This deconstruction process may
emphasize the empirical knowledge and discourse of GCE. It is also important to revise research designs
and analytic tools to analyze social structures, inequalities, power dynamics and global citizenship
education within and beyond the country (Schippling, 2020). As the global citizenship education
involves the development of knowledge, skills and values of individuals to play their role in the society.
The particular perspective chosen for GCE affects the knowledge, skill and values to be emphasized for
68 TUFAIL
training the people. The table 01 provided an overview of knowledge, skills and values empathized by
each of the four perspectives of GCE.
Figure 1. Learning Areas according to four perspectives of GCE (Franch, 2020b)
There is a concern among the education community about the access to education, and the quality
of learning and the content i.e., is the education accessible for all children? What students are learning?
And whether, whatever they are learning would contribute to make the world a better place? (UNESCO,
2017), There can be three major functions or pedagogical frameworks for global citizenship education:
qualification, socialization and subjectification. Qualification refers to the development of knowledge,
skills, and attitude of students to perform a specific (such as job, training or profession) or a general work
(such as life skills, world civilization). It may include cultural literacy, political literacy and civic literacy.
Socialization function involves the individual for understanding and transmission of social values and
norms, and getting along with the political, social and cultural underpinnings of a society. Subjectification
refers to the individuation of the students that aims to build the ways of being and doing based on the
qualification dimension of GCE (Biesta, 2009). All the three perspectives are inseparable and may be
included in the citizenship education.
Teacher training is crucial for educating students about GCED. However, the GCED needs to be
contextualized into the local circumstances of a society to make it relevant and sustainable. Therefore,
Franch (2020b) suggested that teacher education for GCE may provide an opportunity to study various
GCE discourses and pedagogical frameworks, and analyze and implement it in the classrooms. It also
offers a platform for teachers to discuss the practical aspects related to the integration of GCE into the
curriculum, and its implementation and alignments with the practices in the school and the classroom.
Teachers, in teacher education classes, can share with each other the success stories and their learning
experiences of teaching GCE in their classrooms.
Objectives of the Study
• To interpret the experiences of university teachers about professional development workshop on
global citizenship education
• To analyze the challenges and opportunities for organizing workshop on global citizenship
education in university settings.
3. METHODOLOGY
In this study, workshop was used as a research method. In workshop based research, the participants
and the facilitators collaboratively work in a facilitated environment; the group dynamics contribute
to discuss and understand the issues and scenarios. It leads to negotiate about the meaning and
interpretation of scenarios (Ørngreen & Levinsen, 2017). In order to assess the workshop materials and
workshop outcome quality, surveys and questionnaires are one of the most suitable tools (Thoring,
Mueller & Badke-Schaub, 2020).
69
SIAZGA RESEARCH JOURNAL - 2024
There were twenty-one participants of this workshop serving as the regular university teachers. All
the workshop participants were accessed to collect data for this study. The participants of the workshop
registered themselves for this workshop based on their personal preferences for the topic. There were
eight sessions of the workshop completed in four days; four sessions for the content of the workshop
and four sessions for the activities based on the workshop content. The workshop was conducted in a
blended mode; few sessions were conducted online whereas other sessions were arranged in the face-to-
face mode. The online sessions were conducted through MS Teams and Zoom. The workshop coordinator
served as a moderator for the online sessions to connect the workshop facilitator/resource person and
the participants. The activity-based sessions of the workshop were also moderated by the workshop
coordinator.
The data were collected through field notes during workshop sessions and a feedback form administered
through Google Forms for all workshop participants at the end of workshop. The feedback form consisted
of structured and unstructured items. The structured items consisted of the workshop content (06
items related to the relevant, interesting, understandable and need-based content of the workshop),
instructional quality (09 items related to interesting, encouraging, conducive to learning, objective-
based and participatory nature of the instruction during sessions), workshop facilitators (05 items
related to sessions as effective, well-managed, well-prepared, helpful for learning by workshop experts)
and workshop organization (03 items related to duration and venue of workshop, and the workshop
material). The unstructured items involved questions related to the feedback about this workshop and
the future training needs of the workshop participants. The field notes were related to detailed notes
related to the sessions and activities of the workshop. The data were analyzed through mean, standard
deviation, percentage, Spearman Correlation coefficient, and Mann-Whiney U-test. The field notes and
the open-ended responses were analyzed through coding and thematic analysis.
Workshop Details
The workshop was designed to achieve the following objectives:
• To understand the concept of global citizenship and its significance in higher education.
• To explore the key principles and approaches to global citizenship education.
• To identify the challenges and opportunities in implementing global citizenship education in
university settings.
• To equip participants with innovative teaching methodologies and activities that foster global
citizenship competencies.
• To develop a plan for integrating global citizenship education into participants' respective courses
and curricula.
The workshop consisted of four sessions about the concepts and aspects of the Global Citizenship
Education (GCED), and four activities based on the content covered in the sessions. There was no pre-
requisite requirement of expertise in GCED for attending this workshop. Therefore, the workshop sessions
covered the awareness to key concepts related to GCED, its integration into the curriculum, teaching
and arranging dialogue in the classroom. The activities were conducted keeping in various academic
tasks the faculty members were engaged. The content-based sessions of the workshop were arranged
online through Zoom and MS Teams because the workshop experts were from outside of the country.
The workshop material was shared with the workshop participants. They participated in workshop
activities through using charts, brainstorming, discussion and presentations in groups of different sizes.
The workshop activities were conducted in face-to-face mode in the presence of workshop facilitator.
70 TUFAIL
Table 1
Workshop Sessions and activities
S# Session
1.
Session 01
Introduction to Global Citizenship Education
[Global citizenship education is the transformative education, which involves the development of knowledge, attitude, values and skills of
students for a sustainable and peaceful global society (APCEIU, 2018). The global citizenship education involves the agreement on the rights
and responsibilities of a global citizen and the commitment to follow it. It may be related to the human rights, society, climate, environment,
economy, health, education, peace and prosperity. It could also cover the analysis of root causes of the problems related to these areas and the
proactive behaviour to present it in future.]
2.
Activity 01
Personal Reection and Sharing
The workshop participants reected on their own understanding of global citizenship education (GCED) and shared their thoughts in the group.
Secondly, they discussed the relevance of (GCED) for teachers, students, university, and communities.
3.
Session 02
Core dimensions of Global Citizenship Education
Five core areas for teaching of Global Citizenship Education (GCED) i.e., human rights, globalization and social justice, sustainability, respect
for diversity, conict and peace-building) were discussed in detail. GCED involves local and global problems related to these areas, and taking
collective action to solve these problems at local, national and global level. These thematic areas correspond to three learning domains:
cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioral (APCEIU, 2018).
4.
Activity 02
Incorporating GCED into Curriculum
The workshop participants reviewed one course developed by them and identied the opportunities to integrate GCED in it. They suggested
the changes in the learning material to incorporate thematic areas of GCED.
5.
Session 03
Strategies for Teaching GCED in Higher Education (distance and online learning system)
The teaching of GCED involves development of awareness, attitude, actions and values of students about local and global phenomena and
issues. The use of student-centered strategies is recommended for grooming and use of critical thinking and informed decision-making,
collaboration, dialogue and group discussion to understand each other’s perspective. The teaching for GCED involves interdisciplinary, multi-
modal and multi-sensory approach for teaching and assessment of students’ knowledge, skills, attitude and values.]
6.
Activity 03
Brainstorming and Reection
The participants discussed about the nature of various issues of the society and root cause of these issues. At this stage, it would be helpful to
think about how it can be discussed with the students in the classroom.
7.
Session 04
Facilitating safe & productive dialogue in various learning environments
[For creating a safe and productive dialogue in the classroom, the student diversity, critical questioning and student experiences and reection
are valued. The community of learners is developed through the exercise of exibility, openness, empathy, curiosity, sensitivity and objectivity.
The points of view and perspective are interpreted by taking into account the context of the situation.]
8.
Activity 04
Brainstorming and Reection
The workshop participants might plan teaching a topic related to their course using dialogue to listen to each other’s perspectives, and to
understand and empower their students.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
The demographic information of the workshop participants was provided in table 2.
Table 2
Demographic information of workshop participants
S# Demographic Variable Categories Frequency (Percentage)
1. Gender Male 13 (62%)
Female 8 (38%)
2. Teaching Experience
Less than 03 years 3 (14.3%)
03-05 years -
06-08 years 6 (28.6%)
09-11 years 3 (14.3%)
12-14 years 2 (9.5%)
15-17 years 5 (23.8%)
18-20 years -
21-23 years 1 (4.8%)
24 years and above 1 (4.8%)
3. Mode of Courses coordinated by
the faculty members
Distance & Online Learning 17 (81%)
Face-to-Face 16 (76.2%)
Blended 13 (61.9%)
71
SIAZGA RESEARCH JOURNAL - 2024
Table 2 displayed the gender wise distribution of the workshop participants, their teaching experience
and the mode of courses they were coordinating in the ongoing semester. The workshop participants
were with a range of teaching experience. The teachers were coordinating courses in more than one
mode at the same time that is why the table showed the percentage for a particular mode of courses with
respect to the total number of participants of the workshop.
Table 3
Feedback of participants on GCED workshop
S# Factor N Mean Standard Deviation
1. Workshop Content 21 4.68 .39
2. Quality of Instruction 21 4.75 .34
3. Workshop Facilitators 21 4.81 .31
4. Organization of Workshop 21 4.59 .58
5. Total Score on Feedback Form 21 4.71 .37
Table 3 showed the feedback of participants on structured items related to various aspects of GCED
workshop. The mean score of responses of the faculty members showed higher level of satisfaction with
these aspects. It indicated that the they were satisfied with the workshop content, quality of instruction,
workshop facilitators, and organization of the workshop. The unstructured items related to workshop
content, quality of instruction, workshop facilitators, and organization of the workshop provided the
opportunity to the participants to share their feedback in detail. These open-ended responses were
analyzed separately for each of the four factors.
The teachers said that the workshop content was highly relevant, understandable, practicable,
comprehensive and engaging however the content may be improved by addressing local needs. It
maintained that there was a need to link it with the local matters and issues. The instruction, according to
the participants, was effective, informative, and cooperative, context- and activity-based for the concepts
covered in the workshop however the national speakers may be involved to make it more relevant to
the local circumstances. The workshop facilitators had a command on the subject matter; they were
professional, cooperative, dedicated and committed as mentioned by the participants. According to
participants, the workshop organization was good.
Table 4
Relationship among responses of teachers on factors of feedback form for GCED workshop
Factors M6 SD7 N WC1 QI2 WF3 OW4 TFF5
WC1 4.68 .39 21 - .959
(.000)
.764
(.000)
.669
(.001)
.892
(.000)
QI2 4.75 .34 21 .959
(.000) -.818
(.000)
.716
(.000)
.925
(.000)
WF3 4.81 .31 21 .764
(.000)
.818
(.000) -.707
(.000)
.825
(.000)
OW4 4.59 .58 21 .669
(.001)
.716
(.000)
.707
(.000) -.890
(.000)
TFF5 4.71 .37 21 .892
(.000)
.925
(.000)
.825
(.000)
.890
(.000) -
WC1=Workshop Content; QI2=Quality of Instruction; WF3=Workshop Facilitators; OW4= Organization of
Workshop; TFF5= Total score on Feedback Form; M6= Mean score; SD7= Standard Deviation
Table 4 showed the output of Spearman correlation coefficient between responses of faculty members
on various factors of the feedback form. There was a statistically significant and strong positive correlation
among various factors of feedback form, which indicated that experiences of workshop participants
on various aspects of workshop were strongly related to each other and it led to their overall positive
experience with the GCED workshop.
72 TUFAIL
Table 5
Feedback of faculty members with respect to mode of courses coordinated by them
Factor Distance & Online Learning Face-to-Face Blended
N M SD N M SD N M SD
Workshop Content 17 4.74 .39 16 4.69 .40 13 4.72 .46
Quality of Instruction 17 4.81 .32 16 4.75 .34 13 4.76 .39
Workshop Facilitators 17 4.84 .27 16 4.86 .27 13 4.77 .37
Organization of Workshop 17 4.61 .62 16 4.54 .62 13 4.49 .66
Total Score on Feedback Form 17 4.75 .36 16 4.71 .38 13 4.68 .44
N=Sample size; M= Mean; SD= Standard Deviation
Table 5 showed the mean score of faculty members on the feedback form with respect to the mode of
courses coordinated by them. It was evident from the mean scores that the response of faculty members
was highly positive about the various aspects of the workshop. It showed that this workshop was found
helpful and relevant by the faculty members coordinating the courses offered in different modes.
Table 6
Gender wise comparison of responses on factors of workshop feedback form
Factor Male Teachers Female Teachers Mann-Whitney U test
N Mean rank Sum of ranks N Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann-Whitney U value Z value Sig value
Workshop Content 13 10.96 142.50 8 11.06 88.50 51.50 -.038 .969
Quality of Instruction 13 11.27 146.50 8 10.56 84.50 48.50 -.265 .791
Workshop Facilitators 13 12.15 158 8 9.13 73 37.00 -1.211 .226
Organization of Workshop 13 11.54 150 8 10.13 81 45.00 -.564 .572
Total Score on Feedback Form 13 11.15 145 8 10.75 86 50 -.149 .882
Table 6 displayed the output of Mann-Whitney U-test for gender wise difference in the feedback of
faculty members about the workshop. There was no statistically significant difference between male and
female faculty members on factors ‘workshop content’, ‘Quality of instruction’, ‘workshop facilitators’,
‘Organization of Workshop’ and ‘cumulative score on feedback form’. It indicated that all the faculty
members perceived the significance of various aspects of the workshop.
Table 7
Comparison of responses of workshop participants with respect to their teaching experience on factors of workshop
feedback form
Factor
Teachers with experience 11
years & below
Teachers with experience 12
years & above Mann-Whitney U test
N Mean rank Sum of ranks N Mean rank Sum of ranks Mann-Whitney U value Z value Sig value
Workshop Content 12 10.92 131 9 11.11 100 53 -.075 .940
Quality of Instruction 12 11.00 132 9 11.00 99 54 .000 1.000
Workshop Facilitators 12 11.67 140 9 10.11 91 46 -.634 .526
Organization of Workshop 12 11.88 142.50 9 9.83 88.50 43.50 -.831 .406
Total Score on Feedback Form 12 11.63 139.50 9 10.17 91.50 46.50 -.548 .584
Table 7 displayed the output of Mann-Whitney U-test for the difference in the feedback of faculty
members about the workshop with respect their teaching experience. There was no statistically significant
difference between faculty members with teaching experience 11 years and below, and 12 years and
above on factors ‘workshop content’, ‘Quality of instruction’, ‘workshop facilitators’, ‘Organization of
Workshop’ and ‘cumulative score on feedback form’. It indicated that all the faculty members equally
agreed upon the significance of various aspects of the GCED workshop.
Field Notes and Open-Ended Responses About Most and Least Valuable Aspect(s) of the GCED Workshop
Based on field notes, it was noticed that the computer system and internet must be efficient to smoothly
run the online sessions. The participants of the workshop were from different disciplines that helped to
incorporate GCED concepts in a variety of courses. It also provided insights into the nature of integration
of thematic areas of GCED concepts into various topics. One topic integrated one thematic area of GCED
73
SIAZGA RESEARCH JOURNAL - 2024
while another topic involved two or more thematic areas of GCED due to nature of concepts covered in that
particular topic. For example, one unit of “Professionalism in Teaching” involved incorporating respect
for diversity, interfaith harmony, and social justice whereas another course related to ‘Concepts and
Principles of Islamic State’ integrated the concepts of globalization, social justice, equitable distribution of
resources in society, conflict resolution, and sustainability and development. All the workshop activities
involved sharing of experiences, expertise and discussion in small groups of 3-5 workshop participants;
this strategy was found to be interactive for knowledge sharing and the learning process. The duration of
the workshop was observed to be appropriate for keeping workshop activities throughout the workshop
sessions.
The faculty members mentioned about the most valuable of the GCED workshop that it covered the
new themes of GCED and its integration into the curriculum, new perspective about the pedagogy, content
selected for this workshop along with active learning technique, interactive environment and hands-on
activities. The least valuable aspects of the workshop included less engaging interaction with online
speakers, time constraint and relating the content to the local needs. The suggestions for improving this
workshop in future involved extending the time duration for this workshop and integrating the GCED
concepts into subject specific contents. The preferred formats for the faculty members to learn more
about GCED were seminar, professional development workshop and the interactive distance learning
opportunity but not the self-study material. The reason for it may be that the self-study material may not
offer the opportunity for engaging in group discussion in the local context.
Discussion
The workshop involved the content and practice sessions about awareness about GCE, integration
of GCE into curriculum and teaching practices and use of dialogue in the learning environment. The
international resource persons participated in this workshop. The workshop participants were very
satisfied with the instructional quality, resource persons, workshop organization and the workshop
content. The lecture, reflection, dialogue, group work and presentation were adopted during this
workshop. Teachers may adopt inclusive teaching practices to support learning for critical inquiry, critical
self-reflection and critical literacy (Kopish, 2017). If the course structure allows, the explicit modelling
(Appleyard & Mclean, 2011), experiential learning opportunities (Appleyard & Mclean, 2011; Jorgenson
& Shultz, 2012) such as the cross-cultural exchange/experiences of students and the community service
such as a social campaign for child safety or clean-green environment can be used to develop global
citizenship (Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012).
The workshop participants recommended to enhance the duration of the workshop to study GCE in
detail. The workshop activities involved the hands-on practice of the concepts however, the workshop
participants found the content-based sessions by international resource persons not very much relevant
to local context of the Pakistani society. Local context and Local needs GCE is about global understanding
of local practices and cultures (Saperstein, 2020) for making a peaceful and just world. GCE cannot
achieve its goals without considering social and public dimensions of the global issues and interventions
by government to tackle these problems (Estellés & Fischman, 2020). Universities may provide their
students a variety of opportunities such as group discussions, seminars and curricular activities for their
development as a citizen (Rehman, Majoka & Naz, 2018).
4. CONCLUSION
The study involved interpreting the experience of faculty members with a professional development
workshop on GCED. The paper entailed the content of the workshop and the experiences and feedback
of the teachers collected through open and closed-ended responses on a feedback form. The study found
the workshop content useful and relevant for faculty members teaching courses in distance and online,
blended and face-to-face mode. There was no gender wise difference in the mean response of faculty
members about their experiences of the workshop. However, making the workshop relevant to the local
societal context and extending the time duration of the workshop were the major recommendations for
conducting future workshops on this topic.
The experiences of the faculty members may be interpreted keeping in view that it was based on small
group of participants and they did not have any detailed exposure or expertise on GCED. As this study
involved conducting the professional development workshop on GCED and assessing the experiences of
workshop participants, it can be used for guidance to arrange future workshops on this topic at university
level. The various aspects of a workshop such as content, instructional experiences, behavior and support
from workshop facilitators and the workshop arrangement created a holistic positive experience for the
74 TUFAIL
teachers. Therefore, it is significant to keep all the aspects of a workshop aligned with the purpose of
the workshop and for serving the learning needs of the faculty members. This study may be helpful
to arrange professional development workshops for the university teachers especially for arranging
workshops on Global Citizenship Education (GCED). Universities and colleges may offer the courses and
certificate programs for teachers and students to promote GCED.
Competing Interests
The authors did not declare any competing interest.
References
Andreotti, V. O. (2014). Soft versus Critical Global Citizenship Education. In S. McCloskey (ed.),
Development Education in Policy and Practice (21-31). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
APCEIU. (2018). GCED: A guide for trainers.
https://www.gcedclearinghouse.org/sites/default/les/resources/180322eng.pdf
Appleyard, N. & Mclean, L. R. (2011). Expecting the exceptional: Pre-service professional
development in global citizenship education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(2), 6-32.
Bano, N. & Hina, K. (2021). Inclusion of global citizenship education and sustainable development
in pre-service curriculum: A perspective study. International Journal of Innovation in Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 95-
112.
https://doi.org/10.35993/ijitl.v6i2.855
Biesta, G.(2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the
question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 33-46.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Bourn, D. Hunt, F. & Bamber, P. (2017). A review of Education for Sustainable Development and
Global Citizenship Education in Teacher Education. Retrieved from
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259566
Dean, B. L. (2005). Citizenship education in Pakistani schools: Problems and possibilities.
International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1(2), 35-55.
Estellés, M. & Fischman, G. E. (2020). Who needs global citizenship education? A review of the
literature on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 223-236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120920254
Franch, S. (2020a). Global citizenship education discourses in a province in northern Italy.
International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 12(1), 21–36. DOI
https://doi.org/10.14324/IJDEGL.12.1.03
Franch,S. (2020b). Global citizenship education: A new ‘moral pedagogy’ for the 21st century?.
European Educational Research Journal, 19(6), 506-524.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120929103
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), 1-22.
Kopish, M. A. (2017). Global Citizenship Education and the Development of Globally Competent
Teacher Candidates. Journal of International Social Studies, 7(2), 20-59.
https://www.iajiss.org/index.php/iajiss/article/view/302/265
75
SIAZGA RESEARCH JOURNAL - 2024
Ørngreen, R. & Levinsen,K. (2017). Workshops as a research methodology. The Electronic
Journal of eLearning, 15(1), 70-81.
Oxley, Laura & Morris, Paul (2013). Global Citizenship: A Typology for Distinguishing its
Multiple Conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. doi:10.1080/00071005.2013.798393
Rehman, Zia Ur, Majoka M. I. & Naz, S. (2018). Role of universities in developing citizenship
among students: The case of Pakistan. Global Social Sciences Review (GSSR), 3(3), 142-157. DOI: 10.31703/gssr.2018(III-
III).09
Saperstein, E. (2020). Global citizenship education starts with teacher training and professional
development. Journal of Global Education and Research, 4(2), 125-139.
https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.4.2.1121
Schippling, A. (2020). Researching global citizenship education: Towards a critical approach.
Journal of Social Science Education, 19(4), 98-113. DOI: 10.4119/jsse-3466
Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M. & Badke-Schaub, P. (2020). Workshops as a research method:
Guidelines for designing and evaluating artifacts through workshops. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Maui, 5036-5045.
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/64362
UNESCO. (2017). The ABCs of global citizenship education.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248232
UNESCO. (2021). Teachers have their say: Motivation, skills and opportunities to teach education
for sustainable development and global citizenship. Retrieved from
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379914
UNESCO Chair. (n.d.). Global citizenship education: Culture of diversity and peace. Universitat
Klagenfurt. Retrieved from
https://www.aau.at/en/unesco-chair-global-citizenship-education/#tab-id-2
