Globalization processes in the 21st century require that educators inform their students of broadening interdisciplinary connections towards the development of global citizenship. Research showed that while educators expressed interest in the development of global education pedagogy (GEP), educators argued that basic knowledge, professional development, and curriculum implementation is lacking (Rapoport, 2010). Current development of GEP continues to emerge offering adaptable curriculum learning strategies for educators in the classroom (Brooks & Normore, 2010; Goodwin, 2010; Holand, 2010; Kumar & Parveen, 2013). GEP plays an important role in cultivating the whole student and his or her preparedness to be a global citizen. Educators who fail to address contemporary globalization issues in the classroom will not be adequately serving students’ needs.
Globalization and Global Education Pedagogy
The growth of human development and societies continues to rapidly expand with the forces of globalization in the 21st century. The forces of globalization include the movement of peoples, international employment, displacement of peoples, new and fast moving economies, competition for resources, and technological advances (Goodwin, 2010). Brooks and Normore (2010) argued that the forces of globalization create conscious and unconscious tensions in political and cultural contexts on individual, local, and global levels. Hovland and Schneider (2011) called the 21st century a “Global Century” that requires educators to reconsider education’s role in developing students who are ready to engage in challenging times (p. 2). The construction of global education pedagogy (GEP) continues to emerge in order to address educational and global citizenship concerns.
Education provides the foundation for developing student awareness on individual, societal, and global levels. Kumar and Parveen (2013) stated that education supplies the opportunity to nurture “universal literacy” as a means to provide individual growth, social equality, and recognition for the interdependent nature of globalization’s effects (p. 8). Educators play a central role in the development of an education that responds to numerous forms of knowing, multicultural student bodies, and individual learners on all levels of academics (Kumar & Parveen, 2013). Brooks and Normore (2013) maintained that awareness of the multifaceted environments constituting contemporary academia requires generating a curriculum that addresses local and global learning. The development of GEP on a local and global level supports the construction of a curriculum that responds to contemporary student needs.
GEP seeks to connect learning with an experiential context that serves to cultivate individual student awareness and integration into a larger worldview. Kumar and Parveen (2013) contended that educators need to develop a greater “holistic” curriculum to provide students with the necessary knowledge and life skills for 21st century challenges (p. 9). Goodwin (2010) promoted five learning domains that include a personal philosophy of teaching, contextual knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, sociological knowledge, and social knowledge. In addition, Brooks and Normore (2010) maintained that teacher attention to moral, organization, spiritual and religious, and temporal literacies supports the development of a well-rounded GEP curriculum. The implementation of the learning domains and literacies requires educational institutions to make a commitment to changing some of the structural foundations of education in the 21st century.
Challenges of Global Education Pedagogy and Educator Responses
While educators express interest in the use of GEP and the building of an adequate global learning curriculum, challenges present themselves that hinder the ability to use GEP in the classroom. A number of problematic issues that include a clear definition for GEP, failure to address GEP in curricula, looking beyond local concerns, standardization, and educator fears of undermining patriotism are shown to exist amongst educators (Rapoport, 2010). Educators stated that they are left to their own devices and motivations when deciding to address forms of GEP in instruction (Rapoport, 2010). Educators acknowledge the importance of GEP, yet do not feel like the support of administration, or effective pedagogical information exists for the development of GEP methodologies (Rapoport, 2010). The ability to find more exposure to current trends in GEP creates the opportunity to build a better informed administration and educator foundation.
New directions and growth in developing GEP curriculum is currently taking place. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) conducted a conference entitled, “Shared Futures: Global Learning and Social Responsibility” in the year 2000 to bring attention to the importance of GEP (Hovland & Schneider, 2011, p. 3). GEP learning outcomes presented at the AACU conference included a deeper understanding of global contexts, the role of the United States in world affairs, the importance of addressing cultural diversity, and deepening intercultural competencies as crucial to GEP curriculum and global citizenship (Hovland & Schneider, 2011). Kumar and Parveen (2013) presented an outline that directly addressed the challenges of educator GEP awareness and argued that pre-service and professional development programs have the ability to address educator concerns and resistance to GEP. According to Rapoport (2010), educators felt that they are left out and feel uncomfortable when attempting to use GEP in their classroom. Administrative support, professional development programs, and pre-service teaching programs contain the ability to address using GEP in the classroom.
Rapoport (2010) argued that educators need more administrative support and awareness for a defined GEP curriculum in order to address why GEP is important. Educators contended that current educational curricular paradigms focus on standardization, testing, and local concerns (Rapoport, 2010). Brooks and Normore (2010) presented a “glocal” GEP curriculum approach that supports local learning with an ability to integrate the larger global concerns (p. 54). Brooks and Normore argued that the development of glocal learning creates the opportunity to show the educational system the importance of connecting local education to the global forces taking place in the world. Kumar and Parveen (2013) promoted a similar interdependent approach to a holistic GEP pedagogy that assists educators in their ability to “know and understand deeply” how local learning affects, and is affected by, global forces (p. 11). Connecting administration to the importance of GEP, addressing educator concerns, and developing a curriculum that addresses a deeper approach to global education is taking place.
Conclusion
The 21st century world presents numerous challenges to the educational system, educators, and students. The ability to address the forces of globalization requires a degree of risk taking and commitment on the part of administrators, educators, and communities in developing a GEP curriculum that provides students with what they need to be an informed global citizen (Hovland & Schneider, 2011; Kumar & Parveen, 2013; Rapoport, 2010). Brooks and Normore (2010) and Goodwin (2010) showed that educational strategies, literacies, and paradigms do exist in order to support the development of GEP. Deciding where to focus the attention of developing GEP plays an important role in seeing the educational system adapt pedagogical practice.
Addressing educator concerns is tantamount to seeing GEP become a part of student education. Kumar and Parveen (2013) argued that a focus on the development of curriculum provides the strongest means of establishing GEP in education today. Curriculum exists as an integral part of classroom instruction and provides the ability to embed local and global connections with learning (Brooks & Normore, 2010; Kumar & Parveen 2013). Rapoport’s (2010) study presented valid educator concerns pertaining to acceptance and resistance with GEP. Unless administrators, educators, and local communities begin to address global learning concerns, students will not develop the ability to adequately navigate a rapidly changing world (Howard & Schneider, 2011; Kumar & Parveen, 2013). The opportunity to build a GEP curriculum is available, beginning to take root, and emerging as an important facet of human awareness and 21st century education.
References
Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2010). Educational leadership and globalization: Literacy for a glocal perspective. Educational Policy, 24(52), 53-82. doi: 10.1177/0895904809354070
Goodwin, A. L. (2010). Globalization and the preparation of quality teachers: Rethinking knowledge domains for teaching. Teaching Education, 21(1). doi: 10.1080/10476210903466901
Hovland, K. & Schneider, C. G. (2011). Deepening connections: Liberal education in colleges. About Campus: American College Personnel Association and Wiley Periodicals. doi: 10.1002/abc.20074
Kumar, I. A., & Parveen, S. (2013). Teacher education in the age of globalization. Research Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(1), 8-12.
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. doi: 10.1177/1746197910382256