Bridging theory and practice: conceptualisations of global citizenship education in Dutch secondary education

ABSTRACT

With the rise of Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in education systems worldwide, recent research has attempted to categorise its various types and orientations. There are, however, limited insights into how different education stakeholders perceive and implement GCE in pedagogical practice. To bridge this gap between theory and practice, we apply a social cartography of GCE types from a recent study to identify management staff’s, teachers’, and pupils’ perceptions of GCE in the context of Dutch (bilingual) secondary education. Based on a content analysis of 12 interviews and three focus groups with pupils, our findings indicate a clear dominance of a liberal orientation towards GCE, focusing on political and moral themes, but also evidence of a critical orientation, as well as liberal-critical and neoliberal-liberal interfaces. We propose that the reflections of practitioners and pupils presented in this study should be used to further develop (Dutch) GCE.

KEYWORDS:

• Global citizenship education
• global citizenship orientations
• liberal orientations
• soft vs. critical global citizenship education
• modern/colonial imaginary
• the Netherlands

Introduction

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is increasingly being used as a catchphrase and/or umbrella term by researchers and education stakeholders to reframe the context of internationalisation of education and its relation to citizenship and globalisation (Guimarães and Finardi 2021). Several recent events (e.g., #BlackLivesMatter, the COVID-19 pandemic, and floods and wildfires) have highlighted the scope of the world’s dynamic interconnectedness that is affecting nations and young children worldwide. These global issues call for a shift in education, from focusing primarily on cognitive skills towards soft skills, such as attitudes, values, and the ability to understand and resolve global issues; these skills are growingly becoming the central purpose of education (UNESCO 2014).

The concept of GCE was therefore introduced to enhance pupils’ ability to understand and feel responsible for each other and the environment, to share universal values, and to respect diversity (UNESCO 2014). UNESCO (2018) defines GCE as a form of education that ‘aims to empower learners of all ages to assume active roles, both locally and globally, in building more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure societies’. In reflection of its increasing importance and relevance, GCE is also included in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, specifically in relation to Quality Education (Target 4.7; UNDP 2021).

As one of the most densely populated countries in Europe with a fair percentage of the population with a migration background (25.2%; CBS 2021), a change in education is being demanded for in Dutch society. In addition to programmes concerning linguistic or cultural minorities, citizenship education (CE) has recently been introduced by schools to encourage pupils’ social development and participation, and to bring them into contact with basic political and social concepts such as democracy, human rights, and social responsibility (Munniksma et al. 2017). However, young Dutch citizens are not particularly active in social work or political engagement (Coopmans 2019). A decline in political participation could also be found in the 2017 parliamentary elections, during which young voters dropped from 77% in 2012 to 67% (Coopmans 2019). Furthermore, the implementation of GCE in the Dutch education system is lagging behind; while most teachers agree with the importance of including it in school curricula, there is a relatively low percentage of schools offering structural attention to GCE (Hogeling 2012). Thus, more attention to and improvement of GCE in the Netherlands are imperative.

In 2019, a new national curriculum for CE was proposed in the Netherlands. Citizenship education was already anchored in education laws since 2006, but schools differ greatly in how they implement the curriculum and claim to find its content vague (Rijksoverheid 2019). With the new law and a curriculum reform on the way, the aim is to provide quality CE that focuses on three basic values of a democratic and multiform society: freedom, equality, and solidarity (Curriculum 2019). The content of this CE model is closely related to global citizenship (GC) issues, such as political participation, diversity, globalisation, and sustainability.

Nevertheless, general perceptions of the concepts of CE and GCE may differ. The main aim of CE in democratic societies is to strengthen citizens’ engagement and encourage active participation in society (Geboers et al. 2013). Traditionally, CE has highlighted a formal political interpretation in which participation and engagement are associated with commitment to the nation-state (Wagner et al. 2016). Previous research has found that teachers’ beliefs about what CE entails tend to be rather conservative. De Schaepmeester, van Braak, and Aesaert (2021) attest to the dominant presence of conservative citizenship beliefs, which is also reflected in the choice of citizenship content teachers give preference to and the roles they assign themselves. Such beliefs work as internal schemes that shape the framework in which pedagogical decisions are made (Patterson, Doppen, and Misco 2012) and can become a filter for how teachers implement CE (Knowles and Clark 2018). Understanding current ideologies of GCE is closely interconnected to understanding the role of CE in general.

Pais and Costa (2020) also reinforce the importance of focusing on ideologies when grasping issues around the conceptualisation and implementation of (critical) GCE, mainly due to conflicting discourses. They identify, on the one hand, a critical democracy discourse that focuses on the importance of ethical values, social responsibility, and active citizenship. On the other hand, they notice how a neoliberal discourse privileges a market-rationale, focused on self-investment and enhanced profits. These two ideologies are not always separated, often appearing in parallel and making the need for a careful investigation of the ideological component of GCE a pressing one. This confirms Schattle’s (2008) claim that ‘examining some of the more prominent strains of thinking within educational programs for global citizenship contributes to ongoing debates about whether a new, distinct and globally-oriented ideology might be emerging’ (73).

In the Netherlands, the implementation of GCE is greatly connected to bilingual education (Dutch: tweetalig onderwijs; TTO). In TTO, GC is embedded in the curriculum as one of Nuffic’s (2018; the Dutch organisation for internationalisation in education) three pillars; the other two pillars are language skills (i.e., high proficiency in English) and personal development (as defined in Biesta 2017). These three pillars interact with and reinforce each other to achieve the mission of TTO, which is to ensure pupils are at home in the world. To develop high-level, interdisciplinary proficiency in English, a CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) approach is implemented in which GC provides context (Nuffic 2018). The GC pillar specifically aims to educate pupils to develop with an open, broad view of the world, enabling them to learn about traditions, customs, and political realities (Nuffic 2018). Within TTO, the goals of GCE overlap with Biesta’s (2017) three target domains of education, namely qualification (acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes), socialisation (‘[becoming] part of existing social, cultural, and political practices and traditions’; 13), and subjectification, which refers to human freedom and taking responsibility. The effect of the pillars of language skills and GC is personal development (Biesta 2017), that is, the pupil becomes proficient in English (i.e., qualification), can step out of their comfort zone and reflect on things they do not know, and becomes part of existing traditions and practices (i.e., socialisation), free, and responsible for society (i.e., subjectification).

Although there has been limited research on GC(E) and TTO in the Netherlands, international research has been conducted on the relationship between GC(E) and foreign language education. Byram et al. (2017), for example, concluded that foreign language education can lead to GC competencies, such as critical cultural awareness, a focus on ‘others’ who live outside the national borders and speak a different language, and the ability to compare one’s own situation with that of ‘others’ (see also Porto and Byram 2015). Language learning thus provides an international context in which pupils learn to explore each other’s perspectives and be critical of their own cultures.

Secondary schools in the Netherlands working on GC can also join Nuffic’s Global Citizen Network, which provides (bilingual) schools with advice to develop internationalisation within their curricula (Nuffic n.d.). Member schools of the network share a common goal, namely to train pupils to become global citizens who are well prepared for the international and intercultural society. Being part of the network has several benefits for pupils, including exchanges with schools abroad, extra attention to language education, and subject lessons with an intercultural dimension.

It is important to note, however, that pupils who attend TTO, particularly the pre-university track (Dutch: voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs; VWO), often have a higher socio-economic status, and have been referred to as an ‘emerging elite’ (i.e., socially advantaged families from the upper classes; Weenink 2006). Research has revealed that pupils’ socio-economic backgrounds and educational track can influence the types of GCE implemented and the scale at which they are implemented (i.e., local, national, international, or global scale; Osler 2011; Sincer, Severiens, and Volman 2019). For example, schools in higher socio-economic contexts tend to focus more on global issues, and higher or more academic educational tracks often include cosmopolitan CE, whereas the lower tracks focus more on local- and national-level issues (Ho 2012). Moreover, Goren and Yemini’s (2017) study revealed that pupils’ socio-economic background had an influence on teachers’ definitions and perceptions of GCE.

Theoretically, the concept of GCE has recently developed in so many ways that Pashby et al. (2020), in their meta-review of GCE typologies, identify several main theoretical conceptualisations, including critical, liberal, and neoliberal GCE orientations, as well as their interfaces, namely, neoliberal-liberal, neoliberal-critical, and liberal-critical. New interfaces are also discussed, such as neoconservative-neoliberal-liberal, critical-liberal-neoliberal, and critical-post critical. However, less is yet known about how teachers and other education stakeholders actually conceptualise GCE in the context of their pedagogical practices and with which lenses they translate their orientations into concrete classroom activities (Duarte 2021). In addition, little attention has been paid to pupils’ views on the implementation of GCE, and to the role of GCE in CLIL-based education. This article thus aims to bridge the gap between theoretical conceptualisations of GCE and how education stakeholders (n = 3 principals, n = 3 bilingual education/bilingual coordinators, n = 6 teachers, and n = 14 pupils) perceive and implement the main GCE conceptualisations in the context of Dutch secondary education. More specifically, we conduct a small-scale exploratory study of three schools that also offer bilingual education, or TTO (Nuffic 2018), in whose curricula GC(E) is a core component. We are guided by the following research question: Following which ideological orientations is Global Citizenship Education being implemented at Dutch secondary schools according to management and teaching staff and pupils?

Conceptualisations of GCE

Marshall (2007) has argued that the concept of GCE can be understood and interpreted differently and ambiguously. According to Carabain et al. (2012), GC is a broadened version of citizenship, for it emphasises not only taking part in social issues and environmental problems but also the contribution and engagement beyond borders. However, the definition of GCE is still controversial as ‘the “global” does not represent the universal human interest’ (Andreotti 2006, 3) and the process of globalisation is ‘worlding of the West as world’ (4). What can be agreed is that the notion of GC has multiple perspectives, and it is strongly related to the world’s interdependency and interconnectedness, due to long-distance trade, fast-developing ways of communication, and most importantly, migration (UNESCO 2014).

As stated by Morais and Ogden (2011), the conceptual model of GC often includes the following three dimensions: social responsibility that relates to global justice and concern for others and understands the interconnectedness between local and global issues; global competence that focuses on self-awareness, intercultural communication, and global knowledge; and global civic engagement that emphasises participation in civic organisations and political voices. According to Oxley and Morris (2013), GCE is also associated with other concepts such as ‘development education, democracy education, education for cosmopolitan citizenship, peace education and human right education’ (302). Thus, the goal of GCE is to encourage pupils to engage in real-life issues locally and globally, to identify and resolve social problems, and involve multiple stakeholders (UNESCO 2014), to think creatively and critically, and to cooperate (Hogeling 2012).

As the discussion on GCE increases, more researchers have tried to typologise and categorise the concept. For example, Andreotti (2006) discusses the contrast between ‘soft’ and ‘critical’ GCE; while soft GCE makes changes happen from the outside to the inside (imposed change), critical GCE can instigate change from the inside to the outside, since the goal is to enable learners to reflect critically and empower them to take responsibility for their actions (Andreotti 2006). In 2021, Andreotti added a third approach, namely GCE ‘otherwise’, which, in contrast to soft and critical GCE, highlights ‘facing humanity’s wrongs, our own complicities in harm, and the potential of social and ecological collapse in our lifetime’ (506) and ‘the importance of learning to walk a tightrope between naive hope and desperate hopelessness, with honesty, humility, humour and hyper-self-reflexivity’ (506).

Furthermore, Oxley and Morris (2013) have proposed that GCE contains two main frameworks: cosmopolitan that refers to the basic and mainstream models and advocacy that contains models that are portrayed in contrast to the mainstream models and ‘tend to involve a strong degree of advocacy from a particular perspective’ (305). In the cosmopolitan framework, they identify four types of GCE:

• Political GC that promotes democracy and values the order of society;

• Moral GC that is related to morality and mutual understanding;

• Economic GC that emphasises economic growth of the world and the importance of free market; and

• Cultural GC in which the diversity and minority are valued, along with cultural awareness and competencies.

In the advocacy framework, they identify:

• Social GC that encompasses freedom of speech and civil society;

• Critical GC that challenges oppression and global structures;

• Environmental GC that emphasises the protection of nature; and

• Spiritual GC that advocates the connections and bonds between people.

Oxley and Morris (2013) do not, however, explicitly define what they mean by ‘type’ and use other related terms in their review as well, such as forms of or approaches towards GCE; this reflects the fuzzy nature of the concept of ‘types of GCE’. Nevertheless, it does become clear that they refer to GCE ‘types’ as a clustering of ‘the diversity of conceptions prevalent in the literature’ (Katzarska-Miller and Reysen 2018, 2) that fall into similar categories.

In a recent meta-review of GCE typologies, Pashby et al. (2020) applied a heuristic (see Andreotti et al. 2016, 91) to create a social cartography of ‘types’ of GCE (i.e., ‘the groupings of frameworks and approaches described in different typologies’; Pashby et al. 2020, 145). Various types of GC(E) identified in nine studies were mapped onto the cartography (see Pashby et al. 2020, 150), including soft and critical GCE (Andreotti 2006), cosmopolitan and advocacy GC (Oxley and Morris 2013), and neoliberal approaches (Gaudelli 2009; Schattle 2008; Shultz 2007). Based on three main discursive orientations (i.e., neoliberal, liberal, and critical) and their interfaces (neoliberal-liberal, liberal-critical, and neoliberal-critical), the heuristic was used to identify commonalities and distinctions between and within various ‘types’ of GCE. Moreover, in their analysis, Pashby et al. (2020) identified three new interfaces, namely, neoconservative-neoliberal-liberal, critical-liberal-neoliberal (between critical-liberal and neoliberal), and critical-post critical. Importantly, the heuristic acknowledges the metanarrative that frames and limits the three discursive orientations, that is, ‘the modern/colonial global imaginary’, which ‘naturalises a Western/European standpoint and corresponding set of colonial and capitalist social relations, projecting a local (Western/European) perspective as a global design’ (146; see also Coulthard 2014; Mignolo 2000; Silva 2007). The discursive orientations and interfaces are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of the three main discursive orientations and their interfaces, based on Pashby et al.’s (2020) social cartography.

	Description
Discursive orientations
Critical	Approaches that criticise current power structures and modernisation (Gaudelli 2009), and often critique Western exploitation and violence (Stein 2015), acknowledging complicity in that violence. The importance of these approaches has been recognised in various studies, yet there is a lack of implementation in practice (Marshall 2011; Oxley and Morris 2013; Schattle 2008).
Liberal	Types focusing on promoting openness, love, and caring for each other, with mutual respect (Stein 2015), concern (Schattle 2008), and cultural equality (Oxley and Morris 2013) playing key roles in this orientation. Types of GCE within the liberal orientation are numerous and distinctions within typologies are also evident (e.g., Oxley and Morris 2013, for types of Cosmopolitan GC).
Neoliberal	Types with the main objective of improving economic development at the individual and state levels. Education is organised by the state and focuses on national competitiveness, aiming to ensure pupils reach optimal performance for improved employability in a global market.
Interfaces
Critical-liberal	GCE approaches mapped onto this interface include post-colonial ideas in terms of human rights and those that criticise the role of capitalism in universal exploitation. These approaches promote change on a structural level by, for example, improving working conditions (see ‘Marxist’ type in Gaudelli 2009). However, these approaches do not always explore and challenge the ways in which structures may reinforce colonial ideas (see ‘Radical’ type in Shultz 2007).
Critical-liberal-neoliberal	Types of GCE within this interface relate to transnational activism, including capitalist, institutional, and post-colonial approaches, which also involve cosmopolitan and post-colonial relativistic actions (Oxley and Morris 2013).
Critical-post critical	These approaches are based on post- and decolonial approaches, which aim to resist ‘normative commitments and prescriptive futures’ (Povinelli 2013 cited in Stein 2015, 248). The type of GCE referred to, namely the ‘Incommensurable Position’, questions prescriptive GCE approaches that are frequently identified in the orientations, particularly in the critical orientation.
Liberal-critical	Liberal-critical approaches seek to challenge the status quo, such as by raising questions regarding power, but rely on existing institutions and processes to do so, which can reproduce colonial ideas. There is also focus on ‘consensual human progress’ (Andreotti 2014), which involves opposing, among others, racism, sexism, and patriarchy.
Neoconservative-neoliberal-liberal	This interface includes approaches to GCE that involve ‘a re-centring of the nation that maps onto a neoliberal orientation (global-market participation through nation-state), a liberal approach (international relations), and a neoconservative orientation (focus on international relations as part of national security)’ (Pashby et al. 2020, 153; see ‘National GC’; Gaudelli 2009).
Neoliberal–liberal	Neoliberal-liberal approaches to GCE are predominantly related to Cosmopolitan Cultural GC (Oxley and Morris 2013), which involves promoting global competence, an ethical attitude, and an understanding of the Western dominance regarding culture, as well as encouraging a more open attitude to those who come from other places and active involvement in a range of cultural practices. The focus lies in changes in the individual rather than changing the status quo. In education, the neoliberal-liberal interface is often reflected in the dominance of the English language and emphasis on stereotypes of the ‘Other’, which contradicts moral ideas connected to Cultural GC.

In sum, GCE is becoming an increasingly complex concept that can be interpreted from numerous perspectives and translated into practice as various types, ranging from neoliberal (Gaudelli 2009; Shultz 2007) to critical humanist (Andreotti 2014). As the world’s interconnectedness deepens, whether through growing migration or further technological advances, schools must, among others, foster their pupils’ senses of responsibility and belonging, global competence, and ability to contribute to solving shared issues. However, given the limited research on how GCE is implemented and perceived by different education stakeholders, a gap remains between theory and practice. In this study, we therefore apply Pashby et al.’s (2020) social cartography of GCE orientations to identify the ways in which management and teaching staff as well as pupils perceive the implementation of GCE in Dutch (bilingual) secondary schools in relation to the three main discursive orientations and their interfaces.

Methodology

Research design and context

To identify various education stakeholders’ (n = 3 principals, n = 3 bilingual education/bilingual coordinators, n = 6 teachers, and n = 14 pupils; see Duarte 2021) perceptions of how GCE is implemented in Dutch secondary schools, this small-scale exploratory study (Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005) employed qualitative semi-structured interviews (Galletta 2013) and focus group discussions (Morgan 1997). Given that GCE is embedded in bilingual education, or TTO, in the Netherlands (Nuffic 2018), in which around 30,000 pupils are enrolled, we conducted a study of three TTO schools to gain insights into the implementation and perceptions of GCE within this context.

Instruments

For the principals, TTO coordinators, and teachers, individual semi-structured interview guides were developed, and an adapted version of the guides was used for the focus groups with the pupils. The semi-structured approach was chosen to allow the participants more freedom in interpreting and answering the questions (Bryman 2012), which was necessary given the differences in meanings and implementation of GCE for each school and stakeholder. This type of interview also provided the researchers with the flexibility to ask follow-up open questions.

The following aspects were covered in the interviews and focus groups: participants’ background information, TTO, GC(E), and the relationship between TTO and GC(E). By addressing these aspects in this order, we were able to systematically gain insights into the stakeholders’ practices and experiences regarding GC(E) within the context of TTO. When asked the questions displayed in Table 2, which we focus on in this study, we explained to the participants that there are various definitions of GCE and presented those of Oxley and Morris (2013), UNESCO (2015), and Azizi (2020) to assist them in identifying types of GCE that they had implemented and conceptualisations that they perceived to have been implemented in their schools.

Table 2. Examples of interview and focus group questions by stakeholder.

Stakeholder	Interview / focus group questions
Principals	What does Global Citizenship mean for your school? What activities are organised at your school regarding bilingual education and Global Citizenship? Now (during the COVID-19 pandemic) but also in the past and in the future.
TTO coordinators and Teachers	What does Global Citizenship mean according to the school? Global Citizenship can be interpreted and implemented based on various visions, such as those of Oxley and Morris (2013), UNESCO (2015), and Azizi (2020). Do you encounter these visions/topics of Global Citizenship in bilingual education? If so, can you give examples?
Pupils	Do you have an idea of what Global Citizenship is? Can you give examples of activities you have already participated in at school that you think are connected to Global Citizenship? Based on the visions/topics of Global Citizenship proposed by, for example, Oxley and Morris (2013), UNESCO (2015), and Azizi (2020), which have you encountered in bilingual education, and can you give examples?

Participants and sampling strategy

Purposive sampling (Maruyama and Ryan 2014) was used to recruit the secondary schools that participated in this study, which had to meet the following two criteria: (1) the school had a bilingual education programme (TTO) and (2) GCE was embedded in the curriculum. Initially, seven schools were approached by email, three of which replied indicating their interest in participating in this study (response rate = 43%). Two of these schools were part of the Global Citizen Network coordinated by Nuffic, which meant that GC was anchored in these schools’ entire curricula. At the other school, this was limited to Nuffic’s (2018) pillar of GC.

At these three secondary schools, a total of 12 semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 26 participants, of whom 12 (46%) were male and 14 (54%) female. The interviews were conducted with principals (n = 3, 12%), TTO coordinators (n = 3, 12%), and teachers (n = 6, 23%; see Table 3), and the focus groups with 14 pupils (53%; see Table 4).

Table 3. Interviewees and interview duration by school.

School	Interviewees	Duration	Years in position (at time of interview)
School 1 (n = 4)	Principal 1	47:46	16
	TTO coordinator 1	59:07	7
	Teacher 1A (English)	43:59	5
	Teacher 1B (Maths)	39:09	6
School 2 (n = 4)	Principal 2	30:52	11
	TTO coordinator 2	47:11	6
	Teacher 2A (preparatory secondary vocational education [VMBO] - all-round)	20:10	12
	Teacher 2B (Geography)	27:13	20 (experience in education)
School 3 (n = 4)	Principal 3	30:46	7
	TTO coordinator 3	51:22	12
	Teacher 3A (English)	31:02	8
	Teacher 3B (Geography)	30:35	3.5

Table 4. Focus groups with pupils and duration by school.

School	Focus group participants	Duration	Background information (track and grade within TTO)
School 1	4 pupils	34:24	Two in VWO 4 and two in gymnasium 2
School 2	6 pupils	48:10	Four in VWO 5, one in gymnasium 5, and one in HAVO 5 who had previously attended VWO for 5 years
School 3	4 pupils	30:15	Two in VWO 2 and two in VWO 4

Note. HAVO: hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (senior general secondary education).

Procedure and data collection

Informed consent was obtained prior to data collection. The interviews and focus groups were audio recorded digitally, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in November and December 2020 and lasted between 20 and 59 min. One interview with a TTO coordinator was conducted in English, and the remaining interviews and focus groups in Dutch. The audio recordings of the interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim and anonymised. The corpus of transcripts comprised a total of 55,151 words.

Data analysis

The interview and focus group transcripts were analysed in NVivo 12 using content analysis (Mayring 2000), which was selected as it allows for either an inductive or deductive approach, or a combination of both, and for its suitability for analysing numerous types of communication (Cho and Lee 2014). Before the initial coding, we read the transcripts several times to familiarise ourselves with the data and to identify which of the GCE orientations and interfaces were most salient. The data were initially analysed deductively using a coding scheme and rules informed by Pashby et al.’s (2020) social cartography of GCE orientations and interfaces.

We developed our coding scheme based on the GCE types mapped onto the social cartography and identified topics within each of the types to form the sub-codes (e.g., fake news, critical thinking, and human rights), which we attributed to our data (see Tables 6–8 for further examples of sub-codes). For instance, we used the GCE types proposed by Oxley and Morris (2013) as descriptive concepts to help distinguish different directions and topics in the implementation of GCE. A specific example is that within Cosmopolitan Political GC (code), a common topic is democracy (sub-code), which we identified in the following response: ‘ … And democracy, that was very much the focus of my subject in English because of the elections … ’ (Teacher 5A); this was subsequently categorised under the liberal orientation as proposed by Pashby et al.’s (2020) social cartography.

After the initial coding, we reviewed and discussed the (sub-)codes, then conducted an inductive analysis, which resulted in other (sub-)codes being added to the coding scheme. To increase the validity and reliability of the analysis, we further reviewed the coding of the transcripts and compared the (sub-)codes under each category across the three participating schools, which resulted in some (sub-)codes being removed, merged into one, or renamed. It should be noted that comparing the three participating schools was not within the scope of this study.

In our analysis, we used a total of 13 codes that denoted ‘types’ of GCE, such as Cosmopolitan Political GC, and 37 sub-codes for topics covered within these GCE types (e.g., democracy) under the categories displayed in Table 5. Due to a lack of clarity, 30 references in the data were categorised as not codable.

Table 5. GCE orientations and their interfaces (perceived to be) implemented in Dutch bilingual secondary schools by stakeholder.

Categories	Principals (n = 3)	TTO coordinators (n = 3)	Teachers (n = 6)	Pupils (n = 14)	Total (N = 26)
Orientations
Critical	0	8	16	5	29
Liberal	7	22	26	20	75
Neoliberal	0	0	0	0	0
Interfaces
Critical-liberal	0	3	3	3	9
Critical-liberal-neoliberal	0	1	0	0	1
Critical-post critical	0	0	0	0	0
Liberal-critical	1	14	22	12	49
Neoconservative-neoliberal-liberal	0	0	0	0	0
Neoliberal-liberal	5	11	20	12	48
Other
Not codable	7	0	10	13	30

Results

Our analysis (Table 5) shows that the most identified orientation across all stakeholders was the liberal orientation towards GCE, for which a total of 75 references was attributed. This was followed by (sub-)codes representing a critical orientation towards GCE (29). The most identified interfaces were liberal-critical (49) and neoliberal-liberal (48). These results were comparable across stakeholders. The neoliberal orientation and critical-post critical and neoconservative-neoliberal-liberal interfaces were not identified in our analysis of both the interviews and focus groups. In the following sub-sections, quotations from the interview and focus group data are used to illustrate our findings, most of which we translated into English.

The liberal orientation

The distribution of the (sub-)codes attributed to the data for the liberal orientation towards GCE is presented in Table 6. The code ‘Political (Cosmopolitan)’ was the most identified across the stakeholders (43 references), but in particular by the teachers and pupils in the sample.

Table 6. Codes and sub-codes for the liberal orientation across stakeholders.

Liberal orientation	Principals	TTO coordinators	Teachers	Pupils
Political (Cosmopolitan)	6	11	12	14
Democracy	2	1	3	5
International politics	4	10	9	5
Political globalisation	0	0	0	1
Not implemented	0	0	0	1
Implemented in certain profiles	0	0	0	2
Moral (Cosmopolitan)	0	9	12	4
Empathy	0	2	4	0
Human rights	0	7	8	4
Spiritual (Advocacy)	1	2	2	2
Religion	1	2	2	2
Total:	7	22	26	20

The concrete areas of attention given at the schools are further specified by the sub-codes ‘democracy’ and ‘international politics’. In Extract 1, a TTO coordinator describes the specific focus on international politics, and in Extract 2, a teacher refers to imitating the United Nations in class and visiting government buildings:

Extract 1 (TTOCo1): International politics is definitely there … MUN (Modern United Nations) and it is looked at in history. International bodies such as the UN are very important for TTO. I know that in junior TTO, they already started looking at the global citizen, global goals, and I know that they do that again in senior TTO. So yes, I think these are all very important goals of our education.

Extract 2 (Teacher 3A): We imitate the UN in groups. The children who are going to do that now normally go to the European Parliament in the second year so that they really get an idea of such a place, how it works. They are also told that different languages are spoken there and are all translated, instead of using English because that is easy.

Moreover, a pupil from School 2 mentioned that the focus of their bilingual education classes is often linked to knowledge on democratic structures and political topics.

Extract 3 (School 2 pupil): We do bilingual education and have to do a lot of modules and now there was a module about elections and politics. The man who teaches us English often talks about the elections in America and teaches us about them.

The second most identified code (25 references) was ‘Moral (Cosmopolitan)’, although it was not found in the principals’ responses. More specifically, this type of GCE was reflected in the sub-codes ‘empathy’ and ‘human rights’; for example, Teacher 3A referred to a lesson on the rights of LGBTQ+ communities in the Netherlands and countries worldwide:

Extract 4 (Teacher 3A): We have Purple Friday this coming Friday. And I happened to have prepared a lesson that all classes will get about people’s rights [regarding LGBTQ + ] in different countries but also in our country. How it works and why we still need Purple Friday. And this lesson is especially made so that pupils can think about a statement and say what they think about it and how progressive we are or not.

Finally, ‘Spiritual (Advocacy)’ was also identified in all stakeholders’ responses (7 references), as reflected in the sub-code ‘religion’. An example of this is that although School 1’s principal reported that they do not teach religion, they had created their own subject that introduces pupils to the history of various religions:

Extract 5 (Principal 1): We are not a special school, so we do not teach religion. But we do teach a subject that we have developed ourselves and it is called World History of Religions. And that is a subject in which you very clearly pay attention to different opinions or beliefs/world views and diversity.

Regarding the pupils’ perceptions, a pupil from School 1 commented that life philosophy classes (Dutch: levensbeschouwing) are ‘often about religions and especially about the five biggest world religions. Sometimes we have to discuss what we think about what belongs in that religion’ (Extract 6).

The liberal-critical interface

The distribution of the (sub-)codes for the liberal-critical interface is presented in Table 7. The two most identified codes were ‘Environmental’ (Advocacy; 22 references) and ‘critical humanist’ (15 references), although these were not found in the principals’ responses.

Table 7. Codes and sub-codes for the liberal-critical interface across stakeholders.

Liberal-critical interface	Principals	TTO coordinators	Teachers	Pupils
Environmental (Advocacy)	0	6	11	5
Environment	0	2	5	4
Sustainability/SDGs	0	1	6	0
Climate change	0	3	0	0
Limited implementation	0	0	0	1
Critical humanist	0	4	8	3
LGBTQ+	0	2	2	1
Racism	0	1	1	1
Patriarchy	0	0	2	0
Inequality	0	0	1	0
Stereotypes	0	0	2	0
Prejudice	0	1	0	1
Spiritual (Advocacy)	1	4	3	4
Religion	1	2	3	0
Philosophy of life	0	2	0	2
Implementation perceived negatively	0	0	0	2
Total:	1	14	22	12

The School 3 pupils, for instance, referred to climate change and sustainability, which were topics most commonly addressed in geography classes: ‘In the second year, we had to give a presentation about a sustainable energy source. And in geography, you have a whole chapter about climate change and all its causes and consequences’ (Extract 7, Pupil 3A). Another pupil from School 3 added that their geography teacher occasionally raises current environment-related issues, which then stimulate class discussion:

Extract 8 (Pupil 3B): …  in geography we haven't really had a chapter on it yet, but our teacher does talk to our class about it. So, outside the chapters, our teacher does talk about it if it happens to catch the eye. Then it's more about what’s going on in the world right now with climate change and why. And then we just talk about it with the class.

A teacher from School 2 also mentioned that Environmental GCE:

Extract 9 (Teacher 2B): … is very much in geography. Climate change is in the first year and in the third year. … And we … have said that we want to look more closely at what it will mean for us. … What influence could it have on you in fifty years? … I don’t want to see how it comes about because that's well written in the book, but specifically what the impact is on you as a person or as a group of people.

Moreover, the code critical humanist was also identified in the TTO coordinators’, teachers’, and pupils’ responses (15 references). For example, a TTO coordinator mentioned that during the school’s activities related to the Modern United Nations, the topic of LGBTQ+ (sub-code) is discussed, focusing on its relevance and challenges in the context of the Netherlands and worldwide:

Extract 10 (TTOCo3): We very deliberately choose the Modern United Nations for LGBTQ+, to also show the children that this is also a subject in the Netherlands. But that it is also a subject that is not always easy to discuss in the rest of the world. They learn that it is not always appreciated if you always say what you think and that they also need to have a certain dexterity in this, they should not run away from it. But in the conversation, it can help to be aware that it is not always as obvious as you think it is.

The sub-codes ‘racism’ and ‘patriarchy’ were also attributed to several responses, as illustrated by, for instance, Teacher 1A’s comment regarding class discussions on Kamala Harris: ‘ … for example Kamala Harris, we saw her speech, of course because she is the first female, East Asian and African-American Vice President. So, then we looked at the historical importance of her speech. … we talked about that in class’ (Extract 11).

The neoliberal-liberal interface

The distribution of the (sub-)codes for the neoliberal-liberal interface is presented in Table 8. The main code identified across all stakeholders was ‘Cultural (Cosmopolitan)’ GCE (47 references).

Table 8. Codes and sub-codes for the neoliberal-liberal interface across stakeholders.

Neoliberal-liberal interface	Principals	TTO coordinators	Teachers	Pupils
Cultural (Cosmopolitan)	5	11	20	11
Active engagement with variety of different practices	3	4	9	3
Globalisation	1	2	1	1
Understanding of Western dominance	1	0	1	1
Promote openness to others from other places	0	4	9	6
Americanisation	0	1	0	0
Limited implementation	0	0	0	1
Total:	5	11	20	12

The most attributed sub-code was ‘promote openness to others from other places’, followed by ‘active engagement with variety of different practices’. More specifically, the stakeholders primarily referred to exchanges and partnerships with other schools in Europe and worldwide, indicating how GCE is narrowly associated with internationalisation activities in education, as illustrated by the following extracts:

Extract 12 (Principal 3): Yes, normally, when we talk about exchanges, pupils just go on a trip for a week and then pupils from abroad come to us for a week. And then it's partly to get to know the school, so there are real assignments … and it’s partly about getting to know the country.

Extract 13 (School 1 pupil): In the second year, we went on the Oxford trip to [name of English school], and sometimes people came to the Netherlands. We also have an exchange programme in the fourth year, but unfortunately, it's not happening this year. But then you can go to South Africa or Australia, for example, and stay at schools there. We also write letters to a Japanese school.

The TTO coordinator at School 2 equally referred to how partnerships can contribute to deepening pupils’ knowledge of different life circumstances:

Extract 14 (TTCo2): We have many partnerships with schools in other countries. And I have had a partnership with a Danish school for 11 years. There were also pupils who lived at a boarding school, on the school grounds, who for social reasons could no longer live at home. That was also a very special partnership. These were pupils who often had a very difficult childhood with all kinds of major problems. And our unsuspecting, slightly spoilt grammar school kids, suddenly had a guest at home with a very difficult childhood.

Furthermore, both teachers and pupils commented on how different cultures are studied in school, such as in English, history, and life philosophy lessons:

Extract 15 (Teacher 1A): We focus on one country/region, and then we look specifically at the culture there. So that is definitely dealt with. In English, we always look at the cultures of English-speaking countries such as the US, UK, and Australia. We then look at how they came about and how it is possible that they have different cultures.

Extract 16 (School 3 pupil): For example, in history or geography. There are always subjects that I expect in history and such that have to do with culture. But we also often go deeper into it. For instance, in life philosophy classes and history, we were talking about communication and then it was about traditional costumes and we talked about this. That different cultures also wear different clothes.

A pupil from School 1, however, reported that Cultural GCE is implemented only to a limited extent, particularly in their French classes: ‘We also hear about culture in language classes, but we don't really go into depth. In French class, we talked about those teachers who were murdered because they gave their opinions. … But … it remains fairly superficial’ (Extract 17).

The critical orientation and its interfaces

The critical orientation of GCE was not coded in any of the principals’ responses but had a total of 29 references, most of which were found in teachers’ statements (16). The most attributed sub-codes for teachers, TTO-coordinators, and pupils were fake news (11) and the importance of critical thinking (9). For example, Teacher 1A mentioned that ‘Fake News and Donald Trump come up a lot. Trump has actually made fake news enormously famous. We also spend a lot of time on critical thinking and the colonial past’ (Extract 18).

School 3 pupils framed critical thinking in terms of evaluating sources in history classes and equally mentioned reflecting on fake news: ‘Yes, especially in history. But in English too, you sometimes have these texts, or you have to write a text about reliable sources, fake news … ’ (Extract 19).

In addition to the critical orientation, the critical-liberal-neoliberal interface was coded once in the data; School 3’s TTO coordinator referred to fair trade and activities they implement to raise pupils’ awareness of the negative impact of unethical labour and trade, with focus on global inequalities:

Extract 20 (TTOCo3): This is also reflected in the Modern United Nations. Children's clothes, for example, or where does Nike get its clothes made? Well, you have to pay something for that. If you want it to be fair trade, you have to pay a lot more. Or would you say that a hundred euros for a pair of Nikes is okay, but that they are made in Bangladesh? Do you know how that works? So that's actually a bit of awareness.

Less coded was the critical-liberal interface (9), of which the most attributed code was ‘Critical (Advocacy)’ (8), and in particular, the sub-code ‘post-colonial ideas’ was referred to by TTO-coordinators (3), teachers (2), and pupils (3). The TTO coordinator at School 1 mentioned:

Extract 21 (TTOCo1): Dutch history does not teach Dutch colonial history very well, it’s a little bit white washed. We definitely do this in history. … Unfortunately, it was closed down, but for many years we took at least three pupils to the slavery museum in Amsterdam. And then the geography teacher did a big unit on Dutch slavery (…).

School 1 pupils confirmed that there is some attention to the colonial past: ‘About the colonial past, it is in the book. But we haven't come to that yet. But I did read through it a bit and it does go on for two chapters’ (Extract 22). However, School 2 pupils criticised the fact that there is not enough information about the Dutch slavery past in the history book: ‘History, very bad. The book itself gives far too little information about slavery in my opinion. That is really far too little’ (Extract 23).

Discussion

To gain insights into how different education stakeholders perceive and implement GCE, this study set out to explore principals’, TTO coordinators’, teachers’, and pupils’ perceptions within the context of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands, with the aim of answering the following research question: Following which ideological orientations is Global Citizenship Education being implemented at Dutch secondary schools according to management and teaching staff and pupils?

Our analysis revealed that the liberal orientation towards GCE (Pashby et al. 2020) was dominant across all stakeholders in the sampled Dutch secondary schools. There was a clear emphasis on political sub-codes, in particular in relation to topics on democracy and international politics. These findings are in line with Gaudelli (2009) who mentions principles of democracy within the liberal orientation and Duarte (2021) who had previously identified the dominance of political GCE (as defined by Oxley and Morris 2013) in Dutch secondary schools with a marked GC profile. In addition to political themes, focus on moral sub-codes was also evident, particularly highlighting issues related to general values, such as empathy, and topics dealing with human rights. These results are consistent with Oxley and Morris (2013) who refer to universal values within cosmopolitan GCE (coded in this study under the liberal orientation, following Pashby et al. 2020) and describe GCE types that promote openness, love, and caring for each other. Andreotti (2014) also refers to the idea of a common humanity and common values. According to Pashby et al. (2020, 151), ‘“soft” GCE (Andreotti 2006) describes approaches based in the notion of a common humanity and a single view of progress where global justice issues are framed and responded to from within a Western, Global North status quo’. Based on our data, we propose that the statements coded under the liberal orientation do appear to correspond to ‘soft GCE’ skills as defined by Andreotti (2006). Nonetheless, we did find many instances of critical orientations (or interfaces involving critical orientations) visible in the data.

The liberal orientation was followed by statements attributed to the liberal-critical interface, the two most identified codes being Environmental (Advocacy) and critical humanist, whereas statements associated with spiritual issues were less frequently identified. This interface was, however, not coded in the principals’ responses. Regarding environmental topics, the stakeholders mentioned sustainability and climate change the most. According to Pashby et al. (2020), the liberal-critical interface aims at challenging the status quo by raising questions regarding power while relying on existing institutions and processes to do so, which may reproduce colonial ideas. And the topics and activities described under the environmental sub-code of the liberal-critical interface do in fact suggest a desire to challenge the existing situation regarding sustainability and climate change but often by focusing on short-term solutions aimed at fixing the problem (e.g., sustainable energy sources and recycling) instead of exploring long-term solutions such as drastic changes in consumer or recreational (e.g., diminishing travelling and drastically raising meat prices) behaviours, which would question existing structures in a much broader way.

Issues falling under the critical humanist sub-code were mostly related to LGBTQ+ topics and addressing racism. Andreotti (2014) specifies that there is a focus on consensual human progress, involving an opposition to attitudes and actions related to racism, sexism, and patriarchy, which we found in our data. Analysing the example given for how LGBTQ+ is addressed at one school, we are provided with a comparison of how this issue is dealt with in the Netherlands, glorifying the seemingly open society with freedom of pursuit of any sexual identity, as opposed to constraints of LGBTQ+ communities in other settings. This again demonstrates a tendency towards ‘soft’ GCE (Andreotti 2006), as the perspective taken is one that fosters the comparison of different cultural traits in relation to the LGBTQ+ issues and not of understanding the phenomenon itself and critically analysing issues of exclusion and inclusion of these communities in general (and in the Netherlands). According to Andreotti (2006), within soft forms of GCE, pupils act without critical analysis of issues such as inequality, whereas critical GCE inherently involves confronting power relations—the historical and structural inequalities that privileged pupils are often surprised to realise they have benefitted from. Analysing Extract 4, however, in which a teacher presents their approach to LGBTQ+ in relation to the history of people’s rights in different countries to highlight why Purple Friday is still needed, the critical orientation seems to be present. Pupils are invited to formulate a statement to express what they think and to make a judgment on the extent to which they think their society is progressive or not, which would in turn contribute to their personal development (i.e., subjectification; Biesta 2017). These findings suggest that critical dimensions of GCE may be very much dependent on the teachers’ own approach to the topics and not so much on the topics themselves.

Furthermore, GCE in Dutch bilingual secondary education was also found to be marked by a neoliberal-liberal interface. In line with Pashby et al. (2020) and Oxley and Morris (2013), we found an evident focus on Cultural GCE in the form of statements that bear witness to activities promoting openness towards the Other, as well as active engagement with a variety of different (cultural) practices. This was mainly realised through a focus on the acquisition of English language skills, demonstrating the role of GCE in providing context in CLIL-based education (see also qualification, Biesta 2017), and activities that promote contact between pupils of different cultural backgrounds, such as excursions or exchanges. The emphasis here was distinctly on ‘looking at other cultures that have different cultures’ (Extract 15) or analysing ‘different traditions’, such as ‘wearing different clothes’ (Extract 16). The operationalisation of the neoliberal-liberal interface is thus in line with Cosmopolitan Cultural GC as proposed by Oxley and Morris (2013), which entails an understanding of Western dominance of culture, within which the focus is on the individual becoming more culturally competent rather than on significant, systemic changes to the status quo, which could contribute to reducing existing inequalities or power imbalances.

Overall, although most of the GCE activities described by the stakeholders can be attributed to ‘soft’ forms of GCE (Andreotti 2006), there were, in some of the presented extracts, clear indications of ‘critical’ orientations. These are mainly associated with an in-depth historical-based approach towards understanding how certain topics have evolved over time (e.g., human rights) or how they will impact individuals in the future (e.g., climate change), instead of being based on a comparison of a topic’s current manifestations across different regions or countries. Similar to Pashby et al. (2020), our data suggest that the liberal orientation and its interfaces are possible spaces for further negotiation on the conceptualisations of GCE, particularly regarding the scope of ‘the modern/colonial imaginary’. On the one hand, we did find evidence of an enduring colonial mindset that has kept this imaginary in place but, on the other hand, we identified instances in the data across all stakeholders that refute ‘the impossibility of transcending this imaginary’ (Pashby et al. 2020, 161). These reflections by practitioners and pupils should be used to further develop (Dutch) GCE.

Conclusion

Global Citizenship Education is becoming increasingly relevant in a growing number of education systems worldwide. Understanding how it is conceptualised and how such conceptualisations are operationalised in pedagogical practice are imperative. In our study on GCE in Dutch (bilingual) secondary education, we found considerable agreement across the different stakeholders in how they perceive GCE is being implemented in terms of its main discursive orientations and interfaces. There was a clear dominance of the liberal orientation towards GCE, focusing on political and moral themes (Oxley and Morris 2013; Pashby et al. 2020). However, we also identified other orientations and interfaces in Dutch GCE, including critical, liberal-critical, and neoliberal-liberal ones. Moreover, there was evidence in our data of how GCE provides context for and enriches CLIL-based education to enhance language skill and personal development (Biesta 2017), although the role of CLIL in the sampled schools did not appear to be dominant. There remains a gap in the literature, however, regarding the interplay between GCE and CLIL-based education, thus highlighting the need for further research that can be used to inform the development of such educational programmes.

To interpret these results appropriately, a few shortcomings of our study need to be acknowledged. We recognise that further refinement of Pashby et al.’s (2020) social cartography would be needed to apply it to a larger dataset of practitioners’ and pupils’ interview data. The different orientations and interfaces are somewhat overlapping, which led to difficulties in coding the data. Moreover, our focus in this study was mainly on data derived from the more academic tiers of the Dutch education system and on schools with a global scope or a clear profile on bilingual education and internationalisation; therefore, the results are not representative of mainstream (Dutch) secondary education. As indicated by Goren and Yemini (2017), more research focusing on how pupils’ socio-economic background influences teachers’ definitions and perceptions of GCE is needed.

Our data were, however, valuable in showing how orientations towards GCE are operationalised by practitioners in diverse ways, thus leading to different experiences for principals, TTO coordinators, teachers, and pupils. The differences are mainly not to be found in the topics addressed within GCE, as attested by the large overlap in the perceptions of the different stakeholders interviewed for our study as to what types of GCE are implemented, but rather in the level of critique with which pupils are expected to engage with them. This offers some perspectives as to how teachers’ professional development for GCE can be shaped in the Global North—teachers do not need inspiration in terms of topics or ready-to-use materials but should be encouraged to experiment with pedagogical arrangements that stimulate ‘critical’ (Andreotti 2006) forms of GCE.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).