الموارد

1. This report aims to provide a stimulus for further thought, work and debate in the design of assessment frameworks for an education that supports people in leading fulfilling lives in a changing, globalised world, and in particular within the context of debates around post-2015 universal targets and indicators that are relevant to an education for global citizenship (EfGC). 2. In providing that stimulus the report addresses the following questions: a. What are the key differences and similarities between diverse forms of ‘adjectival educations’ that contribute to, or generally express themselves as allied to an ‘education for global citizenship’? b. What do they contribute to an education for global citizenship? c. How, if at all, do they interpret the notion of ‘transformation’? d. What do practitioners consider to be the major challenges and opportunities for monitoring (transformative) education for global citizenship? e. Which approaches and means of monitoring and assessing transformative education for global citizenship appear to be feasible? 3. The report is based on information obtained from: a. Literature reviews; b. Workshops, involving 65 educators in total, held in Brazil, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and three locations in Europe; c. Responses to a questionnaire completed by 218 educators working in more than 50 countries, albeit with a predominance of respondents based in Europe. 4. The origins and key characteristics of development education, global education and global learning, human rights education, and education for sustainable development are explored, leading to statements about their commonalities and contributions to an education for global citizenship. These commonalties appear to be particularly in the areas of their shared global orientation, pursuit of personal and/or societal transformation, active and enquiry based teaching and learning methodologies, and overlapping content. 5. The commonalities which the discussed educations contribute to - and share with – education for global citizenship appear to be particularly around: a. values and dispositions which enable a response to, and advocacy for, change, b. engagement with diverse ideas, opinions and understandings, c. a stimulus to investigate and develop creativity by means of learning, d. building skills and capacities as part of a process of lifelong learning, e. a generic educational approach that aims at involvement in an explicit process of change. 6. Within such a context differences appear amongst practitioners and theoreticians in the use, meaning and function of the term ‘global citizenship’, with some seeing it primarily as a tool in advocacy while others view it primarily as a means of explanation of human relations globally. 7. Critique on the usefulness and use of the terms ‘global citizenship’ is outlined and the world-wide, universal, use of the term ‘education for global citizenship’ is questioned. However, its intentions as an approach of transformative education for critical and active engagement in a globalised society are seen as having universal relevance. 8. That approach is described as “a learning process for people’s critical and active engagement in and with global society, involving people in developing their capacities, capabilities and motivation to be actively engaged in personal and collective human development. It does this by drawing on a critical understanding and consideration of global processes and interdependencies, of other people’s perspectives and interests, of environmental opportunities and limitations, and of universal rights.” 9. The approach is further defined by a number of ‘core signifiers’ (which can form the basis for indicators of achievement) relating to: a. pedagogy – characteristics of the teaching process, b. capacities and capabilities – regarding the learner’s competence, c. values – as exhibited in the teaching and learning process, d. content – the learner’s acquisition of core understandings, e. outcome – regarding the learner’s dispositions, f. social transformation – regarding the learner’s contributions to community and wider society. 10. The report continues by providing a summary review of selected literature regarding the design of monitoring frameworks that appear pertinent to an education for global citizenship. It discusses work done in relation to universal targets and indicators, country based frameworks, education institutional monitoring, educator competence, and learner outcomes. It draws particular attention to the importance of quality assessment, the need to involve the range of education stakeholders in the design, application and interpretation of indicators, and the need to enable learning from experiences. 11. Further information about the challenges and opportunities for monitoring education for global citizenship is obtained from ideas and opinions given by workshop participants and questionnaire respondents. Respondents recognise that developing a universal monitoring framework can help to clarify the purpose and meaning of EfGC for both practitioners and policy makers. However, they also recognise that there is a risk that agreement might be reached around a lowest common denominator approach. The importance of participation by practitioners in, and their ownership of, the monitoring content and process is highlighted. The potential uses of monitoring data and analyses in demonstrating the impact of EfGC on broader cross-curricular outcomes and educational achievements, is seen by respondents as a means to gain further recognition of the value of EfGC. 12. Based on the foregoing, the final chapter of the report provides a number of suggestions as a stimulus for further work, thought and debate. These suggestions focus on: a. a monitoring framework that addresses the holistic nature of EfGC; b. an assessment framework to do with learning outcomes that exemplify the core signifiers mentioned in paragraph 9 above; c. indicators and a monitoring approach that is applicable at national levels, enabling monitoring of progress for specific sectoral aspects of EfGC (teacher education is given as an example of such a sectoral aspect); d. a universal target that builds on the description of EfGC given in paragraph 8 above; e. indicator groupings that can show progress against such a universal target.