1. Introduction
In 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the World Education Forum introduced the Education 2030, Incheon Declaration. Together, these milestones established global citizenship education as a key priority in international education policy (UNESCO, 2015). In line with this shift, the international education paradigm led by organizations such as the United Nations is evolving, with growing emphasis on the significance of global citizenship education. Unlike the traditional educational paradigm that focused on enhancing individual competitiveness and national interests, this can be seen as a transformative educational paradigm that encourages active participation in global challenges and calls for individuals to become responsible members of the international community (Lee et al., 2015; Jo et al., 2018).
In particular, nurturing global citizenship is crucial for young people living in the era of globalization, as it prepares them to step onto the global stage and develop into future leaders (Perry et al., 2013). Universities bear the responsibility for education, making their role crucial in this regard. In line with this, universities, either independently or with support from international organizations, are offering global citizenship education courses, though the course titles may vary across institutions. Thanks to these efforts, positive outcomes have been observed, such as the enhancement of students’ global citizenship, high willingness to participate in courses, and improved critical thinking skills in addressing global issues (Lee & Kim, 2021; Park & Yoo, 2021; Kim et al., 2021). As a result, the importance of global citizenship education is expected to grow even further.
However, despite these achievements, recent studies on learners’ perceptions of global citizenship education suggest that there remains a gap between awareness and practice. While there is recognition of the need for revised textbooks that include concrete, activity-linked examples (Chae et al., 2015) and global issues (Kim et al., 2021), learners often remain at the level of acknowledging the importance of global citizenship education rather than translating that awareness into action or participation (Lee, 2017; Nguyen, 2021). In addition, a perceptual gap exists between instructors and learners: while students tend to favor interactive approaches such as discussions, many instructors often express concerns about students’ ability to engage meaningfully in such activities and even themselves struggle to establish a clear understanding of global citizenship education (Lee et al., 2016; Trede et al., 2013; Rapoport, 2010). It has raised questions about the overall effectiveness of the education.
Accordingly, although global citizenship education has been shown to positively influence learners’ attitudes, a significant gap remains between current classroom practices and the ideal educational model. This suggests that, without bridging this gap, achieving the core goals of global citizenship may be difficult. Therefore, it is a prerequisite to first understand how learners perceive global citizenship education.
Building on this background, the present study aims to explore learners’ perspectives on global citizenship education. In particular, it seeks to analyze these perceptions from a more comprehensive standpoint, addressing the limitations of previous studies that have typically focused narrowly on aspects such as curriculum, learners’ attitudes, or societal impact. This research expands the scope by examining not only teaching materials, instructor competence, and learner-centered pedagogies as identified in earlier studies, but also the university’s operational system, learners’ knowledge and skill acquisition, behavioral changes, and the broader impact on the local community.
This study aims to identify the mismatch between learners’ perceptions and the current state of global citizenship education, assess its effectiveness, and offer insights that may guide the future direction of global citizenship education. Ultimately, the findings are expected to contribute to advancing efforts toward achieving the goals of global citizenship education.
To this end, the study addresses the following research questions:
① What perspectives do learners hold regarding the global citizenship course?
② How does the global citizenship course influence learners?
③ Is there a gap between students’ perceptions and the actual course content and structure? If so, what are the specific differences?
④ What would an ideal class look like in order to effectively achieve the goals of global citizenship education?
2. Literature Review
As this research aims at investigating perceptions of university students on global citizenship course based on multidimensional perspectives, literature was reviewed through classified into three parts: the implementation of global citizenship courses, learners’ perspectives on global citizenship course, and elements of global citizenship education used in this study.
2.1. Global Citizenship Course
With the shift in the educational paradigm from a traditional to a transformative approach, largely driven by the SDGs, the core of global education policy goals, many universities in Korea have introduced global citizenship courses as either mandatory or elective liberal arts subjects. The course or subject name may vary slightly between schools, including understanding and awareness of global citizenship, global issues and civic engagement, multicultural education for global citizens, and so forth, but they all share a common objective: nurturing global citizens committed to advancing the SDGs.
Building on this background, this study focuses on seven four-year universities in Daegu and Gyeongsangbuk-do which have implemented regular global citizenship courses as part of their liberal arts curriculum. The courses were gathered from each university’s official website and categorized by type. In addition, interviews were conducted with subject representatives, who do not serve as respondents in this study, to minimize bias. As shown in Table 1, the content of the textbooks or teaching materials used in the classes are primarily categorized into five types: globalization, global citizenship, diverse cultures, sustainable development, and ESG and cases, with most courses carrying two credits.
<Table 1>
Content of global citizenship course
Each category mainly addresses global issues or challenges, highlighting various cases that the UN and UNESCO emphasize in order to achieve the SDGs. More specifically, category I encompasses the broad concepts of globalization, including its history and characteristics, II concentrates on the definition and characteristics of global citizenship, as well as the opportunities it presents, III addresses the broad concepts of cultural diversity by exploring the coexistence of various cultural groups, VI focuses on SDGs, with an emphasis on balancing economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection, and lastly, V deals with ESG (environmental, social and governance) along with pressing global issues, guiding learners on how to approach these challenges, engage with them, and take action.
The teaching methods vary depending on the type of class, but it is clear that all the schools prioritize a learner-centered approach. This includes methods focused on discussion, presentation, and open-ended questions, rather than one-sided lectures. Through this process, the instructor encouraged students to view global issues more objectively, analyze them, and develop their own ideas for potential solutions. Ultimately, the aim of the course is to bring learners one step closer to becoming responsible global citizens. Most classes are regarded as mandatory subjects and, in some cases, as part of the graduation requirements, meaning global citizenship courses play a significant role in university education.
2.2. Learners’ Perspectives on Global Citizenship Course
Learners’ perspectives on global citizenship courses typically include a positive impact on their attitudes, a response to the teaching materials, and a preference for learner-centered teaching methods. First, taking a look at learners’ perspective on global citizenshop courses, through a satisfaction survey, it was found that students’ overall interest in global citizenship education increased. Additionally, even those who had no prior interest developed an interest after taking the course. In the survey, it was ranked as the top choice among general education courses that students wished to be offered (Kim et al, 2020; Kim et al, 2021). Moreover, there was an increased interest in global issues, and it was noted that this served as a turning point for developing a critical perspective on the world (Kim et al., 2018).
However, despite these positive impacts, it was mentioned that there is a need to improve the course materials by including concrete examples and real-world global issues for practical activities, rather than focusing solely on theory or concepts (Chae et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2021). Satisfaction with the course materials was found to be low. In this regard, Lee & Kim (2021) argues that there is a need for flexibility and adaptability in course materials to include content that addresses the issues of the times, such as the climate crisis and diseases, which we are currently facing. As a result, it can be seen that there was an impact on learners’ attitude changes. While they understood the need for fostering citizenship, their willingness to engage in active practice and participation was relatively low (Lee, 2017). In another sense, it can be interpreted that while the importance of understanding other cultures is recognized, it falls short of leading to changes in attitude or behavior (Nguyen, 2021).
Lastly, regarding teaching methods, learners mentioned that class formats such as discussions or team projects were helpful in understanding the course content, and that the most valuable learning experience gained from the class was the exchange of diverse opinions and presentation experiences (Jeong et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2020). However, the importance of learner-centered teaching methods appears to be in contrast with the current class. For example, while instructors understand the need for changes in teaching methods, they still implement instructor-centered classes that are primarily textbook-based and lecture-style (Başarır, 2017). From a slightly different perspective, Thanosawan & Laws (2013) also highlighted teaching methods as a major concern, noting that unlike in Western countries, students in Asian nations like South Korea and Japan are more used to memorization-based learning, which contrasts with the critical thinking and problem-solving skills needed for global citizenship education.
The existing studies highlight the importance of noting that global citizenship classes positively influence students by encouraging shifts in their attitudes toward the world. However, there is a significant discrepancy between learners’ perceptions and the actual teaching methods used in class. It can be interpreted that it is critical to find out what learners think of the current class more systematically before focusing on the increase of the subects.
2.3. Elements of Global Citizenship Used in This Study
A review of the related studies reveals that global citizenship courses primarily cover key concepts such as diverse cultures, sustainable development, and ESG, along with various global issues. Additionally, learners’ perspectives point to a generally positive impact on their attitudes. However, several limitations within the current educational system were also identified, including the limited scope of textbook content, minimal influence on behavioral change, and discrepancies between learners and instructors in terms of teaching methodologies. These findings suggest that global citizenship education should not be evaluated based on a single factor, but rather through a comprehensive consideration of all its interconnected components.
According to UNESCO (2013), evaluating global citizenship education requires a holistic approach that acknowledges the dynamic interplay between individuals, education systems, and society. Individuals are influenced by societal forces and capable of shaping educational environments, while education systems both reflect and shape societal values. As such, an effective assessment framework of global citizenship education must encompass all three components to fully capture their interconnected roles in promoting global citizenship. UNESCO (2013), therefore, proposes a three-tiered model for measuring global citizenship education; the supplier level, which analyzes elements within the education system; the receiver, which evaluates the impact on individual learners; and the societal, which considers the broader institutional and socio-economic context.
In addition, several related studies emphasize different aspects of global citizenship education and its impact on learners. Morais and Ogden (2011), along with Yoon & Kang (2017) categorize global citizenship education into three key components: knowledge and skills, attitudes and values, and behavior. A bit differently, Lee (2014), Lee et al. (2017), and Rapoport (2010) underscore the significance of university systems and curricula. Similarly, Kim et al., (2020) emphasizes the multifaceted role of universities, particularly focusing on institutional systems, curricula, instructors’ capabilities, and their collective influence on learners.
Particularly, in relation to societal factors, Nikolitsa et al. (2021) and Han et al. (2019) highlight the importance of social integration and civic participation. Trede et al. (2013) focuses on societal openness and the responsibilities of higher education institutions, specifically the roles of instructors and educational programs. Similarly, Aktas et al. (2017) highlights both societal dimensions such as social integration and openness, and institutional factors, including operating systems and curricula.
Accordingly, based on the reviewed literature, it appears that global citizenship education should be evaluated from multiple perspectives, including university, learners, and society. [Figure 1] presents the conceptual framework of this study, which has been modified by incorporating UNESCO’s three dimensions, supplier, receiver, and society, along with insights from related literature. With this foundation, the present research is conducted from a multidimensional perspective, going beyond the limitations of existing studies that tend to focus on a narrow aspect of global citizenship education.
[Figure 1]
Areas specifying the components of the indicator for measuring global citizenship education
Each domain comprises three subdomains; university includes operating systems, instructors’ capabilities, and curriculum; learners are characterized by the cognitive domain corresponding to knowledge and skills, the socio-emotional aligning with attitudes and values, and the behavioral, particularly the three stages are developed from the cognitive to behavioral (UNESCO, 2015); society encompasses openness, civic participation, and social integration. These three categories are interrelated, with the society domain often regarded as the ultimate goal of global citizenship education, as it reflects how learners are inspired by classroom experiences and go on to impact society.
Against the backdrop, this study aims at exploring students’ thoughts on the current class from deep in their heart based on multidimensional perspectives. By analyzing the differences between the actual class and the one students desire, this can not only help bridge the gap but also offer insights into which specific aspects of the class need to be improved or supplemented for future course development.
3. Research Framework and Q-Methodology
3.1. Research Framework
Since this study aims to explore learners’ perceptions of global citizenship courses, it seeks to identify both the commonalities and differences in their views, uncover what these perspectives reveal about the current system, and, where possible, offer suggestions for future course development. The Q-methodology is particularly well-suited to this purpose, as it captures the diversity of opinions that can exist even within a single classroom, as examined in this study. This approach begins with participants’ own attitudes shaped by their personal thoughts and experiences, rather than being driven by the researcher’s assumptions (Kim, 2008). As such, it aligns closely with the objectives of this research.
To analyze the results, this study employs Q-methodology, an approach that effectively integrates both qualitative and quantitative methods. Q-methodology is particularly well-suited for exploring subjective viewpoints on a specific theme, offering valuable insights that can inform better decision-making (Kim, 2008). Given that the aim of this research is to investigate learners’ personal perceptions of a global citizenship course and to propose directions for enhancing its effectiveness, Q-methodology is especially relevant and appropriate for the study.
The research framework for this study is illustrated in Figure 2. Q-methodology, which underpins the analysis, involves five key steps: Q population, Q sample, P sample, Q sorting, and factor analysis and interpretation. In the Q population step, a broad range of statements related to the global citizenship course were collected. During the Q sample step, a refined selection of statements was made, and categorized under the themes of university, learners, and society. The P sample step involved selecting participants who were actively enrolled in the course to contribute their subjective views on the statements. In the Q sorting step, participants sorted the selected statements based on their personal viewpoints. Finally, factor analysis was conducted using specialized software. This analysis categorized the results into three distinct types, Type I, Type II, and Type III each offering insights into different patterns of perception for further interpretation.
3.2. Q-Methodology
This research followed the five key steps of Q-methodology, Q population, Q sample, P sample, Q sorting, and factor analysis and interpretation, each of which was carried out in detail. The process from Q population through Q sorting extended over nearly five months, from February to June 2024.
3.2.1. Q population
The Q-population, also referred to as the concourse, is the first step in Q-methodology and involves collecting a broad range of statements related to the research subject. These statements may be drawn from diverse sources such as academic literature, textbooks, government documents, media articles, and interviews with individuals involved in relevant fields. A key characteristic of this step is the emphasis on collecting opinions rather than objective facts, underscoring the self-referential and subjective nature of Q-methodology (Kim, 1996). In the context of this study, which focuses on global citizenship courses, the Q-population consisted of statements specifically related to various aspects of these courses. Between February and March 2024, a total of 178 statements were compiled from sources including scholarly literature, interviews, and newspapers.
3.2.2. Q sample
The Q sample, or Q-set, refers to the finalized collection of statements that are actually used in the research. These statements can be categorized as either structured or unstructured samples, depending on the method of selection. A structured sample is typically employed when the research seeks to verify or explore existing theoretical frameworks, whereas an unstructured sample is often used to uncover new or emergent insights (Kim, 2008; Brown, 1972).
This study adopts a structured sampling approach, grounded in relevant frameworks such as UNESCO’s global citizenship education measurement indicators and related existing academic literature. Out of the initial 178 statements collected, 36 were selected through a pretest shown in Table A1. Selection criteria included thematic relevance, participant specificity, clarity to avoid ambiguous or double meanings, and expert feedback in Q-methodology.
Regarding the size of the Q-sample, Q-methodology differs from traditional R-methods in that it does not require large sample sizes; instead, it focuses on analyzing subjectivity and the divergence of individual perspectives across factors (Kim, 2008). The 36 final statements were organized into three thematic categories: Statements No. 1 to 12: University, focusing on operating systems (from 1 to 4), instructor capabilities (5 to 8), and curriculum (9 to 12): S-No. 13 to 24: Learners, covering the cognitive domain (13 to 16), the socio-emotional (17 to 20), and the behavioral competencies (21 to 24): S-No. 25 to 36: Society, addressing concepts of openness (25 to 28), active participation (29 to 32), and contribution to social integration (33 to 36). The finalized Q-sample was developed in April 2024.
3.2.3. P sample
The P sample, or P-set, refers to the group of stakeholders who are directly engaged with the issue under investigation and are capable of articulating their own perspectives on the topic. In Q-methodology, unlike traditional R-method approaches, the number of participants is not required to be large. Instead, the method follows the small sample principle, focusing on the depth and richness of individual perspectives rather than statistical generalizability (Brown, 1972). In this approach, participants are treated as variables, while the statements represent the sample (Kim, 2010). The primary requirement is to include a sufficient number of participants to extract and compare distinct factors, thereby capturing diverse subjective viewpoints.
In this study, the P sample consists of university students who were actively enrolled in global citizenship courses during the Spring Semester of 2024 at universities located in Gyeongsangbuk-do and Daegu. A total of 40 students, 5 to 6 from each university, all of whom voluntarily agreed to participate in the study, were selected as the participant group displayed in Table A2. The P sample was finalized in April 2024.
3.2.4. Q-Sorting
In the Q-sort stage, each participant arranged the selected statements on a distribution board according to their own subjective viewpoints. A fundamental aspect of this step is that it does not seek to determine whether participants’ opinions are right or wrong; rather, it aims to capture the unique and personal ways individuals interpret the topic. To enrich the data, participants were encouraged to articulate their reasoning and express their thoughts about the course while performing the sorting task. This qualitative input offered deeper insight into the subjective meanings behind their rankings. Throughout this process, the researcher remained neutral and took care to minimize any form of bias, either in favor of or against the participants’ opinions, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of the data.
The distribution board used in this study employed ranges from -4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), across nine columns. The number of available slots in each column followed this order: 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 3, and 2, reflecting the shape of a forced-choice distribution. This Q-sorting phase, which demanded significant time and attention from participants, was the most time-intensive part of the entire procedure and was conducted between May and June 2024.
3.2.5. Factor analysis
Finally, factor analysis was conducted using PQMethod, one of the most widely recognized tools for Q-methodology. The analysis employed principal component analysis followed by varimax rotation to identify distinct patterns in participants’ subjective responses. As a result, three factors with the highest eigenvalues, each exceeding the threshold of 1, were extracted, specifically: 20.0159, 6.2060, and 4.7927. These factors represent dominant perspectives among the participants and include 14, 12, and 9 participants, respectively.
As will be further elaborated in subsequent sections, these three factors emerged as significant typologies in this study. In terms of correlation, the highest correlation, 0.4688, was observed between Factor I and III, while the lowest, 0.2445, occurred between Factor I and II. However, as Q-methodology prioritizes subjective interpretation, these correlation scores do not imply statistical independence in the same way as quantitative methodologies (Kim, 2008).
Participant distribution across the three types is as follows; Type I consists of 14 respondents: No. 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 17, 21, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, and 40; Type II includes 12: No. 2, 3, 9, 13, 14, 20, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37, and 38; Type III comprises 9: No. 5, 12, 16, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26 and 27. The detailed characteristics and factor weights of each respondent are presented in Table A2.
4. Analysis and Discussion
Factor analysis has revealed that learners exhibit three distinct characteristics, which will be analyzed in detail below: Openness to Society Oriented, Learners’ Cognitive & University Instructor’s Capabilities Oriented, and Learners’ Cognitive & Socio-Emotional Oriented. Unfortunately, no single type encompasses all three domains, as each factor exhibits its own distinct characteristics.
4.1. Type I: Openness to Society Oriented
Type I is named Openness to Society, with 14 respondents, making it the largest group among the three shown in Table A2. This type is labeled Openness to Society because the statements that received the strongest agreements (+4 and +3) primarily fall under the Society category, specifically within the openness subcategory in Table 2.
<Table 2>
Statements and Z-scores of Type I
By examining S-No. 25, 26, and 27, it appears that respondents in this category have learned to respect diverse cultures within their local community, developed a heightened interest in cultures different from their own, and gained a deeper understanding of cultural differences. This is particularly significant, as engagement with society can serve as an initial step toward taking action based on what learners have studied in class. These findings suggest that the global citizenship course has played a pivotal role in shaping learners’ attitudes toward their local community (Lee & Kim, 2021; Park & Yoo, 2021; Kim, 2018).
Interviews with Respondents No. 7, 31, 39, and 40 further confirmed their strong interest in local issues, such as multicultural families, international students, and the population decline in local areas, with some even proposing potential solutions to these challenges. Moreover, the respondents demonstrated an openness to diverse perspectives, noting that they had become accustomed to interacting with classmates from various cultural backgrounds and felt comfortable being immersed in multicultural environments.
Furthermore, the findings related to textbooks (S-No. 10), which differ from those of previous studies (Chae et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2021; Lee, 2017; Nguyen, 2021), suggest that the university has made dedicated efforts to develop specialized curricula and textbooks that promote global citizenship. This suggests a proactive institutional commitment to integrating global perspectives into academic content to equip students with the knowledge, values, and competencies necessary for active participation in an increasingly interconnected world.
Despite the positive impact on learners’ perceptions, Type I exhibited negative responses toward the domain of contribution to social integration, the ultimate goal of global citizenship education, by disagreeing with S-No. 35, 34, 36, and 33. This indicates that achieving the ultimate objectives of global citizenship may require more time and development. Additionally, respondents expressed negative views on S-No. 24, which contains learners’ behavioral change, suggesting that they are not yet ready to fully acknowledge personal responsibility for their actions. It can be translated that while Type I appears well-prepared to recognize cultural differences, they remain primarily at the stage of understanding the existence of diverse cultures, rather than actively engaging in societal contribution.
Unfortunately, it appears that Type I is not fully satisfied with all three categories, suggesting that this type still has some way to go in fully comprehending the concept of global citizenship or in developing into global citizens. However, compared with other two types to be detailed, Type I is the only appearing meaningful in the society domain indicating a green light for fully embracing the concept of global citizenship.
4.2. Type II: Learners’ Cognitive & University Instructor’s Capabilities Oriented
Type II is named Learners’ Cognitive & University Instructor’s Capabilities Oriented, comprising 12 respondents, making it the second-largest group, as shown in Table A2. This type is labeled as such because the statements that received strong agreement scores (+4 and +3) primarily fall under the learners’ cognitive domain and university instructors’ capabilities in Table 3.
<Table 3>
Statements and Z-scores of Type II
Regarding S-No. 13, 14, and 15, the positive responses indicate that participants in this type strongly support the cognitive dimension of the global citizenship education, particularly by recognizing the interconnectedness between the local community, the nation, and the global context by acknowledging that global issues inevitably impact local communities. This aligns with the primary stage of UNESCO’s global citizenship education, which emphasizes the importance of learners’ understanding fundamental global concepts (UNESCO, 2015). However, while this type shows a clear inclination toward the cognitive domain, progressing to the final stage, behavioral change, remains a significant challenge and may require further development over time.
Additionally, the participants acknowledged the positive influence of instructors in shaping their attitudes (S-No. 5 and 7). In particular, according to the interview with R-No. 9, 29, and 30, it was found that group discussions, presentations, and team projects were highly effective not only in deepening students’ understanding of course content but also in motivating them to engage more seriously with global issues. These findings are consistent with previous studies that highlight the critical role of instructional methods and educator facilitation in developing global citizenship competencies (Jeong et al., 2018; Lim et al., 2020). This naturally proves that it is contrast with Başarır (2017) and Thanosawan & Laws (2013) stating that instructors still view lecture-based teaching as more effective within the current educational context by arguing students may not yet be ready for participatory or experiential learning activities.
Given the statements with unfavorable responses, however, as the respondents showed a lack of interest in developing a greater appreciation for the diverse cultures in their community by presenting a negative perspective on S-No. 26, reaching the essential goal of global citizenship education may be difficulty for them. Interviews with R-N. 13, 14, 20, and 37 also revealed that while they had no issue attending class with international students from diverse backgrounds, they still found it challenging to voluntarily pay more attention to other cultures and make an effort to understand them more deeply. This was primarily because they had never engaged in deep conversations to truly get to know them and had limited exposure to different cultures.
Moreover, this type mostly disagreed with statements related to the society domain, particularly those concerning contribution to social integration, indicating that respondents in this group have only recently begun engaging with global citizenship, mainly through alignment with the learners’ cognitive domain. The same pattern was observed in Type I; however, the key difference between the two types is that Type I is much closer to achieving the goal of global citizenship, as reflected in their responses regarding societal openness.
4.3. Type III: Learners‘ Cognitive & Socio-emotional Oriented
Type III, identified as Learners’ Cognitive & Socio-emotional Oriented, includes 9 respondents, making it the smallest group as shown in Table A2. This type is labeled as such because the statements with the highest levels of agreement (+4 and +3) primarily fall within the domains of learners’ cognitive and socio-emotional development in Table 4.
<Table 4>
Statements and Z-scores of Type III
Firstly, with regard to S-N. 14, 15, and 13, this type demonstrates a solid understanding of the cognitive domain by understanding interconnected global issues and its impact on community, which represents the initial stage of learners’ development of global citizenship. Furthermore, the participants also show a positive response to the socio-emotional domain, particularly in relation to S-N. 17 and 18, reflecting a favorable attitude towards diverse cultures in their community. Although participants in this type do not exhibit strong agreement with items in the behavioral domain, their responses still suggest meaningful progress toward becoming global citizens.
According to interviews with R-N. 5, 16, 26, and 27, the respondents not only demonstrated a global awareness on how local actions and experiences are influenced by, and contribute to, broader global dynamics, but also expressed their communities are composed of individuals from a range of cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds. This dual recognition reflects a growing sensitivity to global interdependence and the importance of inclusivity at a local level, essential components of global citizenship.
This awareness was primarily fostered through team projects and the use of diverse learning materials beyond the standard textbook, focused on cultural conflicts and pressing issues within the community. It eventually offered students valuable opportunities to engage with and understand differing perspectives, something they admitted they had rarely considered before. This finding aligns with previous research, which emphasizes the importance of including a wide range of social issues in textbooks (Chae et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2021; Lee, 2017). It also supports the effectiveness of learner-centered approaches (Jeong et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2020), challenging instructors’ assumptions that students are not yet prepared for open discussion (Başarır, 2017; Thanosawan & Laws, 2013).
However, the findings for this type indicate that the respondents are not yet ready to progress to the behavioral stage, as there were no statistically significant responses to the statement in that category. This supports previous research suggesting that global citizenship education alone may not be sufficient to bring about behavioral change in learners (Lee, 2017; Nguyen, 2021). Nevertheless, unlike Type II, this group responded positively to items related to attitudes and values, signaling a promising step forward for the continued development of global citizenship if supported by more effective pedagogical strategies.
A notable similarity among Types I, II, and III is their shared unfavorable views toward the society domain. Ironically, all three types show disagreement with the statements related to social integration (S-N. 33, 34, 35, and 36), which represent the ultimate objective in the development of global citizenship. This consistent pattern suggests that there may still be a long journey ahead before learners fully embody the ideals of social integration. However, considering the development of three distinct characteristics, there is potential for meaningful progress that if efforts at three levels, university, learners, and society, work collaboratively, the possibility of successfully connecting three dimensions becomes much greater.
5. Conclusions and Suggestions
This research aimed to explore how students perceive a global citizenship course through the lens of multidimensional perspectives, university, learners and society. The findings revealed three distinct respondent types: Openness to Society Oriented, Learners’ Cognitive & University Instructor’s Capabilities Oriented, and Learners’ Cognitive & Socio-emotional Oriented. Notably, none of the types demonstrated support across all three domains as shown in Figure 3, highlighting the complexity of fostering holistic global citizenship. As expected, all three types expressed disagreement with statements within the society domain specifically participation and integration, suggesting that achieving the ultimate goal of global citizenship education remains a significant challenge. There could be several factors contributing the effectiveness of the current education. Particularly, based on the interviews conducted and literature reviewed in this study, three primary concerns emerged consistently.
First, many participants pointed to a weak connection between classroom learning and real-life applications. Students often struggle to see the relevance of what they are being taught to their everyday experiences or future careers. This disconnect can result in low engagement, reduced motivation, and limited knowledge retention.
Second, a lack of sufficient professional development of instructors was also mentioned. While global citizenship education is not a new concept, many educators, particularly those who have been in the profession for a long time may not be familiar with a transformative approach. This gap in professional growth directly impacts the quality of instruction and limits teachers’ ability to innovate or adapt to new challenges.
Third, there might be absence of personalized or adaptive teaching approaches and methodologies. Traditional one-size-fits-all models often fail to address the diverse learning styles, abilities, and backgrounds of students. Customized teaching strategies—such as differentiated instruction, project-based learning, or the integration of technology for personalized feedback—can help cater to individual learning needs, thereby improving overall student outcomes.
Despite no single type fully satisfying all three domains, it is worth noting that Type I respondents have engaged with elements of the society domain, the most advanced stage of global citizenship education, indicating meaningful potential for further development. Moreover, since the results reveal both similarities and differences in the perspectives of each type, personalized and effective educational methods should be developed. Based on these findings, three key insights emerge: integrating community-based activities into classes, providing training for instructors, and designing customized curricula and teaching approaches.
First, it is essential to incorporate community-based activities into regular classes, as such experiences can enable learners to engage with real-world issues and understand their role in contributing to society. These activities including service learning (e.g., partnerships with with local organizations such as food banks, shelters, or environmental groups), local problem-solving initiatives (e.g., waste management, traffic safety, etc.), or collaborative projects addressing community challenges create meaningful opportunities for students to move beyond theoretical knowledge and apply their learning in authentic contexts.
As observed in Type I, while respondents expressed relatively positive attitudes toward the societal domain, their perspectives lacked a deeper sense of openness and active engagement. This disconnect may stem from limited exposure to real-life civic experiences or insufficient opportunities to participate in social action also proved by the interviews. Therefore, embedding community-centered learning into the curriculum not only enhances students’ understanding of social responsibility but also fosters the development of empathy, agency, and a stronger commitment to global citizenship.
Idrissi (2020), Li (2017), and Munkhbadrakh & Kim (2020) emphasize that universities’ extracurricular activities including campus clubs, voluntary work, and study abroad programs can significantly enhance students’ global citizenship when integrated into the formal curriculum. Similarly, Hammond & Keating (2018) highlights that global citizenship education can be more effectively implemented when combined with global employment programs. These examples underscore the importance of providing students with opportunities to apply their learning in real-world, cross-cultural environments.
Second, providing appropriate training or retraining programs, particularly in learner-centered teaching methodologies, is crucial for instructors, who serve as key facilitators in cultivating global citizenship. For instance, workshops on or training in culturally responsive teaching, global competence framework, or facilitation skills for dialogues on controversial issues can help instructors understand how, what, and why to teach in the context of global citizenship education. The interviews conducted in this study emphasized the positive impact of interactive instructional strategies such as group discussions, presentations, and team-based projects. These approaches not only deepen students’ understanding of global citizenship education concepts but, more importantly, create an environment where learners feel empowered to critically engage with global issues, articulate their perspectives, and collaborate with others.
This has already been demonstrated in existing literature. Trede et al. (2013) and Rapoport (2010) point out that although instructors are aware of their role in raising students’ awareness of global issues, many conduct classes without sufficient consideration of appropriate teaching methods or course direction. The difficulty in establishing a clear conceptual understanding of global citizenship education is also highlighted by Lee et al., (2015). Estellés & Fischman (2021) point to shortcomings in global citizenship education instructor training, which often emphasizes idealistic goals over practical engagement with real-world issues. As a result, concrete educational content and effective teaching methods remain unresolved issues.
Such pedagogical practices shift the role of learners from passive recipients of information to active participants in their own learning journey. Furthermore, this insight is already supported by existing literature advocating for the importance of equipping educators with skills that promote critical thinking, intercultural dialogue, and participatory learning, elements essential to effective implementation of global citizenship education. Therefore, investing in instructor development is not just beneficial but necessary for the meaningful delivery of global citizenship curricula.
Lastly, customized curricula and teaching approaches are essential for fostering an engaging and effective learning environment. Tailoring educational content and instructional strategies to meet the diverse needs, interests, and learning styles of students helps ensure that all learners remain actively involved and motivated throughout the learning process. This personalization becomes especially critical in the context of global citizenship education, which emphasizes learner-centered pedagogy as a core principle. Global citizenship education aims to cultivate critical thinking, intercultural understanding, empathy, and active participation in global and local communities.
To achieve these goals, educators must move beyond standardized, one-size-fits-all teaching models and instead design learning experiences that are flexible, inclusive, and responsive to students’ backgrounds, experiences, and worldviews. This requires a deliberate process of understanding who the learners are and adapting instruction accordingly. Instructors should conduct a thorough analysis of learners’ characteristics. Through this process, they can identify commonly shared features or patterns within the student group. Based on these insights, educators can develop tailored instructional content and strategies.
This may involve adjusting the complexity of the material, integrating culturally relevant examples, diversifying teaching formats (e.g., visual aids, discussions, hands-on activities), and offering multiple pathways for students to demonstrate understanding. Particularly, in the context of global citizenship education, an instructor might incorporate local case studies on global issues, allow students to choose project topics that reflect their personal interests, or facilitate group discussions that leverage students’ diverse cultural perspectives.
Despite the valuable insights generated by this research, limitations persist, primarily due to the diverse educational contexts of the universities and the limited geographic scope of the participants, who were confined to Daegu and Gyeongsangbuk-do regions. Specifically, variations in institutional operating systems can influence the performance of the tools analyzed. Furthermore, the instructors’ levels of expertise or pedagogical styles may impact how the curriculum is delivered and received. In terms of the respondents, since this study focused on Daegu and Gyeongsangbuk-do areas, it may be difficult to generalize the results to other conditions. However, the findings still offer valuable insights specific to these areas, which could inform relevant educational policies for both universities and government bodies.
Notwithstanding its limitations, the findings of this study can be meaningful. They not only serve as a foundation for future studies but also contribute to a clearer diagnosis of current challenges in global citizenship education, such as the lack of community-based learning activities, insufficient instructor training, and limited communication between learners and instructors. Moreover, the study offers valuable insights into potential strategies for more effectively achieving the goals of global citizenship education, supporting efforts to create more inclusive, participatory, and contextually relevant educational experiences.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
